You're viewing part of a thread.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is 'rich man bad'. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers.
That's pretty arguable.... mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits.
How do they find these social programs.....? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is 'rich man bad'. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Lol, I don't care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that? Would this still be the evil capitalism? These ideas are not exclusive to socialism... in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all. A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream "mixed economies" all day but its just not true.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy. It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with 'rich bad man' and socialism with 'poor enlightened worker'. I feel like i am falling on deaf ears though so ill just leave it here. You have a blessed day.
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that?
The problem is that programs like UBI directly conflict with the competitive nature of capitalism. Capitalism is dependent on stripping away choice from workers to achieve it's labour needs. The expansion of social healthcare programs conflicts with competitive nature of capitalism.
Would this still be the evil capitalism?
In this scenario, what do you think would happen to the labour market? If we had an actual functional UBI, who do you think is working all the he shitty low paying jobs? Do you honestly think corporations would start offering higher pay to attract labour, or do you think they'd just hire migrant workers who have no rights?
These ideas are not exclusive to socialism... in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all.
I think you have some core misconceptions on the consolidating nature of capital. The problem with the types of economies you are advocating for is that even if they are created with good intentions, there is always going to be conflicts of interest.
Capitalism sees a social programs as competition, to them it's a entity that is receiving government funding that could be captured by private interest. Just look at any social programs started in a capitalist country, and then see how much of it has been privatized or minimized in a span of 20 years.
A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream "mixed economies" all day but its just not true.
Socialism isn't that specifically defined, it's most based description is that the workers have control over the means of production. What they decide to do with the means of production is left to them.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy.
I think you're over thinking what the difference between capitalism and socialism is. It doesn't have to do with competitive markets, or private property, it's specifically the about organizational structure of the hierarchy of labour.
Capitalism is when private interest owns the means of production, meaning business owners and the management class owns the means to produce goods and thus the control of the capital those goods create. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production and the capital that they create.
When you apply that to something like healthcare we can clearly see the difference in motive. In America we have capitalist social programs, where private interest is subsidized by the people, but we have little to no influence on how it operates.
When private interest controls the social service, they have a motivation to provide services, but they also have a profit motive. They have motivations that do not align with the people they serve. There is motive to deny care, limit coverage, and siphon funding that should be going directly back into the insurance pool.
It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with 'rich bad man' and socialism with 'poor enlightened worker'.
I think you are the only one whos made that claim? I just think you are as uninformed about capitalism as you are about socialism. Capitalism is inherently dependent on exploiting the labour of workers to create a surplus to be sold for profit.
Because of the inherent competitive nature of the free market, corporations are dependent on growth to remain solvent. There are only a couple ways in established markets to create that growth. The first being to lower your operating cost ie, pay your labour less. The other form of growth is outcompeting your competition, but this is really hard. You either have to secure material goods at a cheaper rate, or get into price war and see who wins the monopoly war through attrition. Alternatively you can just form conglomerates with your competition, and avoid destructive competition. Whatever you choose, the base motive of growth remains the same.
Now let's tie this all together...... for a sustainable capitalist economy to remain solvent and out of recession the majority of the corporations in that economy have to be experiencing growth. To achieve this growth the economy needs three things. An increase in consumers to purchase the surplus production, an increase in production to meet the increased demand, and an increase in material goods to meet the increased productivity.
What does that mean? Well, unless we have access to an ever increasing population to meet our need for growth in consumption and production, and more importantly access to an infinite amount of material goods, capitalism is doomed to eventually enter an endless economic recession.
I honestly don't think capitalism is that terrible of an economic structure for certain governments at certain times, depending on their level of economic growth. But it's only helpful during specific times in technological and economic development, namely during industrialization. Once a country is post industrialized and rapid unorganized growth has slowed to a controllable pace, capitalism begins to cannibalize itself to the benefit of the ownership class.
You have a blessed day.
Same to you.
Let's try a thought experiment. Lets pretend I appointed you into a position of power where you can decide any or every aspect of how the economy would behave until you die. How would that economy look like? What does the ideal workforce look like in your vision? (You start with how the world is currently set up, greedy people still exist, billionaires still exist, conservatives still exist, etc)
Let's try a thought experiment. Lets pretend I appointed you into a position of power where you can decide any or every aspect of how the economy would behave until you die.
Lol, I don't foresee how this is a valuable thought experiment? For one, it would force me into the position of some kind of global dictator. Secondly I'm not an economist, nor do I have aspirations for political leadership.
There is not a single person in the world who has the knowledge and experience to create an equitable economy by themselves. And it's a little telling that you believe that to be even theoretically possible. The entire point of leftist ideology is that the workers get to collectively choose their own destiny.
That being said, just because I'm not helicopter pilot, doesn't mean I don't know that youre not supposed fly them into mountains. My point is that capitalism isn't even theoretically sustainable, and that we need to find an alternative as we fully transition from a post industrial economy to a service economy.
A major aspect of that change will have to be the extension of workers rights and benefits across international lines. The problem with your idea of unionization is that it's tied to nationalism. American unions are built to protect only Americans, which pits workers of the world against each other, just the way corporations like it.
If we fail to extend unions outside our borders than corporations will continue to exploit the weakest and most powerless workers across the globe, using unprotected labour as ammunition bto further destabilize workers rights in America.
Why else do you think workers pay has consistently failed to match increases in profitability and production for the last 30 years?According to your view of capitalism, aren't the most productive workers supposed to be rewarded for increasing profits, isn't that the inherent motivation for workers to work harder?
Wow, you are terrible at this. Not only do you want to criticize anything I say but you refuse to respond to a hypothetical where you have the ability to make the best case scenario. You dont want to make changes you just want to be 'correct'. Im done with this conversation. What a useless waste of time.
Wow, you are terrible at this. Not only do you want to criticize anything I say
I'm not criticizing everything you say, I'm just explaining my understanding of some of the economic mechanisms I have problems with.
you refuse to respond to a hypothetical where you have the ability to make the best case scenario.
That's a false dichotomy though...... I don't have to have come up with a hypothetical theory that adequately replaces an entire political and economic reality, just to criticize it.
That's like if I were to complain about my piece of shit car, and having someone say you can't criticize your car unless you can design and manufacture a better replacement.
I don't possess the knowledge or time to accurately replace an economic system through authoritarian actions as you suggested in your hypothetical. That doesn't mean there's not a more sustainable economic model out there that would lead to less wealth inequality. It just means that a person who went to medical school for orthopedics and rehabilitation prob isn't going to be part of the team that figures it out.
You dont want to make changes you just want to be 'correct'.
Lol, dude. What do you mean "don't want to make changes"? I'm not a senator, I don't have the ability to force change on anyone. Literally the only thing I can do to enact any form of change is to create honest and meaningful discord with people like yourself.
Do I think I'm correct, yes, of course. Am I being honest when I challenge your views, yes.
And I think it's kinda ridiculous to adopt a "higher than thou" posture towards me not participating in your impossible hypothetical, when you haven't addressed any of my questions or rebuttals.
Im done with this conversation. What a useless waste of time.
I mean, what was your goal here? What would have made this discord more useful? Did you honestly expect me to just change my viewpoint when you haven't actually engaged with any of my concerns?