Well, this sounds incredibly depressing. No reason to be ambitious, you get what you get and hope you are happy with the what the government provides.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anti-capitalists: what should fix/replace capitalism?
- Thread starter thefil
- Start date
Well, this sounds incredibly depressing. No reason to be ambitious, you get what you get and hope you are happy with the what the government provides.
I like the system we have in germany.
Relatively open with strong oversight by the goverment. Obviously it's not perfect and i would change some stuff like reducing the influence of lobbyists and stronger goverment oversight/restrictions in banking/financial markets.
The social security net is pretty good, healthcare and social insurances are paid by employee aswell as employer.
Relatively open with strong oversight by the goverment. Obviously it's not perfect and i would change some stuff like reducing the influence of lobbyists and stronger goverment oversight/restrictions in banking/financial markets.
The social security net is pretty good, healthcare and social insurances are paid by employee aswell as employer.
As a active socialist who co-convenes a branch for a socialist party and is actively involved in a lot of different campaigns in my local area. The problem I have with these discussions is they seem completely abstracted from actual "political" struggle which I think is the only basis by which you can implement any progressive change that could in theory lead to a overthrow or be the basis for which you could change capitalism and build a alternative, even the question of fixing it i.e social democracy can only be achieved on the basis of this.
What do I mean by struggle? it means collectively getting people together en-mass and fighting for concrete political demands in the form of campaigns, a union fighting for better wages for his worker, a environment campaign demanding the closure of a coal mine, the masses of people calling on a end to police brutality and instituted racism which has found expression in the Black Lives Matter movements, even the mass mobilizations that are coming around Corbyn and previously Bernie Sanders are all part of this picture of struggle,
Basically if you want to create change in society you have to be part of and actively challenge the status quo, while it's useful to have a overarching theory and end-point for what you want to achieve (in fact this is the whole basis of Marxism and socialist/communist parties). I believe the discussion should start from the concrete and basically ask "What can be done? What kind of political demands that masses of people can be mobilised around?" and it should be had among everyone who identifies as part of the left.
Like when people talk about the good old Scandinavia social democracies, everything great about those countries isn't because someone thought up a good model of organizing capitalism but because workers and people fought for the social gains and privileges residents in those countries enjoy.
Also goverment intervention =/= socialism.
What do I mean by struggle? it means collectively getting people together en-mass and fighting for concrete political demands in the form of campaigns, a union fighting for better wages for his worker, a environment campaign demanding the closure of a coal mine, the masses of people calling on a end to police brutality and instituted racism which has found expression in the Black Lives Matter movements, even the mass mobilizations that are coming around Corbyn and previously Bernie Sanders are all part of this picture of struggle,
Basically if you want to create change in society you have to be part of and actively challenge the status quo, while it's useful to have a overarching theory and end-point for what you want to achieve (in fact this is the whole basis of Marxism and socialist/communist parties). I believe the discussion should start from the concrete and basically ask "What can be done? What kind of political demands that masses of people can be mobilised around?" and it should be had among everyone who identifies as part of the left.
Like when people talk about the good old Scandinavia social democracies, everything great about those countries isn't because someone thought up a good model of organizing capitalism but because workers and people fought for the social gains and privileges residents in those countries enjoy.
Also goverment intervention =/= socialism.
JordanN
Banned
I disagree it's the best.
Look at the massive wealth gap between rich and poor. Look at what greed can do to the planet. Climate change is going to kill us because companies care more about profit over the planet.
You need a level of government intervention to prevent companies from turning into rich warlords.
Theory without praxis is anemic. Praxis without theory is dangerous and often self-defeating. But this is a message board, and discussions will obviously be more about theory than anything else. Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're getting at here.
Deserted Maniac Island
Member
No solution to fix or replace capitalism can be universally applied. Universality and ubiquity of capitalism remains one of the systems major issues. How can someone in a country of a GDP of less than a few million compete with someone who lives a country with a very high GDP? There is no such thing as a level playing field, different countries have different resources, access to the market and cash flow.The world is stratified, despite our desire for ubiquity and equality. Each culture, country and group of people would need to find their own replacement plans. We can not know what works for a culture we are unfamiliar with; they may prefer hunting and gathering, mixed with a trading system. This question assumes a simple, universal solution, but in reality a single solution is close to impossible.
ClosingADoor
Member
Capitalism works just fine, as long as you adapt to the times. We have gone to a world where multinationals make a shit load of money and transfer it all around the world. So adapt your tax systems to actually have them pay their fair share.
Then you need a government that actually cares about the services it provides to its people. Most problems people have with government is that they simply don't get the services that they need at adequate quality. So have budgets for those teachers, hospitals, police force, etc.
At the moment a lot of regular people are just like: fuck extra taxes, I don't see anything from it anyway. And they are correct when all the talk is budget cut number 20 this decade to their local school system.
Then you need a government that actually cares about the services it provides to its people. Most problems people have with government is that they simply don't get the services that they need at adequate quality. So have budgets for those teachers, hospitals, police force, etc.
At the moment a lot of regular people are just like: fuck extra taxes, I don't see anything from it anyway. And they are correct when all the talk is budget cut number 20 this decade to their local school system.
Phrozenflame500
Member
I consider myself a capitalist, but I do think it might be viable to move away from if/when we either hit a post-scarcity point (unlikely) or we can build an AI smart enough to manage a command economy efficiently (maybe more likely?).
cromofo
Member
That I agree with. That's why I said it isn't perfect. It has to be tweaked and I think we're on the right track, at least Europe I believe is.
But people advocating for Communism must be having a laugh.
This time it'll work, surely.
Utopia isn't possible, at least not in the near future.
You know all those anarchist utopias in sci-fi novels? Let's go for something like that. Decentralized, autonomous collectives working cooperatively and democratically to make sure everyone's taken care of. Start on the street and neighborhood level, then city district level, then city, regional, and global. Do away with national borders.
Anyone here familiar with Rojava? They're doing some amazing stuff that, while imperfect, is still pretty dreamy.
Anyone here familiar with Rojava? They're doing some amazing stuff that, while imperfect, is still pretty dreamy.
I agree with this but you'd need all G7(or even better G20) countries doing this because otherwise they'll just move their money through other loophole countries.
cromofo
Member
blame space
Banned
anybody want to start a commune
Actually most of the stuff I use every day was invented to win wars
CornBurrito
Member
The means of production would have to be given to the workers.
Having the capital to own a plow should not give you the rights to all the profit generated by a worker using that plow. The capitalist system allows for parasites. People born into wealth can sit on that wealth and generate interest from the real actual labor others provide.
mikespit1200
Member
Sure, I call David Koresh.
I guess I mean once the system has achieved equilibrium, or saturation, or whatever you want to call it. If someone is going to start a new business for which the means of production do not exist yet, where do the resources come from? Obviously a one-time transfer of existing means to existing workers is possible.
In fairness, the Aztec society wasn't a fully realized Nahuatl empire, so it hasn't really been tried yet.
One point I read in Piketty which I thought was insightful is that there are natural steps to closing this loophole, namely including bank information disclosure in free trade agreements. In the same treaty which enables tax evasion, give both countries access to the banking records for their citizens in either country. Then their resident nation can tax them on their worldwide income/holdings, or they can pay heavy tax to move their money/business outside of free trade zones.
SpartanN92
Banned
Stupid analogy. Those people are 1 in a billion.
What will drive the average small business owner to take a risk without a reward?
How is that a stupid analogy? It's not an analogy at all, it's an example of 2 people that did great things for reasons other than the profit motive.
Obviously money can be an incentive to do things, but the point is it's not the only one. In fact I'd argue it generally isn't usually the main thing going on with the sorts of things I consider great.
SpartanN92
Banned
boiled goose
good with gravy
Capitalism is neither the problem nor the solution.
The problem is croney capitalism. Wealthy people and corporations bribing politicians to rig rules in their favor.
Also capitalism doesn't work in some areas. Basic education, healthcare, etc.
The solution is regulation. A mix of capitalist and socialist principles depending on what actually works.
The goal is social benefit. That should be the guiding principle.
The problem is croney capitalism. Wealthy people and corporations bribing politicians to rig rules in their favor.
Also capitalism doesn't work in some areas. Basic education, healthcare, etc.
The solution is regulation. A mix of capitalist and socialist principles depending on what actually works.
The goal is social benefit. That should be the guiding principle.
This is a basically meaningless anecdote many times removed, but I remember reading some years ago about the test villages for private ownership in China in the 70s. Having personal ownership of, power over, and reward from their land very quickly resulted in those villages outperforming.
Slavery involves being able to be commanded to work. In fact that's kind of the root of it isn't it.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are only secondarily concerned with social benefit itself. Both as ideologies involve an axiomatic statement about property rights. Of course this is because they think that this axiomatic understanding of property rights is a good in itself, but generally strict utility based concerns are neither purely Capitalistic or Socialistic.
cloudburst
Banned
I don't think anything should replace capitalism. It is tied to the DNA of America, and it's the reason our country is so successful at producing entrepreneurs, businesses, and innovations.
It's clearly not a perfect system, so it is the government's duty to provide a safety net for the elderly, poor, and vulnerable.
It's clearly not a perfect system, so it is the government's duty to provide a safety net for the elderly, poor, and vulnerable.
ClosingADoor
Member
A lot of industries these days require massive investments to get anything done. Research with years of trial and error to get the needed work done, years without any profit and just money being put into projects in the hope it will come with a reward at the end.
How do you feed people who might work 10 years on a project with no guaranteed result? Who is going to provide for them?
No one man is going to find a cure for cancer, develop a mass market electric car, come up with new ways to generate energy, etc, etc. Someone need to provide those people in their needs while they do the work.
I think the end-game would be to give administrative power to a machine that would work out the nuance based on some form of prime directives. More realistically my preferred approach is to basically continue the same way but with wider social safety nets and having some form of upper limit to wealth not in terms of money but other more critical commodities like land.
Science can create new technological forms that use common and plentiful resource materials that will be infinitely cheaper than current solutions and create a better cost-benefit ratio. But the money required to fund such endeavours is limited, as the private sector of capitalism prefers a status quo and government has limited finances to fund such work and is also responsible to the social good under the current systems. Therefore, capitalism impedes progress in these endeavours more than it helps them.
Until the cost-benefit ratio of carbon reduction alternatives is better than paying an emissions tax, it is not incentivizing anything. Where is the incentive under capitalism to spend more money over current operating methods? Those that do spend more money do so on a moral position which capitalism plays no part in, as that moral position does not grow revenue or maintain secure employment for a greater number of people.
Carbon emissions continue to rise, despite numerous emissions tax implementations, and there is a direct societal resistance to expanding those that do exist any further.
Or development of inexpensive alternatives to drive capitalist institutions to greater utilization. Because under capitalism, if it's cheaper, you'll go with the cheaper alternative.
Care to expand on that?
Scientific understanding of things like climate and better use of common materials in the construction of technology have happened, but they happened much slower than they had to due to lack of funding for research into such topics. This isn't up for debate, it's a well-documented fact that further understanding in the scientific community cannot happen without research being funded, and when it isn't funded or not funded enough, such understanding is halted or slowed. This is a relatively simple concept.
You'll find I made an argument about how profit incentives are quite advangageous for large scale logistical endevors above.
You're issue here is a kneejerk assumption that I'm saying the profit motive is never useful. That's silly, but so too is the idea that people need the profit motive to do anything worth doing.
That being said even then the argument breaks down by you're last point. Do you think most scientists are actually working in their field because of the profit motive? There are more things going on here, especially with intellectuals. Providing a reasonable standard of living to allow one to work, and the profit motive are not one and the same. See the backward bending labor supply curve for instance.
And_Gignac
Member
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
Atom Heart Mother
Banned
lmao
These countries doing communism didn't do it right!!
Capitalism is the only system I can agree with. Maybe tweaked to be a bit socialized, but that's it. I would never want full blown communism or socialism. I shouldn't have higher taxes for people who don't want to work. Go work, or atleast try too. Every country that has attempted communism turned into a shit hole. No thanks.
The entire point is that the government would feed and shelter these people, along with everybody else in the country.
Anyone who tries to naturalize behavior encouraged by market economy and capitalism like it was always a part of "human nature" drank the kool-aid invented by marketliberal economics down to the bottom and knows very little about anthropology, general, social and economic history. Despite what apologists of capitalism claim, there is a mountain of empiric evidence from past and present that shows that, no, humans AREN'T homo oeconomicus, they ARENT'T selfish, greedy bastards that always look out for themselves and they sure as hell aren't driven by a need to maximize profit. This is formalist economic history and is largely discredited today by historians and economic scientists worth a dam (of the latter group, many aren't, of course).
Should not be surprised that American liberals claim that racism like it exists today has always existed and is independent from any historical and socio-economic circumstances instead of being a product of colonialism and imperialism. It's liberal thinking 101. The very founding fathers of liberalism like John Locke and Co. didn't invent liberal philosophy because MUH FREEDOM and randomly thought that now was the time for absolutist monarchism to be limited or ended completely but rather to protect the acquired property of the wealthy class against the reactionary royalty ruling the the countries at that time, but much more against the poor masses. This was a development propelled by fundamental changes in the socioeconomic foundation of society: The beginning existence of the bourgeoisie and it saccumulation of wealth and property, the development and increasing importance of big cities, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the establishing of market society and capitalism - like nation states, a rather young and new historical development if measured against the whole history of humankind starting in the later Stone Age.
Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. It's shocking how many members of this forum don't know this. Socialism means the state or the people owning the means or production, not corporations and capitalists, without a profit-driven market society.
LMAO. Look at the current state of your society. Just look at it. Your ideological "DNA" is toxic and destructive. There are very few, if any objective, statistical measurements where the US beat the so-called "Socialist" European states.
Should not be surprised that American liberals claim that racism like it exists today has always existed and is independent from any historical and socio-economic circumstances instead of being a product of colonialism and imperialism. It's liberal thinking 101. The very founding fathers of liberalism like John Locke and Co. didn't invent liberal philosophy because MUH FREEDOM and randomly thought that now was the time for absolutist monarchism to be limited or ended completely but rather to protect the acquired property of the wealthy class against the reactionary royalty ruling the the countries at that time, but much more against the poor masses. This was a development propelled by fundamental changes in the socioeconomic foundation of society: The beginning existence of the bourgeoisie and it saccumulation of wealth and property, the development and increasing importance of big cities, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the establishing of market society and capitalism - like nation states, a rather young and new historical development if measured against the whole history of humankind starting in the later Stone Age.
Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. It's shocking how many members of this forum don't know this. Socialism means the state or the people owning the means or production, not corporations and capitalists, without a profit-driven market society.
LMAO. Look at the current state of your society. Just look at it. Your ideological "DNA" is toxic and destructive. There are very few, if any objective, statistical measurements where the US beat the so-called "Socialist" European states.
cromofo
Member
Comrade, if we try again it'll work, surely!
cpp_is_king
Member
Which stuff are you referring to?
Count me in the group of people who "drank the kool-aid", so I'll bite.
Citation needed.
ClosingADoor
Member
Labor needs an incentive. Most people will not be going around doing jobs for free because they like to. Even those scientists need that incentive, since otherwise what is stopping a few from taking time off whenever they want, causing a project to delay and such. I don't think most of them work in their field for just profit, but the support team and all surrounding efforts have people working there because they get paid.
Then the government also needs to provide people who work more or provide more worth to society with a larger reward. And we are back at capitalism, just with the government as the single employer. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the majority of society would do needed jobs just because they want to.
lol
Yes poor people are lazy and they stink.
Science can be used by technologists and engineers to make such things, but the actual social implementation is policy not science.
I don't agree with the bolded and I don't think your argument actually follows here. Moreover what you're talking about here is again a policy issue, not a science one. Science could do more things with more money I suppose, but where does that logic end? Moreover do people really want more science? Or do they want more technology?
Yes it is. Unless you are arguing that fossil fuel usage is 100% inelastic that is.
People that think they'll make a return later? I mean why do you think people are making alternatives now. Obviously more could be done, but this is a weird thing to say.
This is just a statement with no argument. I fundamentally don't believe this. I think people realize they can make a profit later, and are trying to get a jump on the market.
For an extra-global warming example look at Uber. Are you going to tell me they are operating at a lose because they hold a moral position about cheap rides being good?
So your argument is that there is an issue with policy. Yes I agree with that.
I mean sure that's one way. Your argument seemed to flip. Now you're arguing that free markets are useful if we set the game up right. That's what I was saying, and it's and issue of policy.
That's a problem with the tax structure generally. Just because a tax could be regressive, doesn't mean you can't do it. It means we should be changing the tax structure generally to be less regressive. You're arguing that we usually can't use taxes to incentivize behavior because they will often be regressive taxes, that simply doesn't follow.
Science is embedded in a community yes. You're collapsing societal changes within scientific ones. The reverse wouldn't even make sense, but this is even more off.
SporeCrawler
Member
i think with the wealth being concentrated so much on the capital and automization allowing the capital to produce without much of a workforce in the future we need to think of an alternative soon. automization will be so advanced in a few years that only a few people will have the need to work while with our current system without work you are guaranteed a low social status. on the capital side this kind of automization may mean that there is no longer any means to make any money because nobody will have the money to spend stuff. then its maybe only exchanging wealth betweent he ultra rich capitalists and the rest of the society are basically jobless... doesnt sound like a good society to me..
i think a basic income would be a very interesting thing. its actually not very different from what we are doing today in many countries that pay social security to the jobless and provide deductibles to the people working.
i think a basic income would be a very interesting thing. its actually not very different from what we are doing today in many countries that pay social security to the jobless and provide deductibles to the people working.
Well, for example, the computer I'm typing this on, the Internet I'm using to send it, and the satellite network that will transmit it.
Technically I'm using a cell phone, which is dependent on radio, so that part was actually invented for the pure thrill of scientific discovery with no profit motive. But the rest of the stuff was definitely for killing Russians.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Much as capitalism crept into the world piecemeal and slowly, it is likely that it's replacement will do so similarly, if it hasn't started already.
Wholesale destruction of capitalism, either by global proletariat revolution or mass democratic action, is unlikely.
Wholesale destruction of capitalism, either by global proletariat revolution or mass democratic action, is unlikely.
JordanN
Banned
They were Socialist States.
Under communism, the only government would be the dictatorship of the proletariet.
CornBurrito
Member
So the thing is, you can create your means of production. But once you include other people in on your business they are also entitled to own to some degree that mode of production.
cpp_is_king
Member
I mean if you want to go back that far, you might as well mention the transistor, or the light bulb, or the wheel.
Each innovation feeds off of previous innovations to grow into something completely new. I don't deny that those things were invented to win wars, but if that was the only motivation then we wouldn't have Google, or Amazon.com, or this forum. Your phone wouldn't have an app store.
Those things were all invented because someone had a cool idea, and capitalism is the only thing that allowed it to come to fully develop.
In actual communism, there is no government, though it's different from anarchism and libertarianism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a term invented by Marx to describe what has to happen immediately after the overthrow of the capitalist class.