• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean it’s been tried for over a century, and it always goes wrong the same way everywhere it’s tried because of how the system inherently functions. Meanwhile, if the problem genuinely was with the human nature that’s an argument for designing systems that inhibit negative qualities while promoting positive ones. Capitalism does the exact opposite.

    Western capitalism is responsible for horrors far worse than anything that USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, or DPRK have ever done. It has enslaved majority of the human population through pure brutality and exploits it to this day to subsidize the lifestyle of the golden billion. Yet, even with this level of exploitation, the conditions in the west are now deteriorating for the majority of the people.

    Imagining a company that didn’t exploit workers, didn’t buy politicians, cared about the environment and payed fair taxes is like imagining unicorns. Such companies if they ever get created will simply be outcompeted by companies that are willing to do all those things, because making profit is the sole fitness function for a capitalist business.

    I could imagine a government that has too much power, destroys private companies and ignores the needs of the working class, as it has happened under socialism/communism.

    Except, communists managed to achieve things such as ensuring everyone has their basic needs met, which still eludes capitalist societies to this day despite far more wealth being available.

    It isn’t a matter of abolishing the systems we have but finding a balance between them. Plus, politicians should be subjected to extremely harsh audits to make sure they aren’t corrupt. Lobbying shouldn’t be legal, that’s insane, but it isn’t an inherente part of capitalism.

    It’s not possible to have a neutral government in a society where there is mass wealth inequality. People who have wealth will always use it for political purposes. They buy media, pay bribes, groom politicians, and so on. This happens every single time capitalism is tried in a society. The only way to avoid the problem is to eliminate the ability for people to accumulate capital.

    • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      First, to clarify, I’m a social democrat, so I do believe workers shouldn’t be exploited but I also think private property has a valuable purpose. I’m not far-right or a billionaire supporter.

      Everything positive you’re saying about communism is just about the idea of communism. Everything negative you’re saying about capitalism is about its implementation in the real world. I don’t think Venezuelans are escaping the country because they are happy, their human rights are being violated.

      Again, I don’t like talking about the problems of implementing these systems because it is just a reflection of human corruption, not the system itself.

      I think the problem in any system is the government being corrupted. Right now capitalism is going wrong because the government can be bought by private interest. In an authoritarian system, corruption is an internal problem because they already have centralized power. In both cases, the worker class suffers.

      If in capitalism the governments weren’t corrupted, companies wouldn’t become that large mostly because they are monopolies. Also, the government would severily punish them for exploiting their workers. None of these things are “normal” or accepted in capitalism, the same way a corrupted government denying people their basic needs is not normal or accepted in communism. But it can happen.

      I don’t know what the solution is. Human corruption fucks everything, I don’t think changing systems will actually help at all. But that’s not the point. To be honest, I think we’re already fucked, corruption is too widespread. Anyone in power, left or right, just wants their cut. And if they actually try to do anything positive, they’ll be sabotaged by the corruption forces that remain.

      We have a real problem. I don’t think capitalism is the root of the problem, and I don’t think socialism or communism are the cure.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there needs to be a mix of cooperative ownership and state owned industry. State owned industry does a good job providing basic services everyone needs that have to be done without a profit motive. Private industry under cooperative ownership can provide nice to have things on top of that.

        The capitalist model has no place in decent society, and it’s not necessary for anything. While corruption exists in all human societies, it’s at absolutely stratospheric levels under capitalism. There was inequality, but there simply weren’t people like Musk or Bezos running around USSR.

        Changing systems demonstrably does have a huge effect on society. You can just look at what happened to post Soviet republics after introduction of capitalism. The same people who behaved decently under the communist system turned into oligarchs overnight. It’s pretty clear that capitalism is in fact the problem. Communism might not be the ideal system, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

        • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeha, that doesn’t sound bad at all. But in that scenario:

          • cooperatives would still need to accumulate wealth in order to provide complex services, like car or chip manufacturers. Innovating on engines, processors, GPUs, phones… Requires large investments and risk.

          • Everyone wouldn’t be paid the same in those cooperatives, so workers still depend on their company being fair.

          • Like any democratic system, it would be prone to corruption. Internal bribes could happen to benefit some members over others. Low skill workers could vote to have a system that removes personal incentives from high skill roles, pushing them to other companies.

          • Cooperatives could still bribe the government.

          Just because they are a bit more socialized, it doesn’t mean they won’t break when corruption touches them.

          Public companies providing the basic services with no competition is another problem. No competition means no incentive to improve or be modernized. There’s no frame of reference on what’s a good service.

          Plus, there’s nothing scarier in my opinion than a corrupted and authoritarian government. A corrupted and absolute power? No thanks, not a risk worth taking. Every government can be corrupted but when it happens to an authoritarian one, shit hits the fan.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cooperatives accumulating wealth is not an issue because the wealth is distributed fairly amongst the workers. Cooperatives avoid wealth concentration with individuals which is the issue with capitalist relations. When people working at a cooperative make money, they spend it on things they need which recirculates it back into the economy.

            The idea of a cooperative is not that everyone gets paid the same, but rather that everyone has a stake in a business and runs it democratically. Mondragon is a great example of a large real world coop, if I recall correctly they have a cap of 10 to 1 for max pay. So, the highest paid person cannot be paid more than 10x of the lowest paid. If they want to be paid more then the base pay has to go up.

            I think accepting the fact that corruption is part of a human society is the sane position to take. Corruption will happen, but its effects can be mitigated, focusing on mitigation is pragmatic.

            Meanwhile, regarding public companies, there natural monopolies because some things require huge amounts of resources to do, and meaningful competition is not possible. I gave an example of Amazon earlier. Nobody can compete with Amazon because of the scale. However, state owned companies don’t have to be exclusive, if a coop thinks they can add value in that area I don’t see why that would be discouraged. The idea would be to provide a lowest common denominator baseline. There would be a minimum standard that’s provided by the state, and people can improve on it.

            I think a government of an oligarchy is much scarier because it doesn’t even pretend to have interests of the public in mind. This is what capitalist societies ultimately devolve into. Here’s what a decades long policy study had to say about the US system:

            What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

            It’s a government by the rich and for the rich, the interests of the public are completely ignored whenever they conflict with the interests of the rich. That’s the government you should be scared of.

            • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Any system becomes scary when it reaches dystopian levels.

              Going back to the main point, I thought you meant that the problem was wealth accumulation in general. In cooperatives, accumulating wealth is necessary for handling complex services. However, the same issues that happen in capitalism can also happen in large cooperatives. Companies can start bribing the government for their benefit, even if it goes against the environment or the interests of the majority of workers. Like a cooperative that does AI could bribe the government to relax AI restrictions, which could fuck the market for other cooperatives.

              So I think even if we don’t agree in how to implement a more socialized system, we both agree on:

              • competition is important for a healthy environment.
              • public sector should provide basic services that guarantee human rights are met.
              • screw individual billionaires.
              • wealth should be re-distributed, corruption screwed capitalism in the largest economies.
              • Companies need wealth to provide complex services, even cooperatives. Wealth is power and this makes them prone to corruption.

              We’re just in a different point of the spectrum. My perspective is that we need to start moving towards a social democracy, it is the best migration to improve the conditions of the workers without being disruptive on what works today.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right, there will always be problems within human societies no matter what kind of clever system people come up with. I think the goal should be on creating systems that mitigate the worst excesses and keep society stable.

                The problem with competition is that it directly leads to wealth concentration, and the problems you keep raising. As companies compete then some companies will lose out and others will gain their market share. Successful companies end up growing through this process. And the bigger the company gets the more initial capital is required to compete with it. This is a problem for both capitalist enterprise and cooperatives.

                However, I think that cooperatives mitigate the problem in an important way where wealth distribution is more even. If a cooperative becomes a monopoly, it will still distribute wealth it generates fairly within the cooperative. And I think this also helps with the overall corruption problem because now you don’t have wealth concentrated with a few individuals that can use it to have disproportionate influence on society.

                I’m personally skeptical there is a real path towards the kind of social democracy you speak of in a society where there is mass wealth inequality. Public opinion is largely determined by the media that’s owned by the oligarchs, and people’s votes are swayed by sleek political campaigns that need large amounts of funding. Since the government is already captured by the rich, there is no path for the government to pass legislation that would make it more difficult for rich people to exercise their influence over society. Hence I don’t really see how reformism can work in practice.