Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
Wtf is an uncorrupt government?
All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.
It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.
Honestly I believe this to be a way more important issue to discuss than the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs whatever else argument. If your ideas can easily be perverted by corruption then it won’t work.
I have some ideas but I’m just some idiot on the internet. I think you need checks and balances. Have at least two groups with similar power at odds with one another. One example is corporation vs government. But I don’t think just 2 groups is good enough. Ideally you probably want 3 groups at the very least. I know many governments around the world already uses this sort of structure internally (eg different branches of government), but I don’t think these solutions take into account the existence of mega corporations that can act across country borders.
you mean for example germanys separated power of the legislative, executive and judicative powers? yeah, that works out pretty shit.
The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they’re not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren’t extreme enough for you is silly.
I don’t understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren’t extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.
Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It’s not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.
I wish it was just “towards the left”.
I’m very much on the left socially and left of center economically, but even I feel like every other comments section on here reads like some insane tankie commune.
It’s always a weird flavor, too. Like “I’m communist but only if I get all the wealth. Also I hate minorities but love the LGBT.”
For some reason it just makes me think of Dennis on 30 Rock. “Fiscally liberal, socially conservative.”
I’m communist but only if I get all the wealth. Also I hate minorities but love the LGBT
Where did you see that?
It’s a bit of hyperbole, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear aren’t far off.
A lot of their users believe that Russia is a communist state, not some crony capitalist society that would make Bezos blush. They also seem to really love Trump for some reason.
No where. “Centrists” love strawmen.
I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.
Weird how that is, huh?
I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.
There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no “best one” and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.
One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.
The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.
the amount of dogshit takes here is depressing. This guy just praised the chinese government.
The Chinese government is responsible for the biggest and fastest uplift of people out of poverty ever seen in history.
And they are also responsible for horrible horrible human rights violations against minorites and dissidents and they caused millions of needless deaths during the cultural revolution.
The second fact however does not negate the first one because they did, in fact, pull almost their entire population out of poverty and into a modern industrialized economy.
Please learn to make some space in your head for uncomfortable facts that cause conflicting emotions.
OP was right, they are an extremely successful government with a surprisingly broad support within the population because most Chinese have living grandparents that where still farmers and had no industry at all. And they now live in modern cities with modern amenities. The transformation happened in two generations.
The German government took their country from a destitute postwar state staring down perpetual crippling debt to a restored world power in just a few years, all while having a less than stellar attitude toward minorities…but I’m not seeing too many praising them overall.
Just because a take might be pragmatic doesn’t mean it’s not a bad take.
But that’s even worse a comparison.
First of all, the German recovery after WW2 is called “miracle of the Rhine” (or Wirtschaftswunder) for a reason. It WAS very impressive.
At the end of WW2 Germany had a gdp of 160 billion dollars, a fully literate und educated population and a reduced but existing industrial base.
Wikipedia: “When the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, more than 400 million of the country’s more than 500 million people were illiterate, and the illiteracy rate was about 80 percent, including over 95 percent in rural areas.”
Per Capita GDP in china was 10% of that of post war Germany and china had no major industry to speak of and was mostly agrarian.
I never said that other countries did not do impressive things, but I think there is merit to the claim that few improved the lives of the population as thoroughly and fast and at a scale as china did.
And India is doing it even faster.
That’s a good point, India is currently also in a fantastic trajectory
Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic “food stamps” system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury “fun bucks” that you don’t lose out on if you don’t have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I’ve been mulling over, I’m sure there’s a million holes in it.
…capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
I feel like we see the worst outcomes of those areas under capitalism. If you are poor you often can afford only unhealthy food, fashion is an ecological nightmare and tech produces unbelivable amounts of e-waste. And entertainment is basically only there to serve you ads and stimulate consumption.
I mostly agree; personally I see it more as a minimums covered than specific sectors, so, capitalism is acceptable -and might be a better environment for personal growth than most- as long as everyone has the basics covered, so a roof over their head, basic food, basic clothing, minimal energy to cover AC/Heating and other minimal usage (that would need to be set by specialists, but you get the idea, X KW/h free per person/month), good public transportation, full healthcare and communication access. And then, depending on your situation you can improve over it, by paying the extras, like, example, I think everyone should have access to a 5Mb Internet access for free (Maybe a 5Gb data cap to prevent abuse, but, after the 5GB it slows down, so, you never actually lose the access). That is good for basic browsing, messaging and Social Media applications, with that, people are never locked out of the online world, allowing for job hunting, for appointment taking and other similar necessities, communication with friends and family, but also, public organisms and private companies. This access is either managed by the government via Public Companies, or mandated to Private Companies as a necessary requirement to be allowed to work in the Country (like, you need to have a $0 plan available or you are not granted the bandwidth usage). Then, if you are interested, you can buy higher packages, those would be “controlled” by the Private Companies in a “capitalistic” way.
Why I like this approach? I think that the current “deification” of work is wrong -pushed actually by wealthy capitalists-, people should be allowed to simply exist, even if they do not work (they can be lazy, yes -and I do not see anything wrong with it-, but also, they can be deeply depressed, heavily disabled -or taking care of someone that is- or simply focusing on art, sports or other activities that not necessarily grant income), my approach would allow for it, but then you can also work if you want/can -for as long as you want/can- to have more (bigger house, better Internet access, designer clothes). I am privileged, I worked hard to get where I am, but I am in a good position, I would not stop working if only my basics would be covered, for me, the work I get paid for is an acceptable trade off for getting a bit more, but even then, I would be way more relaxed and enjoying life, if I knew that losing my job would mean losing my “small luxuries” but not condemning myself to poverty.
That’s why I don’t fully agree with your division by sectors, because some can be very clear -snacks-, but others are more complicated -like tech, having the latest smartphone very year is a luxury, having a simple working smartphone is a necessity in today’s world-, or it can even vary -Like Internet was a luxury 20 years ago, but it is a necessity today-.
I hope you get the idea, sorry for the wall of text.
I’m actually very centrist; I don’t want to eat the rich.
After all, I’m a vegan and think that anyone involved in the meat industry should be put in jail.
So, dead center. That’s me.
bing vegan is the most left thing there is
if u think of being left bing against forms of hierarchies, then abolishing hierarchies that benefit beings that are not even human is the most left thing you can go. just because there are people that don’t follow their own morals to all regards, doesn’t mean it ain’t right.
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an “uncorrupt government” is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I’ve pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
Luckily an entirely uncorrupt government is not necessary, since that is indeed quite unlikely to ever happen. It is enough to have low corruption, which is much more achievable.
Honestly at this point, even a low corruption government seems harder than balancing a boulder on a toothpick for the super powers of the world
Maybe so, but… That might be because China and America have too much international power. Power attracts the corrupt and global power attracts the most corrupt on the globe.
There’s a book about why power seems to attract this sort of people - can’t remember the name right now, might update later.
In short, it’s not power on its own, but rather the systems we built around and for power, making it unattractive for people we want to end up in power, while the people who we don’t want to end up in power pursue it regardless because they want power for the sake of it.
What I’m trying to say is, this is another issue that we can actually tackle and solve to a large degree. There’s hope!
Capitalism is not “when you have markets.” I totally agree that it’s important to have well regulated markets. But capitalism perverts democracy with bribery and lobbying. Democratic Socialism is when you have a democratic government and a democratic economy.
Democratic socialism and capitalism can coexist. As long as the former significantly neuters the latter. Capitalism is (supposed to be) an economic organization, not a political one. It’s just captured the government in the US and other places.
It’s just captured the government in the US and other places.
That is a core function of capitalism, not some crazy coincidence. There are market economy models separate from capitalism.
Could you point me to the economy models you are refering to?
I think the biggest mistake of the social market economy practised in Germany, was overlooking or disregarding the fact, that policy and policymakers are themselves part of market forces by lobbying, corruption and bribery. This leads to creeping reduction in social standards and development of the economy towards are radical free-market economy, which in turn inevitably leads to feudalism and fascism eventually, as demonstraded live in the US currently.
although how do you want to achieve a democratic economy? voting? 🤣 corrupt politics and capitalism are symbiotic. how do you plan on getting rid of just one of them.
the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It’s not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won’t be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt’s job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it’s essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
Is there an inherent need to have something like “businesses”? Do I have to be rewarded? Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
Humans exist for a very long time. I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism. Edit: And without billionaires. Especially without billionaires.
Do I need all those niche products provided by those businesses?
You might not, but there are people who might want, and in a free country their needs are needs too.
I am quite sure our ancestors survived pretty well without businesses, rewards, incentives, cosumerism or capitalism
You suggesting we need to leave technology and luxury behind? Again you can but there are people who might want them
And demand creates incentive which creates innovation.
These were questions to ask yourself, to think about what really matters.
Wants do not equal needs. I might want to have a superyacht, but do I need one? Am I entitled to one? If I work “really hard”, is it fair that I get to spend tons of resources on my superyacht, while other people don’t know how to feed their children?
Yes, other people might want luxuries and technology, too. But is it fair that these luxuries / wealth are accumulating in the hands of a few individuals while there are people in the world who literally live in the dirt without a roof?
Maybe, if I wasn’t allowed to have my superyacht, we could improve living conditions for a lot of people, prevent people from dying etc. It is a distribution problem, and in a world of limited resources, we should strive to provide a more or less equal amount of wealth to every single human being, instead of a few guys having superyachts while others can barely afford shoes.
Also, since you wrote “free country” I assume you are American - I really cannot understand how someone could in all seriousness believe that they live in a free country. This is not a free country, you are not free. Sure, we can argue about the definition of “freedom”, but from my point of view people are not truly free when there are economic constraints, you can get shot because your skin does not have the right color, because of your sexual preferences, or even just because you have a fucking multicolored flag outside your store.
I don’t see myself as truly free either, but at least I have the possibilty to choose to do fuck all with my life, never working a single hour, never providing anything of “value” to society, and still I get provided basic necessities and an monthly income which can finance a basic life. I will not die because I can’t afford a doctor, I will not get shot because I am in the wrong neighborhood, police won’t approach me with drawn weapons if my skin is a little darker.
Now this got way too long, but maybe someone might read this some time and think a little bit about wants, needs, “freedom” and superyachts.
“Uncorrupt government”
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
That is why we throw them out every couple of years and choose someone different.
I do the same with my underpants.
So you bought then back in June 1933 and didn’t have the heart to throw them out?
Boot-flavored capitalist Kool-Aid must be so refreshing during such a torrid summer
Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they’re not immediately worshiped for their opinions?
