What could we replace capitalism with
So I finished seeing an argument for why capitalism should end. When this idea is right or wrong I'm still deciding.
A question I had thought is what could we replace it with. Communism has a motivation problem and I doubt we can convince people to go back to fudelism. If we have nothing better we might say we'll stay here.
A question I had thought is what could we replace it with. Communism has a motivation problem and I doubt we can convince people to go back to fudelism. If we have nothing better we might say we'll stay here.
Comments (54)
Benevolent dictatorship.
Most people handle different systems like a final system that won't change over time. This is a radical naive view of how systems exist in society. Systems change according to the culture in which they exist. Capitalism change through trials and errors. In Sweden, there's arguably a "socialist capitalism", in which basic functions of society acts within a socialist method, while the market is still free outside of it or even in collaboration with it. It's an evolution of pure capitalism and pure socialism.
The biggest problem we face is that the automation of industries will render most of the population unemployed, while those with higher intellectual skills, jobs and education will continue within their fields. The economic crash due to this evolution/revolution will probably be bigger than both the 30's crash, the 90's and 08's crash and it will feed into the demand of a new system that is better for all.
The closest we have to a solution is the basic income system. Research has pointed out that things like general intelligence decreases within poverty, making segregation worsen by the consequences of itself. So those that are poor have less ability to pull themselves out of that situation. If we face mass-unemployment because of automation, we will face massive poverty in which we can see a downfall of society. Basic income reduces the effects of this process and gives time for the unemployed and poor to catch up, educate and get jobs of higher complexity, which cannot easily be replaced by automation.
The conclusion is that a political and economic system needs to be a synthesis of previous ideas, none of the current ones works together with the probable development of society we face in the future.
In essence, we need to stop judging down on some political systems, stop promoting other political systems and we need to evolve the systems that exist.
I think a benevolent dictator is in a unique position to have the best possible economic system.
The best system is one that takes what works from all systems and creates a new one, so asking for a label that encompasses a particular economic system is folly to me.
What economic system is better than capitalism? The one that keeps the good parts of capitalism and replaces it shitty parts with good parts from other systems.
Resource-based economy has some merits, but mostly it's a very utopian idea that has big flaws in a society larger than a large tribe.
I think that basic income is a good way to create a baseline in order to help society and economy from becoming too segregated to a point of collapse. I also think that the basic functions in society should be totally free (tax-based); like infrastructure, electric charging for electric cars, electricity in general, internet, health-care, dental care, care for the sick and old, mental health care, construction of new homes aligned with population growth, research and science, school and high education (including the ability for older people to educate themselves for free in order to change occupation). And culture funding. All these are tax-based with a tax rate that is increasing for higher incomes. The rest of the market is a free market.
Problems arise with things like military funding and the global economy. The biggest problem we have are problematic political nations in the world which makes it hard to even develop past the current forms of economic and political systems. If all were to the standard of democracy, without corruption it would be easy to develop a better, advanced and improved system. So most of the improved ideas are utopian until we reach a better balance globally. Essentially, there's to much bullshit in the world today for a new system to actually work. Until there's a political and economic balance globally, we would probably need the capitalistic engine to run, since it still works great at pushing developed countries out of poverty. Capitalism is a great "pusher" for nations with problems to prosper, but it's generally a problem for stability without creating high-level corruption.
Ah, but now you arent talking about a system flaw, you are talking about a human flaw. The system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.
You are an anarchist then I take it? Whats better about having no system at all that outweighs the obvious drawbacks?
I explained in the other thread that being used as a source of labor is a harm to the individual. All economic systems will eventually do this by de facto needs and wants of the individual from needing to survive and the endless desires of the human psyche.
There is nothing bizarre about public ownership of at least some industries. Most water systems in the US are government owned and operated. In some countries, the water works are private businesses. North Dakota operates its own bank. Many utility companies have been municipally owned and operated. GM wouldn't be in business if the US Government hadn't propped it up. The same can be said for a few other large concerns.
Capitalism as we have known it, as we know it now, and as we might know it in the future is delivering disaster. For-profit corporations apparently can not respond to the problem of the vast costs which they have externalized: CO2, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, plastic trash and plastic micro-bits from the north pole to the south pole, PCBs, oil spills, unemployment, obesity, diabetes, cancers, etc. For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel (like a dog, trained to obey social commands).
I asked you first, answer me and Ill answer you.
Ah. i see. I thought you were being evasive.
Ok, well there are at least some positive effects of a system of some kind. Those would be gone, what adventages does anarchy have to replace them? As well, it seems obvious that without a system of laws in place there would be more theft and murder and rape etc etc. So what do we get in return for that under anarchy?
We human have to live in the system. If we can brake the system it's not perfect is it
That is communism, as I said it has motivation problems. When people do something they think they need to get something in return. The only way it could work is if we're all carbon copys of each other.
If I'm wrong please correct me
Ok I understand, but I'm asking what should we replace it with and/or in your case how do you think should change it?
Ok, now you are talking about a perfect system? You said “better”, didnt you?
I dont there is a perfect system, i dont know there is a perfect anything.
maybe it is. but then your saying that it's a cultural problem, are you not?
However if we start from traditional liberal/libertarian capitalism and free markets, there are many different kinds of systems, not just socialism or communism. And these mixed-economies can work quite well. Typically the systems have Private ownership and the market mechanism for pricing as the backbone of the system, but have usually the government/public sector take a far more active role than leaving everything to the "invisible hand" of the market mechanism to do.
Yes I did. I was asking if we can come up with a better system. Then you said
and I was trying to make a point. By saying that.
Because you didn't get it here it is. We live in the system and so we must account for that. We need a system that encourages people to do what we want us to do. This would be the "better system". When it doesn't encourage what we want, we label it as broken.
I see that now, my mistake.
Quoting hachit
Ok, so you are asking if there is a better system than capitalism for managing or perhaps utilising human beings natural tendencies?
Ya, Benevolent dictatorship.
It might sound like communism but what I'm proposing is quite different. "Need to get something in return"--I specified that my system would be competition-oriented and it would give scarcer resources to certain people.
You're saying that my system is communism a la Karl Marx? (and I'm just not aware of this?)
This does not seem obvious to me at all. I think it is true that laws exist to control the behavior of people, but under a more radical interpretation, laws exist to keep those in power, in power.
In other words, laws are a symptom of a deeper problem. Laws are supposed to "fix" a problem. Under your interpretation, that problem is human nature. Under a different interpretation, the problem is the nature of a fraction of the human population.
Consider how mass warfare (which involves killing, theft, rape, destruction, etc) is only accomplished by state entities. The irony of a state protecting its function by doing exactly what it seeks to minimize!
Yes, indeed there would likely be more terrible things happening if there were no laws and we still sought to live in a capitalist society. The point is that if we get rid of capitalism, we open the door for a society free of laws that still works.
Sure. So for one, you'd say that Marx's system has competition for scarce resources as a major motivator?
Sure, so how, exactly is this built into Marx's communism?
I I'm sorry if this is not answering your questions. I think it might of misunderstood somwere
I'm not saying anything like this, though.
My system has competition for scarce(r) resources as a major feature of the system.
You said that my system is the same as Marx's.
So Marx must have competition for scarce(r) resources as a major feature of the system. I'm asking you how this is built into his system. Marx' system is set up to encourage competition from who/via what means, and to reward competitors with scarce(r) resources how?
Is there any way to "unentrench" capitalism? Sure. Every system is vulnerable--in the same way that any system is dependent on the consent of the population (ultimately). People could just say NO to capitalism, stop going to work, stop buying things, stop cooperating with the government, etc. etc. etc. That would require a revolution in the way people think, before such a revolution could be instituted.
So what -- an eternity of capitalism? No. Unfortunately, what will undo capitalism in the most unpleasant way is capitalism itself. We are experiencing one of the consequences of capitalism -- global warming -- which seems to be happening faster than climatologists thought it would even 10 years ago. When climate warming gets bad enough, economies will collapse, and with it, the survival systems of billions of people.
Economic exploitation and perpetual growth can't go on forever. Unfortunately, the denouement of over-exploitation and zombie growth is economic collapse -- again, pushing the survival of billions into oblivion. (And this would eventually take place without global warming.)
What happens in the future, in a very real sense, is nobody's choice: We are riding history, we aren't driving it.
So, our only option is the highly unlikely rejection of capitalism. Snowball in hell, again.
Otherwise, in a century or so of climate change and continued depraved exploitation by the remorseless engines of capitalism, we might be wondering how could we possibly think that we are lucky to be alive.
[quoteI'd replace it with a socialist system, not centered on money per se, geared towards providing both the essentials for everyone--food, housing, health care, education, transportation, etc.--and the things that people desire, which would be discovered via polling, and where the competition for scarce resources is centered on helping others, cooperating, providing things that people need/want. The more you do, via a combo of hard work and/or ingenuity, to provide things that people need/want, the more you have access to scarcer resources.[/quote]
But this is what you said.
Communism is, not centered on money, it is geared towards providing essentials for everyone. People would work to improve the state.
This is were in went wrong.
"What the combo of hard work and/or ingenuity, to provide things that people need/want, the more you have access to scarcer resources "
I thought it mentioned that the more you work the more resources everyone would have access to. Wich is Marxists.
Now that I read it again you mentioned the one
People are required to live (at best) at a 19th century level (not that bad, really) except they don't just naturally know how to do that. They have to figure it out. There is of course a huge population loss. Even though the people in the novels understand what causes disease, they don't have the means to deal with infection, for instance.
Despite all that, the novels are fairly up-beat. In the end, enough people survive well enough that they can have hope -- provided they are very disciplined, and maintain the steep learning curve of 19th century survival skills. (In some ways, "19th Century" has to refer to the first quarter -- not the last quarter of that century. In other ways, people will be forced back into the 17th century -- simpler technology. Unfortunately (and this is the message of another very good novel, Earth Abides) succeeding generations will know less and less about the 20th/21st century ways and means. The most pessimistic approach to this problem is A Canticle for Leibowitz which is set in a desert monastery after nuclear war. Society, such as it is, has been pushed back to the medieval period. It takes roughly 2000 years to fully recover, at which point they have another nuclear war. Great novel.
For instance, one can make soap out of used fat and a caustic extract of wood ashes -- but one has to know how to do it (otherwise one just ends up with gritty grease, not soap). One can preserve meat without freezing, but one has to know how, exactly, to do that -- otherwise, one will die of food poisoning (botulism, for instance). It's not hard to preserve cabbage as sauerkraut, but if not done correctly one ends up with a stinking mess--the sort of thing one finds in the distant reaches of one's refrigerator every now and then.
Will humanity die out? No, I don't think so -- but a lot of people might wish they had died sooner, once social collapse gets under way.
I agree on that. Humans are surprisingly resilient. However I think it would be irresponsible to leave that world for future generations
Irresponsible, indeed. Most unkind -- but that is what we are doing. People who are in their 20s or younger, and everyone who will be born later, are being screwed out of a decent future. I'm glad I'm 72 and not 22, because I think the remainder of the century is pretty much down hill in terms of the environment and global warming, (and continuing down hill in the 22nd century and later).
Some people have argued that there is no such thing as human nature. Me, I think there is and all our problems arise from it. Look at socialism/communism. If you read it, it sounds perfectly noble but it's not practicable because we're, by nature, greedy, selfish, power-hungry, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that the fault is not with the system itself, be it capitalism or communism; the problem is with us, humans.
So, given that human nature isn't going to change any time soon, all economic systems, old or new, will succumb to our shortcomings.
Quoting TheMadFool
I too think there is such a thing as human nature, and it is true that we often demonstrate that we are greedy, selfish, power hungry, and worse. Unfortunately for your negative conclusion, we also demonstrate that we are generous, altruistic, peacefully inclined, and better.
The fundamental problem of our human nature is that we are driven toward conflicting goals. We want to walk through the valley of death and fear no evil but, unfortunately, we sometimes find that the only way we can do that is to be the meanest son of a bitch in the valley.
There isn't any way we are going to change our perversely contradictory nature. The best we can do is arrange society in such a way that being the meanest son of a bitch isn't the best way to get ahead. Predatory capitalism is one of several meanest-son-of-bitch systems. Surely we can do better, without resorting to some utopian scheme.
Agreed. It's a tough task, if not impossible. There must be a way out of this mess. The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle-class trying to avoid getting poorer but trying to get richer. It's a trap.
When reality sets in human nature gets in the way of any Utopian state. Capitalism is suitable and functional for the greedy consumerists. One solution is to educate greed out of people instead of making it the ideal method by which the system functions and by which a kind of human nature is actualized. Even if we did educate into the minds of the young, moderation, there would still be the problems of greed taking over. Greed, social jealousy etc. is learned but also impulsive.
I firstly advocate socialism to an extent. I will not get into it unless triggered to. I also think we can make communities/societies that are made after the ideals of Jacque Fresco's RBE. However, some are globalists, and I don't think that is going to happen. "We" still have democracized and humanized the globe yet.
I noticed that Fresco worked with Earl "Madman" Muntz. Muntz, I know, was involved in the development of television early on, and among other things 4 track tape. (Unless you are into audio visual stuff, 4 track tape isn't very interesting.)
There are a lot fo ideas floating around out there that can, should, and ought to be at least tried, if not applied, but there are also a lot of fossilized vested interests that won't, can't, and will never stop blocking progress.
Capitalism is the only economic system that is consistent with individual rights and personal autonomy. People are free to produce, buy, and sell whatever it is that they want regardless of what the collective thinks. So if you want to be free and want others to be free then you want capitalism.
Capitalism is the only moral and justified system. Any other system is immoral because it takes away people's freedom.
Capitalism is also practical and more effective economically. Businesses compete against one another to produce the highest quality product, at the lowest possible cost, at the largest scale possible.
If your product is too expensive compared to another businesses product, then you won't be able to make money, so you have to figure out a way to produce your product more efficiently so that you can sell it at a lower price and still make a profit.
If your product is low quality compared to another businesses product, then you have to figure out a way to make your product unique or better compared to other businesses so that you can still make a profit.
If your product isn't scalable and only available to a few people, then you can't sell enough to make a profit, therefore you need to find a way to mass produce your product so that everyone can have access to it.
And because there are multiple businesses, the public has multiple choices in what they want to buy. If you don't like a certain brand of food, you can buy a different brand. You can select whatever product that suits your needs the best.
Capitalism also attracts and benefits intelligent and ambitious people who want to live their life to the fullest. Why? Because they are free to make a profit and are not subjected the whims of the public good. They can create businesses that create these amazing products for the public. Some examples are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos. Notice how all of them are incredibly rich. In capitalism, the more value you produce to the public, the more money you make. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world because he created Amazon, which has increased the quality of people's lives astronomically.
Socialism and communism is immoral and unjustified because there are no property rights. People are not entitled to the product of their labor. Anything you make can be confiscated by the government or the mob, making you unfree to pursue whatever material values you have. In fact, the more you produce, the harder you work, the more intelligent you are, the better your business and products, the more socialism punishes you because you pay higher taxes compared to everyone else. People also blame you for why they are poor or unhappy. They blame you because you're ultra rich or simply well to-do, or hard-working, despite the fact that you worked hard for what you have or created a business that sells products that makes everyone's lives so much better.
Socialism and communism are also incredibly economically inefficient.
My evidence is modern day Venezuela. Real socialism is taking place in Venezuela. Many leftists and those in Hollywood supported this socialism that took place and talked about how great it was. Some still talk about how great it is.
People there are starving! People are so poor and the government hasn't been able to provide the free healthcare and food that it promised, despite the fact that Venezuela has plenty of oil and other resources that would make the country rich. The state has collectivized the farms and many other industries which has destroyed the economy.
Why does socialism fail? Because when the state acquires a part of the market, it is essentially monopolizing it. Which means there is no competition, and where there's no competition, there is just the government creating a low quality product, at a high price, and struggles to scale it to everybody.
Because in socialism you are not entitled to your labor, there is no incentive to make a profit to make more for yourself. There is no incentive to work hard or to produce anything of value to sell to people. There is no incentive to build a business and make a living for yourself. The only incentive to get the money and other handouts provided by the government which of course the government has confiscated from the people who have built their wealth.
Because the productive people have lost the incentive to produce in a socialist country, and because they don't want to rely on the government to take care of them because the government does an incredibly poor job at providing food, housing, and healthcare, they flee the country to a more free country that actually has a more free economy. Because the people who actually produce anything of value flee communism and socialism, the communist/socialist country will eventually self-destruct because no one works to produce anything of value. OR, a black market occurs because people want to produce and be entitled to their labor anyway despite the fact that it's against the law to own your own business and work for just yourself without having to pay taxes..
Those who decry capitalism are afraid of being independent and underestimate the ability of others to be independent. Socialists are dependent and want to live mystical and irrational lifestyles. Living irrationally and mystically prohibits you from creating value in the market place, which means you cannot make money to earn a living. So the only way to live irrationally and to still make a living is through the use of socialism. In other words, you take money from people who do live rationally and produce value, and give that money to yourself through the use of force and coercion by the government.
If you see problems with capitalism then consider advocating changing the way capitalism is implemented, looking at it from this perspective you suddenly have a great variety of options that range from minor to extreme in nature.
That is my point.