Current Events > What political/economic systems should be implemented around the world?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Everyone knows that true communism doesnt work, so lets not get into that.

However, the flaws of capitalism are starting to show in recent decades, where power and wealth are disproportionately concentrated in a few individuals.

Capitalism worked relatively well in earlier times, but I think that it is a flawed system that should either be altered or abolished.

Democracy should definitely be kept, but even that has the potential to be exploited.

Communism

USA could probably benefit from trial by combat.

Comes with its own set of problems, but most of the people actively fucking the country are in absolutely no shape to benefit from such a system.

And if it sucks then we just need a really strong guy to win a trial by combat to abolish trial by combat. >_>

Capitalism has been failing people for centuries before communism was even conceived.

And yet people always say that it is communism that should be discarded because it 'never works'.

ai123 posted...

And yet people always say that it is communism that should be discarded because it 'never works'.

Because it doesn't. And don't say "true communism has never been tried." That is an argument against communism in itself. If your perfect system is so susceptible to being manipulated by bad actors looking to seize power, then it's in no way a viable government system.

Crazyman93 posted...

Because it doesn't. And don't say "true communism has never been tried." That is an argument against communism in itself. If your perfect system is so susceptible to being manipulated by bad actors looking to seize power, then it's in no way a viable government system.

My point was that capitalism merits that exact same criticism (vulnerability to corrupt, self-serving, bad actors).

And the trials have been going on for a lot longer.

Calvinball

Complete and total anarchy.

ai123 posted...

My point was that capitalism merits that exact same criticism (vulnerability to corrupt, self-serving, bad actors).

I think this is true of any system we implement because humans are inherently shitty

HighSeraph posted...

I think this is true of any system we implement because humans are inherently shitty

They will be as long as we implement systems which reward shitty behaviour (exploitation, short-termism, greed, expendability, lack of collective responsibility).

ai123 posted...

My point was that capitalism merits that exact same criticism (vulnerability to corrupt, self-serving, bad actors).

The criticism that you yourself cited wasn't "vulnerability to bad actors." The criticism was "it never works." There are real-world examples of capitalism working out sort of okay on a large scale.

I'd also argue that "capitalism" is more of an economic theory than a system that needs to be implemented. The moment you introduce currency to a society, you've already provided an incentive for individuals to accumulate lots of it by any means.

Universal basic income pls

The_cranky_hermit posted...

The criticism that you yourself cited wasn't "vulnerability to bad actors." The criticism was "it never works." There are real-world examples of capitalism working out sort of okay on a large scale.

'Never works' was a general observation. You are right that I was not specific about why.

The thing about capitalism working out sort of okay, is that the more 'okay' it works out the less purely capitalist it is (stricter regulation).

I'd also argue that "capitalism" is more of an economic theory than a system that needs to be implemented. The moment you introduce currency to a society, you've already provided an incentive for individuals to accumulate lots of it by any means.

I would consider it a system in that it governs the operations of an economy (and is allowed to do so, if only by inaction). But your conception of it is perfectly reasonable, and I don't dispute that.

HighSeraph posted...

I think this is true of any system we implement because humans are inherently shitty

It's not inherent. The point is that under capitalism, or any hierarchical system, the shittiness intentionally incentivised - it's a feature, not a bug.

The_cranky_hermit posted...

There are real-world examples of capitalism working out sort of okay on a large scale.

Workng out okay for the capitalists.

The_cranky_hermit posted...

I'd also argue that "capitalism" is more of an economic theory than a system that needs to be implemented.

The free market is an economic theory. Capitalism is very much a system that is actively implemented, to keep the ruling class on top.

Literal Presidential races. Whichever candidate crosses the literal finish line first becomes President.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

Capitalism is very much a system that is actively implemented, to keep the ruling class on top.

"Active implementation" is optional. As long as there's stable currency, there's the possibility for those who accumulate lots of it to buy the means of production with that currency. And if there are no rules to keep them on top, they will have the power to make those rules. Ergo, capitalism exists regardless of it being "actively implemented."

Democracy itself can only work in a society that restricts the press and forces fair and balanced reporting. Otherwise we end up with the current situation were seeing in America and other countries, where people willingly vote themselves into fascism. There needs to be a guard against that for democracy to be workable. But any guard against it is an inherent restriction on free speech or democracy itself, so its a difficult issue.

Trumble posted...

Literal Presidential races. Whichever candidate crosses the literal finish line first becomes President.

Trump would've keeled over after about 10 minutes of "running" (a light jog is the best he could've done)

Economic? Capitalism 2.0
Capitalism failed because it wasn't properly enforced or regulated.
It's not some great mystery where and how it went wrong. Wealth is power, too much wealth was allowed to consolidate, government wasn't properly insulated from business influence.
Seal the cracks, fix what's broken, roll it out again.

Political? Well... I don't really know. But the results of the two-party system are clear, it's far too vulnerable to corruption and bastardization, and eventually it boils down to a team sport and not what's actually good for us as a nation.

The_cranky_hermit posted...

And if there are no rules to keep them on top, they will have the power to make those rules.

Yes, that's what actively implementing it means.

LinkDaLunatic posted...

Capitalism failed because it wasn't properly enforced or regulated. It's not some great mystery where and how it went wrong. Wealth is power, too much wealth was allowed to consolidate, government wasn't properly insulated from business influence.

That's not a failure, that's capitalism working exactly as intended. It's not supposed to be regulated, except for regulations that benefit the ruling capitalist class.

LinkDaLunatic posted...

Economic? Capitalism 2.0
Capitalism failed because it wasn't properly enforced or regulated.
It's not some great mystery where and how it went wrong. Wealth is power, too much wealth was allowed to consolidate, government wasn't properly insulated from business influence.
Seal the cracks, fix what's broken, roll it out again.

Political? Well... I don't really know. But the results of the two-party system are clear, it's far too vulnerable to corruption and bastardization, and eventually it boils down to a team sport and not what's actually good for us as a nation.

Regulation is anathema to capitalism. Every piece of regulation makes capitalism less capitalistic.

It's like saying you want communism, but with more private enterprise.

Ideally I would want some form of left libertarianism (anarcho-syndicalism or whatever else doesn't have a government and has worker control of the means of production).

Realistically social democracy or some other kind of welfare state capitalism where there are severe limits on government and corporate power with benefits and safety nets for the common people (some kind of basic income or GMI). You can't really prevent bad actors from existing, sociopathy is a human trait found in every population, so a system that at least limits the ability to abuse it and certainly not one that allows such a person to become the leader of it (this is where the majority of humanity is right now, living under a system led by a sociopath, with corporations led by sociopaths, and active rewards for those people's sociopathy) is the best realistic option.

ai123 posted...

Regulation is anathema to capitalism. Every piece of regulation makes capitalism less capitalistic.

That's not entirely true. Regulations improving workers' conditions make it less capitalistic; regulations restricting unions make it more so.

Economic socialism, meaning worker control of the means of production truly has never come close to being implemented. State control of the means of production is different to capitalism but it is not socialism.

Having said that, even state control can have advantages over capitalism. Compare China and Californias plans to build a high speed rail network which were formulated at around the same time. Chinas is close to completion, while Californias failed to get off the ground. America in general has atrocious infrastructure now.

ai123 posted...

Regulation is anathema to capitalism. Every piece of regulation makes capitalism less capitalistic.

It's like saying you want communism, but with more private enterprise.

That's just silly. Every country on Earth regulates their markets. So obviously you can do that.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

That's not entirely true. Regulations improving workers' conditions make it less capitalistic; regulations restricting unions make it more so.

Yeah. You actually see that in China. They removed the rights to strike and form labor unions after Deng put them on a capitalist path. Now even trying to advocate for workers is illegal. China is interesting in that in some ways it has way more capitalism and in others the government heavily puts their fingers on the scale. I feel like the US is heading towards a system like that.

ssjevot posted...

That's just silly. Every country on Earth regulates their markets. So obviously you can do that.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting you couldn't do it. Absolutely unbridled capitalism is too much except for the most extreme.

But as a philosophy/system/principle/call it what you will, every regulation that in any way interferes with the free flow of capital results in a less capitalist economy.

So the more you call for regulation, the less you are calling for capitalism.

ai123 posted...

Yes, I wasn't suggesting you couldn't do it. Absolutely unbridled capitalism is too much except for the most extreme.

But as a philosophy/system/principle/call it what you will, every regulation that in any way interferes with the free flow of capital results in a less capitalist economy.

So the more you call for regulation, the less you are calling for capitalism.

Okay, so what do you call regulated capitalism?

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

Yes, that's what actively implementing it means.

Then you've made no meaningful distinction between capitalism and feudal totalitarianism. Which is a point of view, I suppose, but not a helpful one for any sort of meaningful discussion on the topic.

ai123 posted...

They will be as long as we implement systems which reward shitty behaviour (exploitation, short-termism, greed, expendability, lack of collective responsibility).

Actually they will be as long as humans are humans because people inherently care more for themselves and their own than they do lofty ideas.

ssjevot posted...

Okay, so what do you call regulated capitalism?

Something like Social Democracy maybe?

HighSeraph posted...

Actually they will be as long as humans are humans because people inherently care more for themselves and their own than they do lofty ideas.

That's because there are incentives to do so.

There's nothing inherent in humans that makes their default setting 'shitty' or incapable of collective responsibility. (That's getting perilously close to a belief in Original Sin).

There's nothing 'lofty' or even especially idealistic about it. It doesn't even contradict working in one's own interests. As long as the interests of the individual can be made to coincide with those of wider society.

Accolon posted...

Something like Social Democracy maybe?

Social democracy is considered a capitalist system though.

Rank choice voting

Socialism

Capitalism and still is the best.

The cracks people speak of are usually self correcting in a normal, non manipulated economy but ours currently is anything but that.

Prismsblade posted...

in a normal, non manipulated economy

A non-manipulated economy is anything but normal (or capitalist).

Democracy is the worst system except for all the others.

Crazyman93 posted...

Because it doesn't. And don't say "true communism has never been tried." That is an argument against communism in itself.

"Stop disagreeing with me. You are wrong and I won't say otherwise."

Great thread, my dude. Lol

Communism is worth humoring when we have full on robot automation to make up our work force.

Until then, the reality is, 99% of jobs suck and people only do them because they need the money, and if everything paid the same, everyone would just want work the piss easy jobs that require little effort, and society would collapse, as we NEED people doing these harder jobs.

What incentivizes people to do the harder jobs vs the easier jobs? Different compensation.

It's also why UBI won't work until we have slave robots. If its too much, people just won't work and society will crumble, and if it's too little it's basically meaningless and inflation will adjust around it most likely anyways.

Pure Communism requires a form of psuedo slavery/fascism to work as the only way a system that is actually functional and could last would work without robots to keep society running and everyone gets equal wealth distribution, is the government would have to pick your job for you, whether you like it or not, and if you stop doing this job the government picked for you, the ramifications would have to be severe: prob cut you off from all government benefits and income. A system that rewards lazy people and people who work equally will result in everyone being lazy and the system collapsing. That's basic common sense. If I could get paid the same for sitting on couch and playing video games vs going to work, I'd obviously pick the former.

There's also the factor that people will rebel if they're getting paid the same and their job is super hard to someone who's job is super easy and it's literally just dumb luck that decides who gets the easy jobs, which is another reason pure communism requires psuedo slavery/fascism to actually work.

I'd prefer free market capitalism to this. I'm equally fucked in both systems if I'm lazy and don't work and I can control the type of work I do to compensation ratio accordingly.

Right now I'm young and saving, so I can work a job that is a bit more stressful but will compensate me better, and later in life when I'm on retirement savings, maybe I'll work a more fun less stressful job that will almost certainly compensate worse.

MajesticFerret posted...

if everything paid the same

That's not what communism is.

MajesticFerret posted...

the government would have to pick your job for you, whether you like it or not

Because of course everyone is able to choose exactly what job they want under capitalism. /s

Also, that's also not what communism is, because communism means there is no government - communism is what remains when the socialist state has become redundant and withered away. (That's not a theory I subscribe to, I'm not a communist, but if you're going to criticise communism you need to have a basic idea of what it is, and it appears you don't.)

MajesticFerret posted...

I can control the type of work I do to compensation ratio accordingly.

Except you can't, because your employer (unless it's a workers' cooperative) keeps part of what would be proper compensation for your labour. That's what profit is.

The majority of people have no idea what communism or socialism are, their understanding comes entirely from American Cold War era propaganda

hivebent4life posted...

The majority of people have no idea what communism or socialism are, their understanding comes entirely from American Cold War era propaganda

It's when they take away your guns and your bootstraps to pay for lazy people on welfare, isn't it?

Barter system

I feel like under socialism, shit jobs would get automated away faster, and unlike under capitalism, people would be overjoyed to see those jobs go

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

That's not what communism is.

Because of course everyone is able to choose exactly what job they want under capitalism. /s

Also, that's also not what communism is, because communism means there is no government - communism is what remains when the socialist state has become redundant and withered away. (That's not a theory I subscribe to, I'm not a communist, but if you're going to criticise communism you need to have a basic idea of what it is, and it appears you don't.)

Except you can't, because your employer (unless it's a workers' cooperative) keeps part of what would be proper compensation for your labour. That's what profit is.

So much this.

Thanatos_the_Great posted...

That's not what communism is.

One of your biggest complaints about capitalism is wealth inequality, so if communism doesn't fix it, it hurts the basis of many of your arguments.

Because of course everyone is able to choose exactly what job they want under capitalism. /s

Moreso than they would under pure communism.

Also, that's also not what communism is, because communism means there is no government

People controlling the means of production would almost certainly need to fall under a sort of centralized, organized group of people that would be considered a government, even if it doesn't mirror what our government would be.

communism is what remains when the socialist state has become redundant and withered away.

Which hasn't happened so there's no need for communism, and nothing suggests communism would take over under these conditions either.

(That's not a theory I subscribe to, I'm not a communist, but if you're going to criticise communism you need to have a basic idea of what it is, and it appears you don't.)

Oh lord, nothing is more obnoxious than dumb pseudo elitists arbitrarily gate keeping their head canon philosophies while not properly explaining how tf their imaginary fake ass system that doesn't exist in any real world context is going to exist.

All you've done this entire time is point out that capitalism isn't perfect. That does not mean you have proven why communism is better

Except you can't,

More absolutes. No one in the planet is qualified to do every job, so me truly having ANY job I wanted is obviously not true.

However, I still have far more job options than I would under pure communism.

because your employer (unless it's a workers' cooperative) keeps part of what would be proper compensation for your labour. That's what profit is.

And they're entitled to profit. They spent the money and took the risk to create the company that added the value to society to generate the revenue in which I get a slice of the pie for working for them.

The million dollar question is how much profit is too much profit, but a lot of people like you seem to think business owners should just take all the financial risk of starting a business and proceed to work for free.

Another work around to this is every company could be publically owned and everybody gets paid in stock, so they have as much skin in the game as the business they are working for, but a lot of people just don't want that. It also doesn't fix wealth inequality, the big boogie man that people like to criticize capitalism for, as that simply creates even worse wealth inequality with simply more winners but more losers as well.

MajesticFerret posted...

more winners but more losers as well

Explain how this is possible.

Democratic Confederalism/Libertarian Socialism.

In the meantime, Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism could ease us away from capitalism. At least lift more people up to get rights and not fucking starve on the streets.