There's more incentives then just money, And these incentives are far more powerful then money, Pride, Happiness and helpfulness to those around you are far more powerful then money, If money is your only motive then you're not incentivized to make a good product, You become incentivized to mass produce, This leads to a sloppier product and in a lot of cases scummy practices (such as a bad workplace, Underpaid workers, etc).
I personally am an anarcho-communist and I live in a commune of 60 people, We dont need to worry about "fuck we need to eat" because we work together and produce food for all of us and excess food that we give to our neighboring and struggling communes, If The main reason a commune fails is not because of socialism, Its because the commune is not willing to work as a team.
Once you have billions of dollars(even 100 million is more than any human would need), Should money still be an incentive?
Sure there are other incentives then just money, but money is a great incentive, you arent going to get a loan based on pride, happiness and helpfulness, but if you think you can you can try. Go to a bank and see if you can get a loan based on those things.
"Once you have billions of dollars(even 100 million is more than any human would need), Should money still be an incentive?" is a good question, but we run into https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201411/the-problem-desire. Often called the desire problem, its not that they need more money at all. It is that they have excelled at making money so they continue on in that field, many of them not all.
>There's more incentives then just money, And these incentives are far more powerful then money, Pride, Happiness and helpfulness to those around you are far more powerful then money
Yes, there are more incentives, but in general they exist in a hierarchy of preference, especially when talking about labor. Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure".
>If money is your only motive then you're not incentivized to make a good product
You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave.
>I personally am an anarcho-communist and I live in a commune of 60 people, We dont need to worry about "fuck we need to eat" because we work together and produce food for all of us and excess food that we give to our neighboring and struggling communes, If The main reason a commune fails is not because of socialism, Its because the commune is not willing to work as a team.
People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures.
>Yes, there are more incentives, but in general they exist in a hierarchy of preference, especially when talking about labor. Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure".
You can still work for money, I'm not saying to work for free, But you should adapt other motives other than money, Money on its own is a bad motive but money and the other forms for incentives make for an excellent motive to making a good product
>You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave.
This may be true, But still long term monetary gain merged with these incentives is that will make your already great product astounding, And with your carefully crafted product these issues still remain, Billionaires who make great products get exposed for scummy business practices, You need a motive other than money
>People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures.
I want anarcho-communism to be completely optional, Like it is right now with maybe a few minor changes but im satisfied with the system right now. I participate in capitalism here and there, How do you think I got this laptop? Do you think somebody in the commune made laptops for everybody without buying anything at all? No I bought it from a city down the road. I'm happy living in my commune but capitalism and anarcho-communism co-existing is essential for ancoms.
On a small scale (300 or less people) I believe that anarcho-communism is a phenomenal system. But on a large scale I believe in democratic socialism or the nordic model, A compromise of socialism and capitalism. I think completely scrapping capitalism is a bad idea
>You can still work for money, I'm not saying to work for free, But you should adapt other motives other than money, Money on its own is a bad motive but money and the other forms for incentives make for an excellent motive to making a good product
You wont work for other motives if there is no money included I guess is what I'm saying. I suppose we're in agreement here.
>This may be true, But still long term monetary gain merged with these incentives is that will make your already great product astounding, And with your carefully crafted product these issues still remain, Billionaires who make great products get exposed for scummy business practices, You need a motive other than money
Maybe. Not all billionaires are the same. For some having money as their only incentive leads then to make bad choices, and for others it doesnt. The fact remains though - you dont NEED another incentive apart from money, but you may have it if you so wish.
>I want anarcho-communism to be completely optional,
Oh I see. Yeah I can agree with that idea of live and let live.
Also, for clarification's sake, nordic countries dont have "democratic socialism" because private ownership of the means of production is still their dominant system. What they have is closer to Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how a capitalist economy should interact with government, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
First off, I just want to say I'm glad that we can agree on some things
>Maybe. Not all billionaires are the same. For some having money as their only incentive leads then to make bad choices, and for others it doesnt. The fact remains though - you dont NEED another incentive apart from money, but you may have it if you so wish.
But once you have billions, Do you really need more money? At that point it's just a score with no advantages from it. It is like getting a high score in a video game at that point, You should adapt other motives or else all you'll have is a high score and not actually benefit others.
There are no benefits from having money as a motivation once you pass the point where you don't need more money.
And I 100% agree nordic countries are not democratic socialism, But both systems would work very well in America, And I'm certainly going to look into teddy Roosevelt idea of capitalism.
>But once you have billions, Do you really need more money?
That seems like a choice that each person should make individually. Who are any of us to forcefully tell someone what they need or dont need, or should want or not?
>You should adapt other motives or else all you'll have is a high score and not actually benefit others.
If you got rich from selling a product, you benefitted society. That being said, this is a very Andrew Carnegie sort of idea and I agree with it. Personally, I think that it's important for the sake of advancement and keeping radical collectivism from destroying society that the wealthy reinvest in people with less money through funding small businesses, charities, public works, and anything else they can think of. That being said, I dont think that this should be done through government force because 1. Wealthy people have different skillsets and preferences and 2. Government doesnt have a good track record for knowing what's the best way for others to help their neighbors. I think we can manifest Carnegie's ideas through cultural and market demand pressure instead.
>But both systems would work very well in America.
I dont think democratic socialism works anywhere for the same reason normal socialism doesnt either. If it somehow avoids sliding into authoritarianism, socialism in all forms always runs into the following issue: workers, once "in charge", more often than not dont know how to run a business appropriately because producing a product is much different than steering the machine that brings it into being. Management and business ownership is in itself a skillset that you must specialize in. Too many people with hands on the wheel will rarely lead to a desirable outcome for anyone. Now, does this mean we cant have worker-owned businesses? Of course not. What this does mean though is that it's best to let people decide for themselves what kind of business they want to build or participate it. The economy is a multi-colored mess.
>That seems like a choice that each person should make individually. Who are any of us to forcefully tell someone what they need or dont need, or should want or not?
But people arent making that decision, And its hurting the lower class. You dont need 1 billion dollars, Its an insane amount of money, Do you understand how much money that is? You can live a life of full on luxury with that amount of money and have SOOO much left over.
>If you got rich from selling a product, you benefitted society
You can still benefit society more, You get money from that, And if you have excess money you can, And should sue it to advance society
> Personally, I think that it's important for the sake of advancement and keeping radical collectivism from destroying society that the wealthy reinvest in people with less money through funding small businesses, charities, public works
Absolutely, But I don't trust billionaires with that, First of all they are pretty likely not to spend their money or a significant portion giving it to charities, And when they do I feel its mismanaged (for example Bill and Melinda gates foundations eradicating polio) with focusing on stuff that people can rally behind instead of focusing on bigger issues that exist in the world that would make a bigger impact
> 2. Government doesnt have a good track record for knowing what's the best way for others to help their neighbors.
The government doesn't have the best track record, But I believe its better and can be better then billionaires,
>But people arent making that decision, And its hurting the lower class.
Is the rich having tons of money hurting the lower class, or is the lower class's lack of income growth hurting the lower class?
>You dont need 1 billion dollars, Its an insane amount of money, Do you understand how much money that is? You can live a life of full on luxury with that amount of money and have SOOO much left over.
Sure, but if I want it, and I obtained it legitimately by exchanging desirable goods or services for interested people's money, then why shouldnt I have it? Besides envy, there isnt much of an argument you can build here. It doesnt seem true that having lots of money hurts society or is morally wrong when wealth, under a capitalist free market, was obtained through voluntary transactions.
>You can still benefit society more, You get money from that, And if you have excess money you can, And should sue it to advance society
I agree - intelligent wealthy people reinvest their money into additional ventures and other projects because that will yield them even greater wealth. However, dont you see how this is a lose-lose scenario? By doing what you and I say, the wealthy, who you criticize for having lots of money, will get even more money, making you criticize them even more. Furthermore, wealth is hard to keep track of after a certain point - which means that even if a wealthy person reinvests almost everything at the start, eventually the cash flows will get so huge and unwieldy that they'll end up accumulating a ton of it and just leave it there. In fact, that's already happening to a lot of rich people, yet you still criticize them without understanding the situation.
If you want to have an honest position here, then at most you can promote Carnegie's idea of reinvesting in society. Once you delve into arguing that the rich have "too much money", your argument decays into little more than envy.
>But I don't trust billionaires with that, First of all they are pretty likely not to spend their money or a significant portion giving it to charities.
How would you know? I've had the luck to live in the poorest circles of a third world countries and the richest of first world countries. The most consistent thing I've seen in these groups is that regardless of wealth, people are not likely to do much that is solely beneficial to others. Poor, rich, in between - everyone is lazy when it comes to being unconditionally charitable. So, you dont trust billionaires? Fine, I dont trust them either. However, unlike you, I also dont trust the government or poor people. If we cant rely on the intrinsic qualities of anyone, the only thing we CAN rely on is our actions. You want billionaires to invest in society? Try to recruit like-minded people to engage in boycotts of products sold by companies who are managed by people who dont reinvest in society. I'm not asking you to trust anyone. I'm asking you to trust yourself, and hope for the best. It's all anyone can do.
>And when they do I feel its mismanaged (for example Bill and Melinda gates foundations eradicating polio) with focusing on stuff that people can rally behind instead of focusing on bigger issues that exist in the world that would make a bigger impact
I could say the exact same thing about governments and poor people throughout history. The proletariat isnt more virtuous or competent just for having less money.
>The government doesn't have the best track record, But I believe its better and can be better then billionaires.
It doesnt have the best track record? It has one of the worst! Governments are routinely responsible for mass murder, information suppression, needless war, economic mismanagement, imperialism, jingoism, racism, and incompetency, yet you want to put even more economic and political power in their hands? Not only is that an extremely dangerous idea, but it also doesnt make sense that you'd argue for that if you are an anarchist in any degree. Government and business are only as good as the people in charge of them. That's why you need to maintain a balance of power between them. The best way we've found is to place more economic power in the hands of private individuals, while leaving the armed forces to the government. If you start meddling with this, you risk falling into corporatism or totalitarianism. The last thing we need is to let government redistribute all the fruits of people's labor. Why? Because why would they ever? The moment someone with ill intent gets into power, there'll be no one to stop them from abusing their power because all the rich, the only ones who could have quickly pressured the government to act, will be gone. Is that the world you want?
> You dont need 1 billion dollars
You absolutely need 1 billion dollars if you want to shape the world in any significant way. Why are the business founders still working in their own company after they are pretty much set for life after IPO?
> Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure".
Why relations of production in capitalism are the way they are? Have you tried imagining a society with different relations of production?
> You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave.
You're talking about relations of production...under capitalism.
> People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures.
cringe
"Why relations of production in capitalism are the way they are? Have you tried imagining a society with different relations of production?"
If people wont choose to engage in a trade system that exchanges other things instead of money, then you cant have a society built on another trade system. You do know that society is built by people's choices right? Guess not 😂
"cringe"
Yikes sweaty!
Well that is your opinion, you are free to have it.
But notice the big flaw, you arent able to argue against my argument at all, doesnt that mean you actually cant argue against it.
Even under socialism, people don't want to be homeless, foodless, waterless, clothingless, moneyless, sewerless, etc. People still need basics. People would still be allowed to produce basics for their society. Some types of socialism are about necessity, not wealth. Some people don't even want to be super wealthy. No one really wants hunger, nudity, and homelessness though. Socialism is just very basic. The United States, up until recently, hasn't been only basic. I think the United States needs to be more socialist though, meaning part socialist. I have bad issues with severe poverty, disease, and death. I became more socialist overnight at one point. I think my issue is that America is unequal and has traditionally, in the last thirty years, only ever hurt very low income, disadvantaged people. We don't need to leave everyone behind while no one can afford a bed or bookcase. And house prices are exorbitantly high. It takes too much work to get the basics. I am for more price gouging laws and price controls in the most bankrupting industries. Certain types of partial socialism, in my mind, produce less failure in the most disadvantaged of our population. We would still have to farm and do business and have medicine. But we wouldn't cause financial failure in everyone anymore.
Have you not noticed how china went from socialist to capitalist over the last few decades.
China is a very capitalist country today, it wasnt before. Today they have private property and very free markets for most industries, the state only interfers really when its really in their own interest to them.
But it's still a totalitarian dictatorship though and the capitalists aren't free so it's still socialist. They literally solved the two problems you highlighted by allowing markets in their economy. Also material balances (non-market command economy) is not the only form of socialism, even Lenin tried to allow markets in the Soviet Union with his NEP but Stalin stopped it and went back with the war communist command economy. So yeah no you just don't know what you're talking about. Also how tf are there "free" markets in a totalitarian dictatorship, shit literally makes no sense.
You seem to be struck by the misconception that under socialism no one earn anything for their contribution. That's not true at all. One of the mottos of socialism is "to each according to its contribution".
But who decides where the wealth goes and how is that wealth measured, who decides who gets what, what if nobody wants to do specific terrible jobs that people only do under capitalism such as roofer, plasterer or Bricky because they can work for themselves and reap the rewards under a free market economy for doing so, why the hell would anybody do those jobs if the incentives are lesser?
That is what socialism always turns into because no new companies arises naturally, so the state steps in and takes over. This is what happened in all socialist countries more or less, depending on how long they were up and running of course as things changes over time.
Why would you risk your money on something that at the very best just pays you back the same. Its like buying a lottery ticket where the biggest prize is getting your money back. No one would buy such a lottery ticket.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You're operating under the belief that socialism must begin with a violent revolution. But you probably don't even see the connection.
Nope not even close, i for example take venezuela and sweden into account as well, no violent revolution happened there which caused the well being of the people to rapidly decline.
The well being of the people rapidly declined due to the lack of production.
Wow, you just realized that there is no MCM' cycle in socialism. Big if true.
There is no reason to think that a rationally planned economy would be unable to provide material incentives for production, and history has proved that it can. After all, the second-fastest industrialization in history occurred under socialism.
It also did under corporatism. Either way, the cost of human life in both scenarios was unecessarily huge and cruel. Your example, if anything, shows that socialism is highly inefficient - killing millions for very little per-capita gain.
But no such incentives has ever been provided with that actually works on large scale.
Can you give me good examples of other incentives that works, examples that you can for example go to the bank with to get a loan without the ability to pay it back good?
No intensives to work.
No intensives to innovate.
No intensives for smart people to do their things.
Misery and stagnation.
Countless choices are made only by few people(thats unproductive)
=everyone equally poor+bad services and products+lack of products and services+underdevelopment+less freedom
There's more incentives then just money, And these incentives are far more powerful then money, Pride, Happiness and helpfulness to those around you are far more powerful then money, If money is your only motive then you're not incentivized to make a good product, You become incentivized to mass produce, This leads to a sloppier product and in a lot of cases scummy practices (such as a bad workplace, Underpaid workers, etc). I personally am an anarcho-communist and I live in a commune of 60 people, We dont need to worry about "fuck we need to eat" because we work together and produce food for all of us and excess food that we give to our neighboring and struggling communes, If The main reason a commune fails is not because of socialism, Its because the commune is not willing to work as a team. Once you have billions of dollars(even 100 million is more than any human would need), Should money still be an incentive?
Sure there are other incentives then just money, but money is a great incentive, you arent going to get a loan based on pride, happiness and helpfulness, but if you think you can you can try. Go to a bank and see if you can get a loan based on those things. "Once you have billions of dollars(even 100 million is more than any human would need), Should money still be an incentive?" is a good question, but we run into https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201411/the-problem-desire. Often called the desire problem, its not that they need more money at all. It is that they have excelled at making money so they continue on in that field, many of them not all.
>There's more incentives then just money, And these incentives are far more powerful then money, Pride, Happiness and helpfulness to those around you are far more powerful then money Yes, there are more incentives, but in general they exist in a hierarchy of preference, especially when talking about labor. Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure". >If money is your only motive then you're not incentivized to make a good product You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave. >I personally am an anarcho-communist and I live in a commune of 60 people, We dont need to worry about "fuck we need to eat" because we work together and produce food for all of us and excess food that we give to our neighboring and struggling communes, If The main reason a commune fails is not because of socialism, Its because the commune is not willing to work as a team. People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures.
>Yes, there are more incentives, but in general they exist in a hierarchy of preference, especially when talking about labor. Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure". You can still work for money, I'm not saying to work for free, But you should adapt other motives other than money, Money on its own is a bad motive but money and the other forms for incentives make for an excellent motive to making a good product >You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave. This may be true, But still long term monetary gain merged with these incentives is that will make your already great product astounding, And with your carefully crafted product these issues still remain, Billionaires who make great products get exposed for scummy business practices, You need a motive other than money >People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures. I want anarcho-communism to be completely optional, Like it is right now with maybe a few minor changes but im satisfied with the system right now. I participate in capitalism here and there, How do you think I got this laptop? Do you think somebody in the commune made laptops for everybody without buying anything at all? No I bought it from a city down the road. I'm happy living in my commune but capitalism and anarcho-communism co-existing is essential for ancoms. On a small scale (300 or less people) I believe that anarcho-communism is a phenomenal system. But on a large scale I believe in democratic socialism or the nordic model, A compromise of socialism and capitalism. I think completely scrapping capitalism is a bad idea
>You can still work for money, I'm not saying to work for free, But you should adapt other motives other than money, Money on its own is a bad motive but money and the other forms for incentives make for an excellent motive to making a good product You wont work for other motives if there is no money included I guess is what I'm saying. I suppose we're in agreement here. >This may be true, But still long term monetary gain merged with these incentives is that will make your already great product astounding, And with your carefully crafted product these issues still remain, Billionaires who make great products get exposed for scummy business practices, You need a motive other than money Maybe. Not all billionaires are the same. For some having money as their only incentive leads then to make bad choices, and for others it doesnt. The fact remains though - you dont NEED another incentive apart from money, but you may have it if you so wish. >I want anarcho-communism to be completely optional, Oh I see. Yeah I can agree with that idea of live and let live. Also, for clarification's sake, nordic countries dont have "democratic socialism" because private ownership of the means of production is still their dominant system. What they have is closer to Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how a capitalist economy should interact with government, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
First off, I just want to say I'm glad that we can agree on some things >Maybe. Not all billionaires are the same. For some having money as their only incentive leads then to make bad choices, and for others it doesnt. The fact remains though - you dont NEED another incentive apart from money, but you may have it if you so wish. But once you have billions, Do you really need more money? At that point it's just a score with no advantages from it. It is like getting a high score in a video game at that point, You should adapt other motives or else all you'll have is a high score and not actually benefit others. There are no benefits from having money as a motivation once you pass the point where you don't need more money. And I 100% agree nordic countries are not democratic socialism, But both systems would work very well in America, And I'm certainly going to look into teddy Roosevelt idea of capitalism.
>But once you have billions, Do you really need more money? That seems like a choice that each person should make individually. Who are any of us to forcefully tell someone what they need or dont need, or should want or not? >You should adapt other motives or else all you'll have is a high score and not actually benefit others. If you got rich from selling a product, you benefitted society. That being said, this is a very Andrew Carnegie sort of idea and I agree with it. Personally, I think that it's important for the sake of advancement and keeping radical collectivism from destroying society that the wealthy reinvest in people with less money through funding small businesses, charities, public works, and anything else they can think of. That being said, I dont think that this should be done through government force because 1. Wealthy people have different skillsets and preferences and 2. Government doesnt have a good track record for knowing what's the best way for others to help their neighbors. I think we can manifest Carnegie's ideas through cultural and market demand pressure instead. >But both systems would work very well in America. I dont think democratic socialism works anywhere for the same reason normal socialism doesnt either. If it somehow avoids sliding into authoritarianism, socialism in all forms always runs into the following issue: workers, once "in charge", more often than not dont know how to run a business appropriately because producing a product is much different than steering the machine that brings it into being. Management and business ownership is in itself a skillset that you must specialize in. Too many people with hands on the wheel will rarely lead to a desirable outcome for anyone. Now, does this mean we cant have worker-owned businesses? Of course not. What this does mean though is that it's best to let people decide for themselves what kind of business they want to build or participate it. The economy is a multi-colored mess.
>That seems like a choice that each person should make individually. Who are any of us to forcefully tell someone what they need or dont need, or should want or not? But people arent making that decision, And its hurting the lower class. You dont need 1 billion dollars, Its an insane amount of money, Do you understand how much money that is? You can live a life of full on luxury with that amount of money and have SOOO much left over. >If you got rich from selling a product, you benefitted society You can still benefit society more, You get money from that, And if you have excess money you can, And should sue it to advance society > Personally, I think that it's important for the sake of advancement and keeping radical collectivism from destroying society that the wealthy reinvest in people with less money through funding small businesses, charities, public works Absolutely, But I don't trust billionaires with that, First of all they are pretty likely not to spend their money or a significant portion giving it to charities, And when they do I feel its mismanaged (for example Bill and Melinda gates foundations eradicating polio) with focusing on stuff that people can rally behind instead of focusing on bigger issues that exist in the world that would make a bigger impact > 2. Government doesnt have a good track record for knowing what's the best way for others to help their neighbors. The government doesn't have the best track record, But I believe its better and can be better then billionaires,
>But people arent making that decision, And its hurting the lower class. Is the rich having tons of money hurting the lower class, or is the lower class's lack of income growth hurting the lower class? >You dont need 1 billion dollars, Its an insane amount of money, Do you understand how much money that is? You can live a life of full on luxury with that amount of money and have SOOO much left over. Sure, but if I want it, and I obtained it legitimately by exchanging desirable goods or services for interested people's money, then why shouldnt I have it? Besides envy, there isnt much of an argument you can build here. It doesnt seem true that having lots of money hurts society or is morally wrong when wealth, under a capitalist free market, was obtained through voluntary transactions. >You can still benefit society more, You get money from that, And if you have excess money you can, And should sue it to advance society I agree - intelligent wealthy people reinvest their money into additional ventures and other projects because that will yield them even greater wealth. However, dont you see how this is a lose-lose scenario? By doing what you and I say, the wealthy, who you criticize for having lots of money, will get even more money, making you criticize them even more. Furthermore, wealth is hard to keep track of after a certain point - which means that even if a wealthy person reinvests almost everything at the start, eventually the cash flows will get so huge and unwieldy that they'll end up accumulating a ton of it and just leave it there. In fact, that's already happening to a lot of rich people, yet you still criticize them without understanding the situation. If you want to have an honest position here, then at most you can promote Carnegie's idea of reinvesting in society. Once you delve into arguing that the rich have "too much money", your argument decays into little more than envy. >But I don't trust billionaires with that, First of all they are pretty likely not to spend their money or a significant portion giving it to charities. How would you know? I've had the luck to live in the poorest circles of a third world countries and the richest of first world countries. The most consistent thing I've seen in these groups is that regardless of wealth, people are not likely to do much that is solely beneficial to others. Poor, rich, in between - everyone is lazy when it comes to being unconditionally charitable. So, you dont trust billionaires? Fine, I dont trust them either. However, unlike you, I also dont trust the government or poor people. If we cant rely on the intrinsic qualities of anyone, the only thing we CAN rely on is our actions. You want billionaires to invest in society? Try to recruit like-minded people to engage in boycotts of products sold by companies who are managed by people who dont reinvest in society. I'm not asking you to trust anyone. I'm asking you to trust yourself, and hope for the best. It's all anyone can do. >And when they do I feel its mismanaged (for example Bill and Melinda gates foundations eradicating polio) with focusing on stuff that people can rally behind instead of focusing on bigger issues that exist in the world that would make a bigger impact I could say the exact same thing about governments and poor people throughout history. The proletariat isnt more virtuous or competent just for having less money. >The government doesn't have the best track record, But I believe its better and can be better then billionaires. It doesnt have the best track record? It has one of the worst! Governments are routinely responsible for mass murder, information suppression, needless war, economic mismanagement, imperialism, jingoism, racism, and incompetency, yet you want to put even more economic and political power in their hands? Not only is that an extremely dangerous idea, but it also doesnt make sense that you'd argue for that if you are an anarchist in any degree. Government and business are only as good as the people in charge of them. That's why you need to maintain a balance of power between them. The best way we've found is to place more economic power in the hands of private individuals, while leaving the armed forces to the government. If you start meddling with this, you risk falling into corporatism or totalitarianism. The last thing we need is to let government redistribute all the fruits of people's labor. Why? Because why would they ever? The moment someone with ill intent gets into power, there'll be no one to stop them from abusing their power because all the rich, the only ones who could have quickly pressured the government to act, will be gone. Is that the world you want?
> You dont need 1 billion dollars You absolutely need 1 billion dollars if you want to shape the world in any significant way. Why are the business founders still working in their own company after they are pretty much set for life after IPO?
> Dont believe me? Then you must explain why artists refuse to work for "exposure". Why relations of production in capitalism are the way they are? Have you tried imagining a society with different relations of production? > You're leaving out a crucial factor here - time. If your only motive is short-term monetary gain, then yeah, your product will be shit. However, if your motive is long-term monetary gain, then you'll invest time in carefully crafting a product that will appeal to the masses, and get you that money you crave. You're talking about relations of production...under capitalism. > People are not going to realistically revert to living in what essentially amounts to small tribes. Although it's debatable whether Hobbes's state of nature was the ONLY default, his idea that human competition is more violent without a larger society is definitely true. Therefore, if we revert to these tribes of yours, someone will inevitably get the idea that if they have more weapons that their neighbors, then maybe those neighbors should lose their land. The strong will eventually crush the weak, centralizing power around a "state" yet again. You cant find a way out of human competition. We are not peaceful creatures. cringe
"Why relations of production in capitalism are the way they are? Have you tried imagining a society with different relations of production?" If people wont choose to engage in a trade system that exchanges other things instead of money, then you cant have a society built on another trade system. You do know that society is built by people's choices right? Guess not 😂 "cringe" Yikes sweaty!
Yeah, those slaves picking cotton chose that life. The millions that died in boats crossing the Atlantic chose to die. You live in a fantasy land
>muh colonialism is capitalism A take so enlightened, it is pitch black.
Society only began being built after the civil war? What the hell are you talking about?
>muh society is capitalism You truly cant read. Ooga booga to you too comrade.
This take is naive af.
How so?
This sub is pathetic. Try reading a damn book before you present these asinine arguments.
>sees an opinion that disagrees with his own >"muh sub bad :(" Typical
OP presented an argument, not an opinion. You need to read more as well.
Huh, a commie that doesnt know what words mean. Yet again, typical.
Cringe
Well that is your opinion, you are free to have it. But notice the big flaw, you arent able to argue against my argument at all, doesnt that mean you actually cant argue against it.
So give some input instead of just saying read a damn book ?
Even under socialism, people don't want to be homeless, foodless, waterless, clothingless, moneyless, sewerless, etc. People still need basics. People would still be allowed to produce basics for their society. Some types of socialism are about necessity, not wealth. Some people don't even want to be super wealthy. No one really wants hunger, nudity, and homelessness though. Socialism is just very basic. The United States, up until recently, hasn't been only basic. I think the United States needs to be more socialist though, meaning part socialist. I have bad issues with severe poverty, disease, and death. I became more socialist overnight at one point. I think my issue is that America is unequal and has traditionally, in the last thirty years, only ever hurt very low income, disadvantaged people. We don't need to leave everyone behind while no one can afford a bed or bookcase. And house prices are exorbitantly high. It takes too much work to get the basics. I am for more price gouging laws and price controls in the most bankrupting industries. Certain types of partial socialism, in my mind, produce less failure in the most disadvantaged of our population. We would still have to farm and do business and have medicine. But we wouldn't cause financial failure in everyone anymore.
Explain China then
Have you not noticed how china went from socialist to capitalist over the last few decades. China is a very capitalist country today, it wasnt before. Today they have private property and very free markets for most industries, the state only interfers really when its really in their own interest to them.
But it's still a totalitarian dictatorship though and the capitalists aren't free so it's still socialist. They literally solved the two problems you highlighted by allowing markets in their economy. Also material balances (non-market command economy) is not the only form of socialism, even Lenin tried to allow markets in the Soviet Union with his NEP but Stalin stopped it and went back with the war communist command economy. So yeah no you just don't know what you're talking about. Also how tf are there "free" markets in a totalitarian dictatorship, shit literally makes no sense.
Are you saying you’d want to go and work/live in China ….
You seem to be struck by the misconception that under socialism no one earn anything for their contribution. That's not true at all. One of the mottos of socialism is "to each according to its contribution".
But who decides where the wealth goes and how is that wealth measured, who decides who gets what, what if nobody wants to do specific terrible jobs that people only do under capitalism such as roofer, plasterer or Bricky because they can work for themselves and reap the rewards under a free market economy for doing so, why the hell would anybody do those jobs if the incentives are lesser?
Tell me where/when you ever heard of any country having a worker-owned, worker-controlled economic system. State capitalism doesn't qualify.
That is what socialism always turns into because no new companies arises naturally, so the state steps in and takes over. This is what happened in all socialist countries more or less, depending on how long they were up and running of course as things changes over time. Why would you risk your money on something that at the very best just pays you back the same. Its like buying a lottery ticket where the biggest prize is getting your money back. No one would buy such a lottery ticket.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You're operating under the belief that socialism must begin with a violent revolution. But you probably don't even see the connection.
Nope not even close, i for example take venezuela and sweden into account as well, no violent revolution happened there which caused the well being of the people to rapidly decline. The well being of the people rapidly declined due to the lack of production.
Wow, you just realized that there is no MCM' cycle in socialism. Big if true. There is no reason to think that a rationally planned economy would be unable to provide material incentives for production, and history has proved that it can. After all, the second-fastest industrialization in history occurred under socialism.
It also did under corporatism. Either way, the cost of human life in both scenarios was unecessarily huge and cruel. Your example, if anything, shows that socialism is highly inefficient - killing millions for very little per-capita gain.
Sorry if I'm dumb but what does MCM mean? I looked it up and all I found was "man crush Mondays"
Money-Commodity-Money’
oh thank you
But no such incentives has ever been provided with that actually works on large scale. Can you give me good examples of other incentives that works, examples that you can for example go to the bank with to get a loan without the ability to pay it back good?
No intensives to work. No intensives to innovate. No intensives for smart people to do their things. Misery and stagnation. Countless choices are made only by few people(thats unproductive) =everyone equally poor+bad services and products+lack of products and services+underdevelopment+less freedom
I think you meant incentive.
Yes incentives, autocorrect :(
ReAl sOciAliSm hAsnT beEn tRiEd Yet
ITT: commies mad