That’s so we can kill as many people as effectively as possible.
Serious answer all revolutions limited to a single region or country collapse into reactionary autoritarianism because you can’t build a post capitalist country surrounded by capitalist countries without experiencing some imperialism.
Markets incentivize and reward selfish behavior. A different system would incentivize different behaviors.
I swear, it’s like we’re stuck in the 20th century when it comes to this. Think about it like designing a multiplayer game. Throw a thousand people in a RUST server, they’ll behave one way. Throw that same thousand into Deep Rock Galactic, they behave completely differently.
I mean, I feel like you are weirdly close to my view. Incentives matter.
I’m not sure why you think that markets are inherently bad, though, or what incentive structure you think would be a better alternative.
Personally, my view is that markets are a naturally occurring phenomenon in any sufficiently large and complex human society, and if we try to design a society without them, we will simply create bad outcomes, like the rise of a wealthy and powerful criminal class.
My view is that, absent a better (and importantly, proven) structure, the best structure we have yet developed integrates markets into society in a pro-social manner. We allow legal markets, but create rules and guardrails to align incentives, so that the individual’s work benefits both themselves and society as a whole.
An analogy I like is that of a river. A completely unregulated river will ebb and flow, often help water your crops, and sometimes overflow its banks and flood your home. If you try to completely remove the river, it will not disappear - it will simply build up and overflow, causing greater floods, and depriving everyone of water. If you create a huge dam and completely control water flow, then the water will flow very consistently and you can avoid floods, but you will disrupt local water ecology, lose a lot of water to evaporation, and risk an enourmous calamity if the damn ever fails. A large dam might be the correct solution some of the time, but typically the best solution is to let the river flow mostly freely, while building small dams for water reservoirs and power generation and levees near population centers to protect against flooding. It is not just necessary but beneficial to let the river flow, but we must also protect society from its excesses.
So, too, with markets. They are going to happen, and they provide a lot of benefits to a lot of people. But the people and the government must be protected from its excesses. We can allow people to build and own a taco truck or a cement factory or a software product and make money on it, but we can create protections, incentives, and regulations so they don’t sell us toxic food, exploit workers, or buy elections and control politicians.
I was using “markets” interchangeably with “capital”. I do agree with what you, I don’t think you can escape markets as a social phenomenon, and at the same time they (and the capitalists they work through) cannot be allowed to decide our political future. Our current setup is tantamount to ductaping the lever down on a lawnmower, and declaring that the “wisdom of the engine” knows what needs trimming.
Communism relies too much on people being decent, hard working and intelligent so it’d never work out.
Hey look, its SatansMaggotyCumFart. The most decent of us all
Why do you think socialism relies on people being that?
People say this but I have never seen a coherent answer to when or why things fall apart because of this.
Here are 5 Stalin Bucks for your contribution to the discussion.
That’s just capitalism with state control
It’s social democratic communism.
That’s some tasty word salad!
thats just china
It’s the USSR too
And capitalism relies too much on people being selfish, lazy and stupid sooooo… It’s working?
working as intended
When you think communism is people bring nice to each other.
Is that why communist states have an authoritarian leader?
To keep the commies in line?
communist state is like triangular circle
Careful, that kind of talk gets you banned on .ml
Imagine that - a bullet that dodges you!
Sure, but before you get to communism there’s socialism, which has a worker state.
There is no true communism present in the world.
Calling something “communist” doesn’t make it so.
Hitler called his party “socialist”. It was not.
We call our country a democracy.
It’s an oligarchy.
True capitalism hasn’t been attempted either.
We are living in capitalism.
The world is capitalism.
Not true capitalism.
End stage capitalism.
This is the result of the market “regulating itself”.
But I suppose if anti monopoly laws were actually enforced than capitalism wouldn’t be this shitty. Still shitty though.
However it’s impossible for that to happen.
When profits drive every choice of politicians and business owners, this result is inevitable.
We aren’t even mid stage capitalism yet but with government regulations it’s not regulating itself obviously.
I mean we’re getting closer day by day
That’s so we can kill as many people as effectively as possible.
Serious answer all revolutions limited to a single region or country collapse into reactionary autoritarianism because you can’t build a post capitalist country surrounded by capitalist countries without experiencing some imperialism.
Aren’t you worried that the earth will collapse into reactionary autoritarianism being surrounded by capitalist planets as it is?
I agree with the cum fart (Seriously).
Markets incentivize and reward selfish behavior. A different system would incentivize different behaviors.
I swear, it’s like we’re stuck in the 20th century when it comes to this. Think about it like designing a multiplayer game. Throw a thousand people in a RUST server, they’ll behave one way. Throw that same thousand into Deep Rock Galactic, they behave completely differently.
I mean, I feel like you are weirdly close to my view. Incentives matter.
I’m not sure why you think that markets are inherently bad, though, or what incentive structure you think would be a better alternative.
Personally, my view is that markets are a naturally occurring phenomenon in any sufficiently large and complex human society, and if we try to design a society without them, we will simply create bad outcomes, like the rise of a wealthy and powerful criminal class.
My view is that, absent a better (and importantly, proven) structure, the best structure we have yet developed integrates markets into society in a pro-social manner. We allow legal markets, but create rules and guardrails to align incentives, so that the individual’s work benefits both themselves and society as a whole.
An analogy I like is that of a river. A completely unregulated river will ebb and flow, often help water your crops, and sometimes overflow its banks and flood your home. If you try to completely remove the river, it will not disappear - it will simply build up and overflow, causing greater floods, and depriving everyone of water. If you create a huge dam and completely control water flow, then the water will flow very consistently and you can avoid floods, but you will disrupt local water ecology, lose a lot of water to evaporation, and risk an enourmous calamity if the damn ever fails. A large dam might be the correct solution some of the time, but typically the best solution is to let the river flow mostly freely, while building small dams for water reservoirs and power generation and levees near population centers to protect against flooding. It is not just necessary but beneficial to let the river flow, but we must also protect society from its excesses.
So, too, with markets. They are going to happen, and they provide a lot of benefits to a lot of people. But the people and the government must be protected from its excesses. We can allow people to build and own a taco truck or a cement factory or a software product and make money on it, but we can create protections, incentives, and regulations so they don’t sell us toxic food, exploit workers, or buy elections and control politicians.
I was using “markets” interchangeably with “capital”. I do agree with what you, I don’t think you can escape markets as a social phenomenon, and at the same time they (and the capitalists they work through) cannot be allowed to decide our political future. Our current setup is tantamount to ductaping the lever down on a lawnmower, and declaring that the “wisdom of the engine” knows what needs trimming.
Capitalism relies on money, if you have enough its OK not being decent, lazy and a dumb fuck.
We’re onto something here…
What a bright young lad you are! Can you show me on your fingers how many years old you are?