If you want communism, you can start a commune
If you want communism, you can start a commune
I see this way too often here on Lemmy, so I want to post this. Starting a commune is legal in most countries. If you believe in communism, you can found a commune and show us all how great it is.
You lack money? Well, that is literally what stock markets and venture capitalists (capitalism) are created to solve. If you are ready for an IPO, you can sell shares to raise funds. If you are not, you can get Venture Capital in exchange for shares until you are ready for an IPO.
Getting rid of capitalism means you need to find a different way to obtain funding for new ventures. And if your system relies on government charity (some government board handing you money) or taking resources violently, than your system sucks.
Edit: I don't mean that this is a replacement for full communist system. I mean this as a way to get some of the advantages while showing sceptics (like me) it can work and is better. A first step.
You're viewing part of a thread.
anticompetitive and anti labor practices are fundamental to capitalism - you can regulate them all you want, companies will always find ways around it. wage theft (overtime violations, unpaid or underpaid wages, off the clock violations, etc) significantly outweigh all other forms of theft (larceny, robbery, vehicle theft, etc) combined.
in addition, something like planned obsolescence (companies intentionally making their products less long-lived so you have to buy more of them) cannot be completely prevented with regulation, since companies can always choose not to make their product better in a particular way, or no better than the absolute minimum requirement.
profit measures value extracted, not value generated. providing a service to people (postal service, healthcare) produces a measurable amount of value which is not directly profit. you can always increase profit by paying workers less and charging more for your product, and these both get more effective the more you have cornered the market. a high amount of profit tends to mean a huge amount of money being extracted from communities and working individuals.
capitalism is competitive, and competitions have winners. you can make all the regulations you want, but even when everyone "plays fair" someone will eventually emerge on top.
competition is massively inefficient; you have no incentive to share anything, so huge amounts of redundant research and work gets done without public benefit. I see collaboration as the far greater social force, since it prevents us from undermining each other. an economy which is based on and rewards collaboration rather than competition would be better able to provide for everyone's needs and ensure nobody is left behind.
anticompetitive and anti labor practices are fundamental to capitalism - you can regulate them all you want, companies will always find ways around it. wage theft (overtime violations, unpaid or underpaid wages, off the clock violations, etc) significantly outweigh all other forms of theft (larceny, robbery, vehicle theft, etc) combined.
In my experience, these anti labor practices are almost not a thing where I live. Seems regulation works in this regard.
in addition, something like planned obsolescence (companies intentionally making their products less long-lived so you have to buy more of them) cannot be completely prevented with regulation, since companies can always choose not to make their product better in a particular way, or no better than the absolute minimum requirement
Funnily enough, the corp I work for is quite obsessed with making products last longer. How is that possible? Simple. We provide service contracts together with purchases, so customers pay monthly service fee and we have to keep the products functional. So it saves us money (and increases profit) to make repair costs low. You just need to think a bit outside the box.
profit measures value extracted, not value generated. providing a service to people (postal service, healthcare) produces a measurable amount of value which is not directly profit. you can always increase profit by paying workers less and charging more for your product,
Profit is a function of the value created vs resources consumed to produce the value. As long as there are worker protections legislated, that is just efficiency.
and these both get more effective the more you have cornered the market.
Yes, monopolies are bad.
a high amount of profit tends to mean a huge amount of money being extracted from communities and working individuals
Sure. But unless you are talking about a monopoly, unusually high profits leave room for competition to sell the goods cheaper. So outside of monopolies, the profit you can extract is limited. And making goods cheaper is the same as increasing wages, it benefits the public.
capitalism is competitive, and competitions have winners. you can make all the regulations you want, but even when everyone "plays fair" someone will eventually emerge on top
What are you even talking about? Yes, the most efficient companies emerge on top which is exactly what we want.
competition is massively inefficient; you have no incentive to share anything, so huge amounts of redundant research and work gets done without public benefit.
That is true.
an economy which is based on and rewards collaboration rather than competition would be better able to provide for everyone's needs and ensure nobody is left behind.
The issue is building such an economy. Most people will always pursue their selfish gains. Capitalism channels this by making "creating valuable things we can sell to people for minimal cost" result in large profits. Where the selfishness would show up in a cooperation based system you describe would be much more difficult to predict since it depends on the details of your system. But the results are likely to be worse exactly because it is hard to predict and therefore regulate or otherwise deal with.
I mean, the most obvious question is, without competition, what drives companies to be efficient?
as always, this boils down to mistrust of your fellow man. capitalism makes us more selfish, it rewards greed, that is what it incentivizes and so of course people act greedier. people want to help each other, they want to make the world a better place to live, and nobody should be forced to work how someone else says they should with no say in it. without competition, people have to pick up the slack with altruism and actual passion and care. if we reward collaboration, if we incentivize kindness and caring and actual benefit, those are the things we will see more of. as it stands, we subsidize everything that is killing us.
the goal of an economy is not to produce endlessly, as much as possible. capitalism is extremely growth oriented. that's about all it's good for: rapid growth, at the expense of equity and workers' autonomy. we no longer need this growth and competition; we need to downscale and produce less. the goal of an economy should be to provide what people need, as seamlessly as possible.
everything you're saying speaks to a lack of understanding of the world around us. I think you can describe this "ideal" form of capitalism, but it's nothing like what we actually see in the real world. companies are extremely exploitative, they do ignore or lobby against regulations as much as possible, they exploit workers as much as they can get away with.
the fundamental problem is that ethics are not profitable. ethics are a luxury, and you can always find a way to cut costs if you're willing to be unethical. an economy is not a machine to squeeze optimum efficiency out of, it is made of people with thoughts and feelings and ambitions, and all of its externalities come back to these same people.
if we want to have an ethical society, ruthless pursuit of efficiency is about the worst possible way to get there, but it is the ultimate goal of capitalism. this efficiency is not for us, though; it is efficiency of accruing as much wealth (and thereby power) as possible.
I don't believe any strict power hierarchy (like the employer-employee relationship or the parent-child relationship) can ever be fully ethical. we may sometimes deem them necessary, but I think we really need to think twice about making someone subject to another person's will. workers in a corporation have no say at all in how their workplace is run, what their duties are, or how they carry them out. for eight or more hours per day, people do not control their own decisions, and I think this is the most egregious effect of capitalism.
this is again going to come down to lack of faith in human nature. I believe that people are fundamentally good, that they care about the world around them and want to improve it for themselves and the people they love. they can sometimes be selfish, but they are far more giving than we ever give them credit for. there is immense trauma throughout the world from war and abuse, but there is even greater capacity for kindness. it's easy to believe that people are fundamentally cruel when the world around us is cruel, but the average person has no say in how it operates; this system of incentives rewards whoever is most willing to act immorally to undercut their competitors, essentially guaranteeing that the least ethical individuals end up in charge of everything. you can see this in the leadership of virtually every major corporation.
I believe the average person is far more hardworking, caring, loving, and kind than the people who run our economy, and if all of us collaborated and organized together, we could be far more efficient and beneficial to one another than our current system allows. the more we do this, the easier it becomes to be kind. after all, we know that the leading causes of crime and abuse are all situational. we will need unprecedented solidarity, and only by uplifting everyone out of poverty can we get there.
the goal of an economy is not to produce endlessly, as much as possible. capitalism is extremely growth oriented. that's about all it's good for: rapid growth, at the expense of equity and workers' autonomy. we no longer need this growth and competition; we need to downscale and produce less. the goal of an economy should be to provide what people need, as seamlessly as possible.
The current GDP per capita is about $1,050 a month. That is before taxes, capital investment and amortization. If you believe we don't need growth, that is what you should strive to live off of since that is your fair share.
as always, this boils down to mistrust of your fellow man
For a good reason:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/23/doctors-abortion-medical-exemptions-00153317
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/world/middleeast/iran-rapper-toomaj-salehi-death-sentence.html
None of the above are related to Greed. Just needless cruelty.
this system of incentives rewards whoever is most willing to act immorally to undercut their competitors, essentially guaranteeing that the least ethical individuals end up in charge of everything.
This happens in any political system: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
So tell me. Will you donate everything you earn above $1,050 to charity since it is above your fair share? If not, clearly people can't be trusted to just cooperate fairly of their own free will.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rStL7niR7gs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
now you're just putting words in my mouth. when did I ever say everyone has to give everything they have over "the average" away? it's true we should strive for more equality, and I would be happy to pay a larger share to taxes for the public good rather than warfare, but you're really not making good faith arguments anymore.
if your faith in humanity is determined entirely by the people in charge, then you're going to have no faith at all. so you've missed my point. these are not carried out by "the average person". democracy can lead to less cruelty. it is not perfect, but it also helps if the population is not heavily propagandized and is well educated.
I'm going to stop replying after this because I feel that you're not addressing the points I'm making anymore.
You are literally saying we don't need bosses to tell us what to do and don't need competition. That we can cooperate in good faith. Yet you think taking more than your fair share is not an issue for such a system?
You are either delusional or you are trolling.
Taking more than your fair share (average) is by definition competing.
Also, I specifically picked events that are not mainly driven by the leaders but by the populace.