🇳🇱
@freemo
Which Communism are you talking about? The one where everybody shares everything or the one where there's a dictator making them share nothing?
Maybe, but if communism converges to these two cases with the same result, it seems to be from the same error in thinking.
The root error comes from the assumption people will cooperate with the principle willingly. Once you assume most people will exploit any system for personal gain when they can it becomes evident communism is not a workable system without a totalitarian government. Even then people will generally do the bare minimum so you get poverty.
Capitalism exploits the inherent selfishness of individuals for the greater good of society.
@freemo
I wondered if that was the angle. It is an unfortunate but realistic view.
While not probable I still hold out that there is a possibility, however minuscule, that we can break that cycle.
Oh we absolutely can, but that is just capitalism with compassion at that point. It isnt communism if people do it willingly rather than a totalitarian government.
We have it in capitalism all the tine, its called a commune.
@freemo
I had a long reply but I realized it was this..
John Lennon: Imagine
Right but what im sayi g is,john lenon was describing capitalism, a capitalism filled with altruistic people.
@freemo
Altruistic Capitalism seems to be an oxymoron.. but I suppose that's the point. That it can't exist. That we are in fact doomed and destined to deal with the greed of humanity... Which is another unfortunate but realistic view.
@avlcharlie How is it a oxymoron. All capitalism is is any system which includes free market trade, that is, trade in which natural supply-demand pressures dominate the markets pricing.
Nothing about that implies greed or altruism, it only implies everyone is trying to maximize their own fitness function (get the most utility for their resources). Its about effiency not greed.
All capitalism is is any system which includes free market trade
That’s just incorrect. Capitalism is about the model of ownership, not markets, being able to privately own means of production to be precise. You could have a system in which the only allowed form of ownership of means of production would essentially be a worker cooperative, but these cooperatives sell stuff within a market economy. This would be a form of market socialism, not capitalism.
Just to be clear, I’m not a market socialist myself. Nor do I agree with the premise of this thread, but I’m not in the mood of arguing about that, just correcting a common misconception. Especially since it’s an especially pervasive part of capitalist propaganda – you don’t actually need coercion to have markets, while you need coercion to enforce private ownership, so associating capitalism with the former makes it seem freer than it is.
A market is never free if there isnt private ow ership. So while you are rigbt that private ownership is a required element of the definition it is also redundant. Market socialism is explicitly not a free market.
@freemo @avlcharlie You were talking about capitalism, not just free markets. And I was talking about private ownership of means of production, not ownership in general. In particular, your argument was around the optimizing power of markets (“supply-demand pressures”), which do not require private ownership of means of production to work. It’s a bait-and-switch, which is why I referred to it as capitalist propaganda.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think you mean (even though the post would kinda imply it) that free markets require the ability to own anything, right?
Almost. I am talking free market, and supply demand pressures. Supply and demmand pressures are not free without private ownership (at all levels). The moment you exclude any group from any form of private ownership you no longer have a free market and no longer have free supply-demand pressures.
Supply and demand exclusive to a privilaged group (worker cooperatives in this case) is not a free market with free supply demand pressures, it is a market that has, at least partly, fixed aspects of the market.
@freemo @avlcharlie It’s not really restricting it to a group of people, but rather to a form of ownership. Not all forms of ownership are permitted or respected under capitalism either, at least not consistently, except for private ownership of capital.
Could you be more precise what you want out of these market pressures? That is, what market pressure is in your opinion missing or not working in a system in which worker cooperatives are the only way of owning means of production? Because if you want enterprises thriving and falling due to them (the main benefit of a market economy, although I have to again stress that I personally do not think it’s worth the trouble), then this works with worker cooperatives. The only market pressure I can think of that is not present is valuing the company itself, but then the argument comes back to private ownership, because only under that assumption this question even makes sense, so the argument becomes circular
If you define free markets as only systems where you can privately own anything then that’s kinda beyond capitalism – under modern versions of capitalism you cannot privately own e.g. people or the right to use violence. If you define them as systems where specifically means of production have to be privately ownable, then I can agree they are equivalent to capitalism, but then talking about the benefits of free markets is a bait-and-switch.
If you are saying "only the people who work for this entity can own it" then you are restricting the market for the ownership and thus there is not a free market for the ownership of that resource.
What is wanted is to ensure whoever can bring the best utility to a resource ultimately gets access to that resource. You can only do that when those allowed to own the resource can be anyone, otherwise you are not allowing the best of the best.
Sure you can have a single person cooperative, but one cooperative cant own another, so there is no free market regarding the ownership over the resources.
@freemo @avlcharlie Well, if one person also cannot own another do we also not have a free market regarding the ownership of resources, and thus real capitalism requires literal slavery?
Or, to be less socratic and more precise about the argument, in the market worker cooperative system all resources (tools, raw materials, outputs) can still be traded between worker cooperatives. The only “resource” that is not tradeable is ownership over the enterprise itself, and if you want to make a case for why this is bad you would have to go beyond “markets allocate resources efficiently” and into why this specific thing should be treated as a tradeable resource (like e.g. people shouldn’t be, which is why the previous paragraph). That is, you have to argue for private ownership of means of production being important into itself, which is why I’m saying this, and not markets, is crucial for capitalism. (I’m not saying at this point there are no arguments you can make for that, just that this is a different thing than just arguing for markets.)
If one person owns another you are taking away that persons free will, and thus taking away free market (afterall free there is short for freewill). Since companies do not have a will of their own like people do it is a false equivelance.
@freemo @avlcharlie There is no reason why anyone couldn’t start a worker cooperative (perhaps a single-person one, if they are able to work by themselves) under that system, so I don’t think this objection quite works.
The one thing you don’t have is people who already have a lot of resources coming in and taking over a company to redirect its efforts, but then you are no longer making an argument in favour of markets, but in favour of exactly private ownership of capital, and how that is good directly (with many underlying assumptions, from the supposed meritocracy of capitalism, to the assumption that the best way of making money from an enterprise is to run it as well as possible). This does not require markets in general, but only the ability to buy an enterprise (not even necessarily at a market). As to how well it works in practice – see Twitter, Toys’R’Us, and the general problems stemming from private equity firms. But maybe I’m getting distracted, I’m mostly trying to point out that capitalism is mostly about this form of ownership and not about markets in general (which, while I don’t trust them, are much more defensible as a system imo).