Capitalism is destroying us.

[coins4commies]

Those are great questions and I applaud you for asking the most appropriate questions related to socialism I have ever seen on this site.

...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it.  Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian,  it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.  
...

You are for it because you don't understand it.

If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it.

Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions.  When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you.  This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight.

Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system.

Be careful what you wish for.

Where did you get the idea that socialists want to equalize outcomes?  Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted.  Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point.  I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model.  

People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies.  

You are even not sure about what you really want.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"

If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome?

Collective ownership does not mean equal salary and your share of the wealth would likely depend on your share of the work.  There is no specifically prescribed way that this would be done, as workers would vote on it democratically, but most cooperatives have rules and penalties in place for showing up to work.  Keep in mind the entire purpose it to give the wealth to the people who produced it and not some lazy person who isn't even there.  That is how we feel about capitalism.

Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas.

Guess what?  It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow.  If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice.  Check out Venezuela, or Cuba.

You really have not thought it through.

There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons.

You still end up with more educated people accumulating more wealth

In a democracy decisions are made upwards.  The government is not dictating downwards how company decisions must be made.  Its hard for our minds to grasp how true democracy works because we have only seen governments where decisions made at the top are enforced downwards.  

Perhaps there are still socialists who want to confiscate wealth but that is a very fringe type of socialist.  We simply want to make sure no new wealth is confiscated.  

 

You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system?  How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines?

Giving everyone their fair say and fair share doesn't mean talented people cannot be rewarded more for their work.  

Worker cooperatives already exist and some are very successful.  Most cooperatives vote on a salary structure and many have rules where the person at the top can only make x times the person at the bottom.  They all vote on x and they vote in the interest of making the company function because if they vote in a way that runs away the rare talent, then their own job will not be sustainable.  

Any system in place for penalizing lazy workers in a capitalist company could still be implemented in a cooperative.   The difference is that they have democratically agreed to these systems.  Again,  people don't want to work while lazy people next to them benefit, so they wouldn't vote on measures to structure the company that way.  

Large cooperatives vote on board members but always have the ability to call a vote to replace them or overrule an unpopular decision.  Cooperatives that make "bad" decisions will end up with less money to share while more successful cooperatives that make "good" decisions will be the ones that attract and reward talent, make more money, and end up with more wealth to share.  

Entrepreneurs who do not have people working under them would not be affected at all as they are the "workers" and already own the means of production.  

Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)?  Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals?  If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it.  No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system.  Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them.

If someone knows of an obvious inefficiency or fault in a company, then they will bring it up at a stakeholder meeting, propose what they are recommending, and people would vote on the change because at the end of the day, they have vested interest in the success of the company they work for and own.  Any company that offered highly skilled professionals minimum wage, would not have any highly skilled professionals and would not have a company.  

If one cooperative fails, it doesn't mean the entire system fails just like if I open a business and that business fails, the economy doesn't crash.  The important thing about a bottom up democratic system is that the largest level of decision making is done at the local community level.  It seems you are thinking about the entire economy running as one cooperative instead of thousands of small ones.

I don't like the doctor example because healthcare is a controversial sector, but lets say its any other sector because your point still stands.  If a brilliant engineer has his own ideas, he could propose them to other cooperatives, become a consultant, or start his own company with these core ideas.   Workers woul flock to join his cooperative and invest their labor because of his great ideas.  

Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership?

What we mean by social ownership is that ownership of the means of production is never attached to one person.   The key is to distinguish between personal property and private property.  Each person has thier personal property.  Their home and belongings but no ownership over the personal property of others.  You cannot have a large factory or apartment building owned by a single person.

For cooperative companies, the workers of the company all own the company together.  Ownership and decision making is only made by the people affected by the actions of the company.  No external shareholders.   This means no one person should own another person nor should they own another person's personal property which is required to live (labor, home, etc) .

Workers invest their labor by working

Workers will be deciding what the input costs are?  Are you nuts?

Production costs, as well as the prices of products, should be driven by the free market.  Any artificial tinkering with the economic forces only leads to more chaos down the road.  Your cooperatives will have to synch prices with other companies etc.  This eventually leads to central planning.  And we all know how this ends.

Cooperative prices are still driven by the market.  Executives decide on salaries and base those decisions on market analysis.  All of those processes still exist in a cooperatives, its just that the decisions are made via democracy (or elected peer executives beholden to the workers) instead of dictatorship.  How does this lead to central planning?  

You need to have private ownership, otherwise, all smart people will pack and leave your little experiment.  And you will end up with morons who will run your factories to the ground.

There are plenty of very successful worker cooperatives that not only have not been run to the ground, but lead their industry.  I've been fascinated with Mondragon in Spain.   Why would smart people leave because there is no external ownership?  As you stated, any moron can own a captalist company with no knowledge of how the company functions.  How is that better for the smart people in the company?

I would not want to live in a society where I cannot own multiple properties, own shares in companies, and accumulate wealth.

Are you going to eliminate personal collections or say 50+ sports cars, or expensive art pieces?  

Why would we limit what people can buy?  People can buy whatever they want.  

In the capitalist system, anyone can own Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Amazon or Apple.  In your system, you will only own a share of the company where you work.  How would this make you rich or financially independent?  You will always depend on the other schmucks that own your company.  

You are paid more because there is no profit being extracted from your work.  If you don't like your company, you go to a company with more motivated workers and make more money.  The thing is, when people work for their own company, they tend to work harder than they would when working for the man.  What you can't do is earn a fortune off of other peoples' work without working at all.

 If your goal is to earn "passive income" or become rich through something other than work, then no, this system is not for you and you will be absolutely miserable.  

Do you even have a basic financial education?

In your socialist system, financial mobility would not be possible.  It would be more like a feudal system where workers will be chained to their workplaces.  I don't even know how would this work.  You are born, you go to school, you graduate, you are given a share in a company and a job that goes with it and work there for the rest of your life?

Nothing about this says you have to work for one company for your entire life.  Also, nothing is stopping you from moving up in your company.  Nothing is stopping your company from doing something great and making you a fortune .  The only difference is that you have to work to be part of the rewards and not working disqualifies you from the rewards.  We're talking about a system that incentivizes work.

In the capitalist system, you have the freedom.  You can invest your hard earned money or spend it on useless gadgets.  You can change jobs, you can ask for more money, you can start companies, invent new products etc.  

Nothing about the system I have described would stop you from doing any of this.

You do not understand how the capitalist system works.  I am guessing you have never attended a shareholder's meeting.

You just want the free stuff, but in the end, you will keep the system operating the way it is operating today, i.e. owners decide what is best for the company.

You just want to change the ownership.  From rich to poor.

I am telling you that there is a reason why most poor people are poor and why most rich people are rich.  You want to re-distribute the wealth with a stroke of the pen ignoring the underlying root causes.

BTW, how do you become the owner in multiple companies in your socialist system, i.e. how do you move from company to company?  Buy shares?  I thought you are against private ownership?

I don't get the system you are describing, and I think you do not get it either.  Do you want to start co-operatives?  Go ahead, who is stopping you.  But don't force others to subscribe to your ill-devised business plans.

I am trying to change ownership from rich to workers, not necessarily to the poor.  The working class should have never been poor to begin with.  Capitalism is the root cause of a poor working class.  

You could own multiple companies by working for multiple companies.  Your share of ownership is based on your share of the work.  If you leave a company or stop working, you no longer own that company.  When you are hired and start working, you own shares of the company based on the proportion of work you have done. There cannot be a mandated way for this to happen and each cooperative decides on the bylaws democratically.  

The point is that ownership is connected to labor and it extends from the idea that people are not free if their labor productivity belongs to someone else.  

I don't get the system you are describing, and I think you do not get it either.  Do you want to start co-operatives?  Go ahead, who is stopping you.  But don't force others to subscribe to your ill-devised business plans.

Yes I want people to be able to start cooperatives but is very difficult for many reasons.  I want tax reform and programs like the Marcora laws that were successfully used in Italy to level the playing field for cooperatives to begin.  There are already cooperatives everywhere but other than Emilia-Romagna (30% of their GDP), where these laws were implemented, its just unlikely workers in a sector will find each other and the funds at the opportune time.  They usually only start because of charity or collectively wealthy workers.  

The mondragon cooperative was only able to begin because the local leader of the catholic church realized his parishioners were being oppressed by capitalism and the church put in the seed money to get it up and running.  

Legally, worker cooperatives are a pain in the ass for disputes/taxes and most of the working class has no idea they are even an option.  People generally want to own their own company but just don't think its possible.  I want people to have the choice. I haven't said anything about forcing anything on anyone.  If people choose to vote for a dictator to run the company because that person is very smart fine.  If they choose to pay that person 3,000 times more than them then that is fine too.  Its just about democracy.

The root cause is not the capitalist system.  The root cause the workers are poor are the workers.

In the capitalist system, you can move up on the social ladder.  

In the socialist system, there is no ladder to climb so everyone is poor.

Like I said before, understand both systems before you propose a ridiculous plan to make everyone poor.

There is an economic ladder that you can move up.  Within a cooperative, you can move into a higher paying job or can be elected to the board that runs the cooperative.  Cooperatives often use their extra money to provide education and training in house. 

Where is your understanding of worker cooperatives coming from to claim I do not understand them?  Have you found a cooperative the functions the way you describe?  Its definitely *possible* since anything workers decide is possible under democracy but I have never seen a worker cooperative where everyone is paid exactly the same.  The same job with the same experience will probably give the same pay but thats about it.

The only poor people in this system are people who do not work. 


According to economic theory, wages and productivity should be increasing together, but they aren't because locusts are sucking out the gap between the two lines on the graphs.  This gap is why workers have become increasingly poor.  Workers only doubled their productivity over that time.  So tell me, what did workers do to make themselves poor while doubling their productivity. 

[1715018195]

1715018195

[1715018195]

1715018195

[1715018195]

1715018195

[1715018195]

1715018195

[1715018195]

1715018195

[1715018195]

1715018195

[af_newbie]

Those are great questions and I applaud you for asking the most appropriate questions related to socialism I have ever seen on this site.

...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it.  Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian,  it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.  
...

You are for it because you don't understand it.

If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it.

Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions.  When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you.  This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight.

Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system.

Be careful what you wish for.

Where did you get the idea that socialists want to equalize outcomes?  Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted.  Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point.  I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model.  

People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies.  

You are even not sure about what you really want.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"

If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome?

Collective ownership does not mean equal salary and your share of the wealth would likely depend on your share of the work.  There is no specifically prescribed way that this would be done, as workers would vote on it democratically, but most cooperatives have rules and penalties in place for showing up to work.  Keep in mind the entire purpose it to give the wealth to the people who produced it and not some lazy person who isn't even there.  That is how we feel about capitalism.

Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas.

Guess what?  It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow.  If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice.  Check out Venezuela, or Cuba.

You really have not thought it through.

There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons.

You still end up with more educated people accumulating more wealth

In a democracy decisions are made upwards.  The government is not dictating downwards how company decisions must be made.  Its hard for our minds to grasp how true democracy works because we have only seen governments where decisions made at the top are enforced downwards.  

Perhaps there are still socialists who want to confiscate wealth but that is a very fringe type of socialist.  We simply want to make sure no new wealth is confiscated.  

 

You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system?  How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines?

Giving everyone their fair say and fair share doesn't mean talented people cannot be rewarded more for their work.  

Worker cooperatives already exist and some are very successful.  Most cooperatives vote on a salary structure and many have rules where the person at the top can only make x times the person at the bottom.  They all vote on x and they vote in the interest of making the company function because if they vote in a way that runs away the rare talent, then their own job will not be sustainable.  

Any system in place for penalizing lazy workers in a capitalist company could still be implemented in a cooperative.   The difference is that they have democratically agreed to these systems.  Again,  people don't want to work while lazy people next to them benefit, so they wouldn't vote on measures to structure the company that way.  

Large cooperatives vote on board members but always have the ability to call a vote to replace them or overrule an unpopular decision.  Cooperatives that make "bad" decisions will end up with less money to share while more successful cooperatives that make "good" decisions will be the ones that attract and reward talent, make more money, and end up with more wealth to share.  

Entrepreneurs who do not have people working under them would not be affected at all as they are the "workers" and already own the means of production.  

Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)?  Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals?  If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it.  No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system.  Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them.

If someone knows of an obvious inefficiency or fault in a company, then they will bring it up at a stakeholder meeting, propose what they are recommending, and people would vote on the change because at the end of the day, they have vested interest in the success of the company they work for and own.  Any company that offered highly skilled professionals minimum wage, would not have any highly skilled professionals and would not have a company.  

If one cooperative fails, it doesn't mean the entire system fails just like if I open a business and that business fails, the economy doesn't crash.  The important thing about a bottom up democratic system is that the largest level of decision making is done at the local community level.  It seems you are thinking about the entire economy running as one cooperative instead of thousands of small ones.

I don't like the doctor example because healthcare is a controversial sector, but lets say its any other sector because your point still stands.  If a brilliant engineer has his own ideas, he could propose them to other cooperatives, become a consultant, or start his own company with these core ideas.   Workers woul flock to join his cooperative and invest their labor because of his great ideas.  

Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership?

What we mean by social ownership is that ownership of the means of production is never attached to one person.   The key is to distinguish between personal property and private property.  Each person has thier personal property.  Their home and belongings but no ownership over the personal property of others.  You cannot have a large factory or apartment building owned by a single person.

For cooperative companies, the workers of the company all own the company together.  Ownership and decision making is only made by the people affected by the actions of the company.  No external shareholders.   This means no one person should own another person nor should they own another person's personal property which is required to live (labor, home, etc) .

Workers invest their labor by working

Workers will be deciding what the input costs are?  Are you nuts?

Production costs, as well as the prices of products, should be driven by the free market.  Any artificial tinkering with the economic forces only leads to more chaos down the road.  Your cooperatives will have to synch prices with other companies etc.  This eventually leads to central planning.  And we all know how this ends.

Cooperative prices are still driven by the market.  Executives decide on salaries and base those decisions on market analysis.  All of those processes still exist in a cooperatives, its just that the decisions are made via democracy (or elected peer executives beholden to the workers) instead of dictatorship.  How does this lead to central planning?  

You need to have private ownership, otherwise, all smart people will pack and leave your little experiment.  And you will end up with morons who will run your factories to the ground.

There are plenty of very successful worker cooperatives that not only have not been run to the ground, but lead their industry.  I've been fascinated with Mondragon in Spain.   Why would smart people leave because there is no external ownership?  As you stated, any moron can own a captalist company with no knowledge of how the company functions.  How is that better for the smart people in the company?

I would not want to live in a society where I cannot own multiple properties, own shares in companies, and accumulate wealth.

Are you going to eliminate personal collections or say 50+ sports cars, or expensive art pieces?  

Why would we limit what people can buy?  People can buy whatever they want.  

In the capitalist system, anyone can own Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Amazon or Apple.  In your system, you will only own a share of the company where you work.  How would this make you rich or financially independent?  You will always depend on the other schmucks that own your company.  

You are paid more because there is no profit being extracted from your work.  If you don't like your company, you go to a company with more motivated workers and make more money.  The thing is, when people work for their own company, they tend to work harder than they would when working for the man.  What you can't do is earn a fortune off of other peoples' work without working at all.

 If your goal is to earn "passive income" or become rich through something other than work, then no, this system is not for you and you will be absolutely miserable.  

Do you even have a basic financial education?

In your socialist system, financial mobility would not be possible.  It would be more like a feudal system where workers will be chained to their workplaces.  I don't even know how would this work.  You are born, you go to school, you graduate, you are given a share in a company and a job that goes with it and work there for the rest of your life?

Nothing about this says you have to work for one company for your entire life.  Also, nothing is stopping you from moving up in your company.  Nothing is stopping your company from doing something great and making you a fortune .  The only difference is that you have to work to be part of the rewards and not working disqualifies you from the rewards.  We're talking about a system that incentivizes work.

In the capitalist system, you have the freedom.  You can invest your hard earned money or spend it on useless gadgets.  You can change jobs, you can ask for more money, you can start companies, invent new products etc.  

Nothing about the system I have described would stop you from doing any of this.

You do not understand how the capitalist system works.  I am guessing you have never attended a shareholder's meeting.

You just want the free stuff, but in the end, you will keep the system operating the way it is operating today, i.e. owners decide what is best for the company.

You just want to change the ownership.  From rich to poor.

I am telling you that there is a reason why most poor people are poor and why most rich people are rich.  You want to re-distribute the wealth with a stroke of the pen ignoring the underlying root causes.

BTW, how do you become the owner in multiple companies in your socialist system, i.e. how do you move from company to company?  Buy shares?  I thought you are against private ownership?

I don't get the system you are describing, and I think you do not get it either.  Do you want to start co-operatives?  Go ahead, who is stopping you.  But don't force others to subscribe to your ill-devised business plans.

I am trying to change ownership from rich to workers, not necessarily to the poor.  The working class should have never been poor to begin with.  Capitalism is the root cause of a poor working class.  

You could own multiple companies by working for multiple companies.  Your share of ownership is based on your share of the work.  If you leave a company or stop working, you no longer own that company.  When you are hired and start working, you own shares of the company based on the proportion of work you have done. There cannot be a mandated way for this to happen and each cooperative decides on the bylaws democratically.  

The point is that ownership is connected to labor and it extends from the idea that people are not free if their labor productivity belongs to someone else.  

I don't get the system you are describing, and I think you do not get it either.  Do you want to start co-operatives?  Go ahead, who is stopping you.  But don't force others to subscribe to your ill-devised business plans.

Yes I want people to be able to start cooperatives but is very difficult for many reasons.  I want tax reform and programs like the Marcora laws that were successfully used in Italy to level the playing field for cooperatives to begin.  There are already cooperatives everywhere but other than Emilia-Romagna (30% of their GDP), where these laws were implemented, its just unlikely workers in a sector will find each other and the funds at the opportune time.  They usually only start because of charity or collectively wealthy workers.  

The mondragon cooperative was only able to begin because the local leader of the catholic church realized his parishioners were being oppressed by capitalism and the church put in the seed money to get it up and running.  

Legally, worker cooperatives are a pain in the ass for disputes/taxes and most of the working class has no idea they are even an option.  People generally want to own their own company but just don't think its possible.  I want people to have the choice. I haven't said anything about forcing anything on anyone.  If people choose to vote for a dictator to run the company because that person is very smart fine.  If they choose to pay that person 3,000 times more than them then that is fine too.  Its just about democracy.

The root cause is not the capitalist system.  The root cause the workers are poor are the workers.

In the capitalist system, you can move up on the social ladder.  

In the socialist system, there is no ladder to climb so everyone is poor.

Like I said before, understand both systems before you propose a ridiculous plan to make everyone poor.

There is an economic ladder that you can move up.  Within a cooperative, you can move into a higher paying job or can be elected to the board that runs the cooperative.  Cooperatives often use their extra money to provide education and training in house.  

Where is your understanding of worker cooperatives coming from to claim I do not understand them?  Have you found a cooperative the functions the way you describe?  Its definitely *possible* since anything workers decide is possible under democracy but I have never seen a worker cooperative where everyone is paid exactly the same.  The same job with the same experience will probably give the same pay but thats about it.

The only poor people in this system are people who do not work.  


According to economic theory, wages and productivity should be increasing together, but they aren't because locusts are sucking out the gap between the two lines on the graphs.  This gap is why workers have become increasingly poor.  Workers only doubled their productivity over that time.  So tell me, what did workers do to make themselves poor while doubling their productivity.  

And who is stopping workers from organizing into co-operatives?

You can do all the co-operatives you want and try to compete with other traditional businesses.  See which ones will go out of business first.

Free market competition forces increased productivity.  You either become more productive as a business or you go out of business.

You have this utopian view that you can run the economic system without capitalists and their capital.

BTW, the fastest way to become poor is to continue working on the production line.

You stop being poor by educating yourself, by taking control of your limited finances, by stopping buying goods you cannot afford, by eliminating debt, and by investing in good companies.  

It takes very little effort to start investing in dividend paying stocks.  But what do most workers do?  Drink beer, smoke, maybe do some drugs, buy some shit they should not be buying in the first place and complain.

You don't need to change the system to become successful.  You need to change yourself.

People who want to do 9-5 jobs will behave the same way, no matter if they work for a traditional business or they work for a cooperative.
You give them more money, they will blow it off on some gadgets or drugs and that is about it.

Capital is precious and it must be utilized properly. People are poor because they don't understand the value of their capital.

[Lammie]

Suicide rates and depression are rising because of Capitalism.   Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.


I know a lot of you, especially americans are brainwashed.

-Climate change is a direct result of a profit driven society, environment doesn't matter only the dollar
-"hurr durr socialism/communism never worked millions died hurr durr"  Capitalism has killed much more people directly with poverty, inability to afford healthcare, etc
-. Capitalism is nothing but slavery with a new name, owners of capital are the slave masters
-

It's funny how you mention the following : ''Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.'' Whilst the opposite is true, ordinary workers keep most of their wealth in a capitalist economy. Do you actually think that in a SOCIALIST system that is implemented in my country : The Netherlands, ordinary workers get to keep more of their wealth? Just in income tax alone the workers here (including me) pay over 52% in taxes. It's over 70% if you include what the employer has to pay.

So what is the answer? People that are criticizing capitalism never have the answer, but are you able to name a single economic system that has been proven to work better than capitalism?

[coins4commies]

There is an economic ladder that you can move up.  Within a cooperative, you can move into a higher paying job or can be elected to the board that runs the cooperative.  Cooperatives often use their extra money to provide education and training in house.  

Where is your understanding of worker cooperatives coming from to claim I do not understand them?  Have you found a cooperative the functions the way you describe?  Its definitely *possible* since anything workers decide is possible under democracy but I have never seen a worker cooperative where everyone is paid exactly the same.  The same job with the same experience will probably give the same pay but thats about it.

The only poor people in this system are people who do not work.  


According to economic theory, wages and productivity should be increasing together, but they aren't because locusts are sucking out the gap between the two lines on the graphs.  This gap is why workers have become increasingly poor.  Workers only doubled their productivity over that time.  So tell me, what did workers do to make themselves poor while doubling their productivity.  

And who is stopping workers from organizing into co-operatives?

You can do all the co-operatives you want and try to compete with other traditional businesses.  See which ones will go out of business first.

Free market competition forces increased productivity.  You either become more productive as a business or you go out of business.

You have this utopian view that you can run the economic system without capitalists and their capital.

All I want to do is allow everyone to have the choice of workplace democracy or not.  I don't want to ban capitalism.  I just want a system where people aren't coerced into it.  I can't trust people who want to prevent democracy from being an option.  

Cooperatives still operate by market forces.  Of course things can function without external shareholders who contribute nothing but money.  It should be obvious that things will not only function, but function better if the surplus value of labor is kept in the system instead of being siphoned off and put into offshore accounts or who knows where.
  
There are organizations who currently work in communities to help people start cooperatives but it is always an uphill battle because cooperatives face more government regulation and tax problems than corporations.    In many states it is basically impossible.  I just want policy that encourages cooperatives instead of discouraging them.  

BTW, the fastest way to become poor is to continue working on the production line.

You stop being poor by educating yourself, by taking control of your limited finances, by stopping buying goods you cannot afford, by eliminating debt, and by investing in good companies.  

It takes very little effort to start investing in dividend paying stocks.  But what do most workers do?  Drink beer, smoke, maybe do some drugs, buy some shit they should not be buying in the first place and complain.

A lot of questions here.

1. Why do you think the people who work the production line should be poor?  This means you actually want there to be poverty.  I can't relate to the notion that people who work full time SHOULD be poor.   There is no ethical value to a system that insists workers be poor.

2. OK, where is the education being provided for poor, assembly line workers?  Its non-existent in the US and provided by government in more sensible nations.  This is actually one of the great ways worker cooperatives do with their surplus value.  They build worker skills within the company by providing extra training and education to the workers.  

3.  When you make less money, everything becomes "goods you can't afford", so you inevitably take on debt.  People who earn livable wages have disposable income.   Funny how that works.  Who are you to dictate what they "should not be buying"?  You just got done worrying about weather or not people would be able to buy 50 cars.    It is here where you are suggesting people who work certain jobs should not have any freedom, entertainment, or leisure.  These people work all day, have their money robbed, struggle to break even, and then you wonder why they abuse substances.    Then you expect them to magically come up with a fortune to spend on education.  Either you are out of touch or you are being dishonest.  

You don't need to change the system to become successful.  You need to change yourself.

People who want to do 9-5 jobs will behave the same way, no matter if they work for a traditional business or they work for a cooperative.
You give them more money, they will blow it off on some gadgets or drugs and that is about it.

Capital is precious and it must be utilized properly. People are poor because they don't understand the value of their capital.

Drug addiction is not a choice.  Poor people suffer from addiction at a much higher rate which has a lot to do with their lack of healthcare and awful circumstances overall. Gallup poll suggests the poor drink less so there goes that.

About 80 percent of upper-income survey respondents reported drinking alcohol, compared with approximately 50 percent of lower-income respondents.
Approximately 78 percent of individuals with an income of $75,000 or more reported that they drink, compared with 45 percent of individuals with an income of $30,000 or less.
About 80 percent of college graduates reported that they drink, compared with 52 percent of those who had a high-school education or less.
Altogether, 64 percent of American adults from all income categories reported that they use alcohol.

[bones261]

@coins4commies Protip. Can you please learn to prune the quote pyramids a little? I'm sure that we will all get the context of what you are replying to, even with substantial pruning.

[iamverybusyperson]

Suicide rates and depression are rising because of Capitalism.   Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.


I know a lot of you, especially americans are brainwashed.

-Climate change is a direct result of a profit driven society, environment doesn't matter only the dollar
-"hurr durr socialism/communism never worked millions died hurr durr"  Capitalism has killed much more people directly with poverty, inability to afford healthcare, etc
-. Capitalism is nothing but slavery with a new name, owners of capital are the slave masters
-

Capitalism is destroying us by making new phones, cars, medicines, computers...
God damn it's bad!

[mOgliE]

And who is stopping workers from organizing into co-operatives?

You can do all the co-operatives you want and try to compete with other traditional businesses.  See which ones will go out of business first.

Free market competition forces increased productivity.  You either become more productive as a business or you go out of business.

You have this utopian view that you can run the economic system without capitalists and their capital.

BTW, the fastest way to become poor is to continue working on the production line.

You stop being poor by educating yourself, by taking control of your limited finances, by stopping buying goods you cannot afford, by eliminating debt, and by investing in good companies.  

It takes very little effort to start investing in dividend paying stocks.  But what do most workers do?  Drink beer, smoke, maybe do some drugs, buy some shit they should not be buying in the first place and complain.

You don't need to change the system to become successful.  You need to change yourself.

People who want to do 9-5 jobs will behave the same way, no matter if they work for a traditional business or they work for a cooperative.
You give them more money, they will blow it off on some gadgets or drugs and that is about it.

Capital is precious and it must be utilized properly. People are poor because they don't understand the value of their capital.

You're making one HUGE mistake here. You're forgetting the entry cost in an established market.

Let's take ANY MARKET YOU WANT! Food, distribution, internet, auto, construction... Anything you want. In any country. There are giant corporations that already own the market and are able to spend billions in marketing, adds or just to buy a possible concurrent.

The problem is that capitalism leads to totalitarism... Totalitarism of big corporations.

When you're small you just CAN'T compete with a company that is able to both corrupt/lobby politicians to keep laws and reglementation in their favor and to attract customer from dubious mass manipulation.

So those companies keep growing and keep gaining more power. Making them even more difficult to compete with.

[mOgliE]

You can't have capitalism without capital, and the banking elite has been sucking the capital out of companies, governments, pension funds and savers. Capitalism has been destroyed and replaced by debt, and that is the source of our current economic ills.

Sure. But where does that come from?

It's a systemic problem, it comes from capitalism itself.

What's capitalism? The reward of capital. It means rich people get richer faster than anyone else. It means few individuals get most of what is produced. It means the very rich peopl get more and more power.

Capitalism leads to the power being owned by a small group of people, that's basically dictatoship with more steps xD

[TECSHARE]

You can't have capitalism without capital, and the banking elite has been sucking the capital out of companies, governments, pension funds and savers. Capitalism has been destroyed and replaced by debt, and that is the source of our current economic ills.

Sure. But where does that come from?

It's a systemic problem, it comes from capitalism itself.

What's capitalism? The reward of capital. It means rich people get richer faster than anyone else. It means few individuals get most of what is produced. It means the very rich peopl get more and more power.

Capitalism leads to the power being owned by a small group of people, that's basically dictatoship with more steps xD

Capital comes from natural resources brought into the market by the induction of labor, usually by issuing credit. "the reward of capital" That is quite a detailed explanation!

Rich people get richer faster than anyone else because the market is willing to pay them the most for the goods and services they provide, because they have value. If they did not have value no one would pay for it. Now if you are talking about fraud and theft, that is not Capitalism, that is crime.

There is ALWAYS going to be a power hierarchy. It is the way it is in nature, and it is a natural organic structure within human society. Some people are natural leaders some people are natural followers. None of your wishing, praying to the ghost of Karl Marx, or theorizing will ever change that.

Also, the Rick & Morty reference used as if it has academic value gives you loads of credibility. After all, you have to have a high IQ to get most of the jokes in that show right?

[TECSHARE]

And who is stopping workers from organizing into co-operatives?

You can do all the co-operatives you want and try to compete with other traditional businesses.  See which ones will go out of business first.

Free market competition forces increased productivity.  You either become more productive as a business or you go out of business.

You have this utopian view that you can run the economic system without capitalists and their capital.

BTW, the fastest way to become poor is to continue working on the production line.

You stop being poor by educating yourself, by taking control of your limited finances, by stopping buying goods you cannot afford, by eliminating debt, and by investing in good companies.  

It takes very little effort to start investing in dividend paying stocks.  But what do most workers do?  Drink beer, smoke, maybe do some drugs, buy some shit they should not be buying in the first place and complain.

You don't need to change the system to become successful.  You need to change yourself.

People who want to do 9-5 jobs will behave the same way, no matter if they work for a traditional business or they work for a cooperative.
You give them more money, they will blow it off on some gadgets or drugs and that is about it.

Capital is precious and it must be utilized properly. People are poor because they don't understand the value of their capital.

You're making one HUGE mistake here. You're forgetting the entry cost in an established market.

Let's take ANY MARKET YOU WANT! Food, distribution, internet, auto, construction... Anything you want. In any country. There are giant corporations that already own the market and are able to spend billions in marketing, adds or just to buy a possible concurrent.

The problem is that capitalism leads to totalitarism... Totalitarism of big corporations.

When you're small you just CAN'T compete with a company that is able to both corrupt/lobby politicians to keep laws and reglementation in their favor and to attract customer from dubious mass manipulation.

So those companies keep growing and keep gaining more power. Making them even more difficult to compete with.

How are entry costs enforced beyond regular market forces? How are monopolies maintained? Government. Monopolies can not exist without government to enforce regulations upon potential competing upstarts, raising the barrier of entry. This is not Capitalist. Capitalism encourages actual competition so that not only are resources used the most efficiently, but accurate price signaling can be created by free markets creating a timely and accurate pricing mechanism for resources.

Capitalism leads to totalitarism does it? Before impugning the system that gives you all of the things you enjoy in your daily life, maybe you want to look up the word totalitarianism, and you know maybe how it is spelled. Big corporations can't take control without the complicity of government. Even under a Socialist system this is still exactly just as much of a problem, so I am not sure what your argument is here. The world isn't perfect therefore Capitalism is a a failure?

You know who does need a centralized entity to regulate their lives for "the common good"? Socialists do. Otherwise how else can you rob people to pay for your handouts unless you have a government powerful enough to take the resources by force?

[af_newbie]

And who is stopping workers from organizing into co-operatives?

You can do all the co-operatives you want and try to compete with other traditional businesses.  See which ones will go out of business first.

Free market competition forces increased productivity.  You either become more productive as a business or you go out of business.

You have this utopian view that you can run the economic system without capitalists and their capital.

BTW, the fastest way to become poor is to continue working on the production line.

You stop being poor by educating yourself, by taking control of your limited finances, by stopping buying goods you cannot afford, by eliminating debt, and by investing in good companies.  

It takes very little effort to start investing in dividend paying stocks.  But what do most workers do?  Drink beer, smoke, maybe do some drugs, buy some shit they should not be buying in the first place and complain.

You don't need to change the system to become successful.  You need to change yourself.

People who want to do 9-5 jobs will behave the same way, no matter if they work for a traditional business or they work for a cooperative.
You give them more money, they will blow it off on some gadgets or drugs and that is about it.

Capital is precious and it must be utilized properly. People are poor because they don't understand the value of their capital.

You're making one HUGE mistake here. You're forgetting the entry cost in an established market.

Let's take ANY MARKET YOU WANT! Food, distribution, internet, auto, construction... Anything you want. In any country. There are giant corporations that already own the market and are able to spend billions in marketing, adds or just to buy a possible concurrent.

The problem is that capitalism leads to totalitarism... Totalitarism of big corporations.

When you're small you just CAN'T compete with a company that is able to both corrupt/lobby politicians to keep laws and reglementation in their favor and to attract customer from dubious mass manipulation.

So those companies keep growing and keep gaining more power. Making them even more difficult to compete with.

Why says the competition should be easy?

You don't go into the lion's den when you are hungry!

IBM ignored Microsoft and Apple.  K-mart and Sears ignored Amazon, Home Depot and Walmart.  Time Warner did not care about Facebook.
Banks are still ignoring cryptocurrencies.  Most companies completely ignore AI.  You get the picture.

Capitalism is natural as it mimics nature.  Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

The legal system should take care of any illegal actions by any business or individuals.

If competition would be easy it would not be competition.

[mOgliE]

Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

The legal system should take care of any illegal actions by any business or individuals.

And here you get the two factors that make capitalism a complete and utter failure.

1/ Conglomerated eventually fall under their own weight. That was right and that might still be although internet is really making it difficult to see if this logic will continue. But the problem is that if the company fails, the individuals behind wown't fail.
When a company collapses what happens? First ones to run and take their toll are the shareholders. Shareholders don't fail, when the company collapses they take everything they can, sell everything and after they secured their benefits then the company collapses.

Collapses of big companies is NOT the collapse of the people behind, which means you have a society with 0 or nearly 0 economic mobility. And the more capitalist a country is, the less economic mobility they have...

2/ Legal system is decided by who? By the people in power. Who are the people in power? Those who are currently the shareholders of all major companies... So don't you think there is a problem here?

Best example would be EU which is just a creation of big companies and is clearly an abuse of power from there side. Yet governments encourage it simply because they're owned by big companies.

System is rigged and the winner is clearly identified.

[Flying Hellfish]

Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

This is true right up to the point when those same conglomerates become "too big to fail"...  At which point the capitalist solution is to turn to the state and the people to be bailed out.!.!...

[af_newbie]

Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

The legal system should take care of any illegal actions by any business or individuals.

And here you get the two factors that make capitalism a complete and utter failure.

1/ Conglomerated eventually fall under their own weight. That was right and that might still be although internet is really making it difficult to see if this logic will continue. But the problem is that if the company fails, the individuals behind wown't fail.
When a company collapses what happens? First ones to run and take their toll are the shareholders. Shareholders don't fail, when the company collapses they take everything they can, sell everything and after they secured their benefits then the company collapses.

Collapses of big companies is NOT the collapse of the people behind, which means you have a society with 0 or nearly 0 economic mobility. And the more capitalist a country is, the less economic mobility they have...

2/ Legal system is decided by who? By the people in power. Who are the people in power? Those who are currently the shareholders of all major companies... So don't you think there is a problem here?

Best example would be EU which is just a creation of big companies and is clearly an abuse of power from there side. Yet governments encourage it simply because they're owned by big companies.

System is rigged and the winner is clearly identified.

Mobility is determined by your skill set.  If one company dies, you go and work for a competitor, or change the industries.

Your goal should be to improve your financial position and move up on the social ladder.

In the capitalist system, your success is only limited by your ambition and your abilities.

In the socialist system, your success is limited no matter your ambition or your abilities.

BTW, you don't need to get to the top to be financially independent.  Many small business owners are financially independent.  So are their children and grandchildren.

In the socialist system, you cannot achieve this.  You and your descendants will always be poor.

[mOgliE]

Mobility is determined by your skill set.  If one company dies, you go and work for a competitor, or change the industries.

Lol, if only... You're missing the big picture here which is that capitalism doesn't hand out enough work for everyone and number of jobs is only decreasing. This means it's not a question of skills only, but mainly a question of luck and being known by the right person.

You talk about capitalism as if it was able to allocate ressources and work in an efficient way while our world is showing it is NOT the case, not AT ALL.

Your goal should be to improve your financial position and move up on the social ladder.

In the capitalist system, your success is only limited by your ambition and your abilities.

This is an utter lie. Or you're saying that, by chance 99% of rich families children are gifted and ambitious while 99% of poor families children are incompetent and lazy?

You can't justify a 99% economical immobility saying it's a question of "abilities"...

In the socialist system, your success is limited no matter your ambition or your abilities.

BTW, you don't need to get to the top to be financially independent.  Many small business owners are financially independent.  So are their children and grandchildren.

In the socialist system, you cannot achieve this.  You and your descendants will always be poor.

Socialist system doesn't mean anything and is not the subject. If you want to talk about socialism fine but start by answering my question few days ago:

Ok so there is so much I disagree and so many things wrong with what you say... I'll try to go pieces by pieces ok? Let's start with the definition!

You struggle with the definition of socialism.

You confuse social programs with socialism.  France and Norway are capitalist countries.

So let's take the definition of socialism:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Ok so you've got two possible point of view here:

1/ For you a country is communist if economy is fully controlled by the community. Anything else is capitalism

2/ It's not a binary system and you just have countries being "more communist" or "more capitalis" than others considering how far they go in the regulation or nationalisation of the economy

Which one is yours? Because both are can be argued. Or maybe you even have a third one though I don't see what it could be.

[af_newbie]

Big conglomerates eventually fall under their own weight as smaller, nimble competitors come from behind and cut their Achilles tendons, then private equity firms move in to feed on their carcasses.

This is true right up to the point when those same conglomerates become "too big to fail"...  At which point the capitalist solution is to turn to the state and the people to be bailed out.!.!...

That is a problem.  The government should have never stepped in to bail those "too big to fail".  That was very socialist of them.

In the capitalist system, failures are punished and the system cleans itself.  The cost of those failures should have not been passed on to taxpayers.

[af_newbie]

Mobility is determined by your skill set.  If one company dies, you go and work for a competitor, or change the industries.

Lol, if only... You're missing the big picture here which is that capitalism doesn't hand out enough work for everyone and number of jobs is only decreasing. This means it's not a question of skills only, but mainly a question of luck and being known by the right person.

You talk about capitalism as if it was able to allocate ressources and work in an efficient way while our world is showing it is NOT the case, not AT ALL.

Your goal should be to improve your financial position and move up on the social ladder.

In the capitalist system, your success is only limited by your ambition and your abilities.

This is an utter lie. Or you're saying that, by chance 99% of rich families children are gifted and ambitious while 99% of poor families children are incompetent and lazy?

You can't justify a 99% economical immobility saying it's a question of "abilities"...

In the socialist system, your success is limited no matter your ambition or your abilities.

BTW, you don't need to get to the top to be financially independent.  Many small business owners are financially independent.  So are their children and grandchildren.

In the socialist system, you cannot achieve this.  You and your descendants will always be poor.

Socialist system doesn't mean anything and is not the subject. If you want to talk about socialism fine but start by answering my question few days ago:

Ok so there is so much I disagree and so many things wrong with what you say... I'll try to go pieces by pieces ok? Let's start with the definition!

You struggle with the definition of socialism.

You confuse social programs with socialism.  France and Norway are capitalist countries.

So let's take the definition of socialism:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Ok so you've got two possible point of view here:

1/ For you a country is communist if economy is fully controlled by the community. Anything else is capitalism

2/ It's not a binary system and you just have countries being "more communist" or "more capitalis" than others considering how far they go in the regulation or nationalisation of the economy

Which one is yours? Because both are can be argued. Or maybe you even have a third one though I don't see what it could be.

In a true capitalist system, free market controls the economy.  If you inherited a large fortune, and you are stupid and lazy, you'll lose it all, eventually.

[airdropcoin]

Today's capitalism violates primitive capitalism. Initial capitalism can only be achieved with cryptocurrencies. Capitalism is now the fuse of class unity, and there is almost no chance for young people other than cryptocurrencies.

[mOgliE]

That is a problem.  The government should have never stepped in to bail those "too big to fail".  That was very socialist of them.

In the capitalist system, failures are punished and the system cleans itself.  The cost of those failures should have not been passed on to taxpayers.

In a true capitalist system, free market controls the economy.  If you inherited a large fortune, and you are stupid and lazy, you'll lose it all, eventually.

What you fail to understands:

-Capitalism means capital is rewarded. Not skills or abilities, capital. At equal abilities, the bigger capital is more rewarded than the smaller. The bigger the capital gap, the bigger can be the abilities gap.

-It means that rich people become more and more rich. So few people accumulate more and more wealth and that's EXACTLY what has happens for the last 70 years.

-It means few people gain more and more POWER because there is a direct link between capital and power as it is capitalism.

The intervention of governments is PART of the capitalist system. It's linked to power being in the hands of a few.

A simple example: when a company like Google who pays millions in local taxes and employs thousands of people want something from the state they're established in, do you think they have the same weight and power than a new business? Even if this new business is objectively better?


Capitalism rewards not the abilities, the skills, the innovativeness, the social use, the ethical respect. Capitalism rewards capital and that's all. There is a reason for the name.

[af_newbie]

That is a problem.  The government should have never stepped in to bail those "too big to fail".  That was very socialist of them.

In the capitalist system, failures are punished and the system cleans itself.  The cost of those failures should have not been passed on to taxpayers.

In a true capitalist system, free market controls the economy.  If you inherited a large fortune, and you are stupid and lazy, you'll lose it all, eventually.

What you fail to understands:

-Capitalism means capital is rewarded. Not skills or abilities, capital. At equal abilities, the bigger capital is more rewarded than the smaller. The bigger the capital gap, the bigger can be the abilities gap.

-It means that rich people become more and more rich. So few people accumulate more and more wealth and that's EXACTLY what has happens for the last 70 years.

-It means few people gain more and more POWER because there is a direct link between capital and power as it is capitalism.

The intervention of governments is PART of the capitalist system. It's linked to power being in the hands of a few.

A simple example: when a company like Google who pays millions in local taxes and employs thousands of people want something from the state they're established in, do you think they have the same weight and power than a new business? Even if this new business is objectively better?


Capitalism rewards not the abilities, the skills, the innovativeness, the social use, the ethical respect. Capitalism rewards capital and that's all. There is a reason for the name.

Capitalists hire the smartest people they can find.  I can tell you from my personal experience that capitalism rewards smart people handsomely and punishes mediocre workers.  Socialism does the opposite, smart people end up in jails or mental hospitals.

Capitalism is strong and confident, socialism is weak and insecure.

Unless you come up with a system that does not use capital (money), I am afraid capitalism is the best system we've got.

BTW, best products are designed in the capitalist, not the socialist systems.  That should tell you something.