Przejdź do głównej zawartości


I don't have any problem with a market economy, per se, but I do have a BIG problem with capitalism.

In my preferred version of state socialism, there is no accumulation of capital, and thus no capitalism. All large industries and large-scale services are socialized, owned by the people and managed by the state (or by worker cooperatives, where practical).

In my version of a market economy, people can own and run small companies, hire employees, set prices, make a profit... that's all fine. But they can't buy their competitors and either take them over or put them out of business. They can't open franchises, where they sell (or rent) the right to operate a different company with the same name. They're not allowed to buy their suppliers and create a conglomerate. They aren't permitted to grow so large that the market no longer operates fairly. And every business owner's wealth will be capped with a highly progressive tax structure (which is the price of using the commons to turn a profit).

So, the marketplace as such is not the problem. The problem is capitalism.

#Capitalism #Socialism #Economics #Politics
Banner at a protest rally says: "Capitalism isn't working. Another world is possible."
Ten wpis został zedytowany (12 miesiące temu)
Re your Alt Text photo was from the early days of Occupy LFS (London Finsbury Square)
@Jeanpaul That's a good distinction to make! I would add that I advocate a return to microeconomics and away from the global economy. The global economy has basically killed off our planet off.
Ten wpis został zedytowany (12 miesiące temu)
I always capture this apparent contradiction by leaning on the phrase "Capitalism isn't 'free markets': Capitalism means that high-rolling investors make the laws."
@Bread and Circuses One would have to wonder how the production of such technologically complex things as f.e. microprocessors, motor vehicles, etc., could (if ever...) function in such a small business model. Specifically, things that require billions of dollars to design and produce.
@miklo

Most new stuff is invented and thought up by state-owned institutions. The lie of capitalism is the suggestion that big corporations are soooo innovative and great. Big corporations take ideas that have been previously researched at universities etc. (which are usually financed by the state) and market them by exploiting everyone along the manufacturing line.
Of course, they have their in-house development too. But more often than not, those development teams only improve existing technology.

Also, he did mention that bigger companies will be socialized. A society can discuss and decide what they want to focus on, if all resources belong to them. They cannot do so, if everything is in private hands.

@breadandcircuses
@TobiWanKenobi @miklo Corporations are not innovating because innovation would effect their bottom lines. They couldn't be billion-dollar machines if they were spending real money to improve technology, lives, the planet, etc. Innovation is happening by universities, state-owned institutions, and to a lesser-extent, by individuals.
@housepanther

Funnily, it does make a lot of sense within the current capitalist system to not be innovative.

Innovation usually means investing time/effort/money into something new and challenging without knowing the outcome. That is a huge risk for any company, especially the bigger they are, because corporations are systematically forced to produce revenue for their oligarch owners.

As such, it's easier and less risky for big corporations to only improve what often comes from state-run or state-subsidized institutions and then tout that as their own achievements to draw more investors, which then forces them to be un-innovative again in return because those investors want their money + extra back. 😅

Socializing big corporations might actually work as innovation boost since it'd remove them out of that vicious cycle.

@miklo @breadandcircuses
Both thought up and fully developed in a lot of cases. Things like the internet and early wireless communications network AlohaNet come readily to mind, but there are an insane number of other examples. The multitouch touchscreen, robotics, barcodes, Google Earth and even Google Search were initially developed using grants from government entities. The CIA even has a "venture capital" firm called In-Q-Tel that draws federal money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
Ten wpis został zedytowany (12 miesiące temu)
@TobiWanKenobi @miklo
Notice that when technology plateaus, companies switch to styling to keep selling products that aren't actually any better, to replace products that had nothing wrong with them. This happened to cars in the 1960s (culminating in the ill-fated Edsel). It's happening to phones today.
I agree with every word you said. However, I'm afraid the points you make are moot. I honestly don't think there's a ghost chance in hell that we will halt global warming, or even slow it down. I see big corporations only getting bigger, more powerful, and more destructive. Governments will become increasingly undemocratic, if not fascist. If we have ten good years left, I will be surprised.
It is worth a try. At least, you feel like you are doing something positive.
I think you're correct with the market. I don't have a problem with capital accumulation per se, but I have a different approach. It's called "labor #capitalism" that I think is worthy of investigation. Labor capitalism is organized as a not-for-profit corporation with no members or shareholders, but the corporation accumulates wealth in the form on profits. Those profits are used to pay better wages and benefit to its employees.
Ten wpis został zedytowany (12 miesiące temu)
@Bread and Circuses @Simon Green
Innovation and who creates it is one thing.
But we (for at least one other person besides me) here are writing about a different problem:
"How very complex technical products, e.g. microprocessors/chips, which require extremely complicated and expensive production processes, can be produced by some small company, which in addition (as the author postulates) will certainly not grow to dominate the market."
I have nothing against all these anti-capitalist postulates but just expect a serious discussion of how we can move from one system to another with such concrete examples.
This is why I'm a Mutualist. Consumer/Worker Cooperatives are better than the centralized power of state or shareholder ownership.