this is like playing poker with someone and blaming the game when they exploit their position as dealer to slip themself an ace off the bottom of the deck.

that said, i partially agree. the systems shouldn’t encourage greed or authoritarianism. we need a middle way and a system that accounts for peoples’ less wholesome tendencies and doesn’t reward them while encouraging wholesome behavior like sharing and generosity.

burning man culture does an interesting job of this with decommodification and gifting principles.

I don’t think they blamed people. I think they said the issue is that the systems didn’t account for people. That’s saying the systems are inadequate solutions for the scenario.

It’s like saying an iron rod rusts when placed in salt water because it didn’t account for the salt water. The iron rod might be a good design but it’s not designed for that use.

I’m going to copy my other comment as it covers my thoughts on this:

I think a lot of the issue comes down to terminology. Communism has been bastardised and turned into a dirty word, it has very negative connotations for a lot of people. Most implementations of communism in the world don’t really fit the ideology, and now people think of the countries for the definition.

I would first define socialist policy: that which is made for the greater good of society as a whole, rather than for the benefit of select groups at the expense of society.

I think true communism is what you would get if you consistently implemented socialist policy again and again over a long period. If we develop robust policies that create a net benefit for the people as a group, we will end up having a communist society.

But trying to jump and change to communism straight away is fraught with issues, because during the change sociopathic people will take the opportunity and steer things in their favour by implementing policy that benefits themselves over others.

I absolutely agree with democratically deciding everything. I think technology has reached the point where we could give people that opportunity. We all have devices in our pockets that have the capability to communicate with everyone else, so we don’t need representatives to do it on our behalf (particularly when all too often they don’t actually represent us when they vote on policy). There are potential problems with this, of course, however these problems are primarily technical in nature and could be overcome.

Arrrrg I wrote out a big reply, was about to post, then realised I’d accidentally downvoted you. When I changed that downvote to an upvote my reply was reset. #lemmybugs.

Here’s take 2.

My impression is that all systems fail long term and need to break down and be renewed after crisis. Once it becomes entrenched, I think odds are heavily against being able to try social systems.

I’d agree with this, genreally. It feeds into the point in my last paragraph: we need a changing system to destabilise incumbant powers, such that they cannot abuse the system as effectively. These changes must be driven by objective improvemnents, democratically decided. Furthermore, I would say that total democracy is a win.

People will point to Brexit as an example of the hazards of giving people a vote. However, the truth is Brexit was a disinformation campaign - such a campaign cannot be maintained indefinitely, it can only be focused onto key events - particularly when it was driven by targeted lies (primarily on Facebook) immediately before a vote. You can say whatever you want if only the people who won’t question it see it, and by the time anyone else does it will be too late. If people had subsequent opporunities to decide how Brexit would be done, along with votes on whether or not to proceed down any particular route, things wouldn’t have been anywhere near as bad.

I believe in a strong social safety net. The bare basics of human needs should be provided for any citizen: food, clothing, and shelter. Without these needs, people get desperate, and they turn feral. They resort to crime - which then easily becomes a habit. This is worse for everyone overall; by preventing this we help maintain a stable and productive society.

The basics should be provided. If people want nice things, they should have to work for it. If you want a nice house, you need to work and earn enough. If you want nice designer clothes, you need to work. If you want a PS5/Sexbox/1337 PC you need to work for it and earn it. If you just want to rest on your laurels with the bare minimum, that should be an option, too.

However lazing about doing nothing is incredibly fucking boring and unfulfilling. No one wants to live their life that way. The lifetime benefit scrounger is pretty much a myth - maybe there’s one or two who game the system, but it never lasts forever. People want to improve their position in life, they want to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, they just need the opportunity.

I know this full well. I’ve had the luxury of not doing anything, I’ve skirted poverty but never quite truly fell into it. And it’s not anywhere anyone wants to be. However, even in my position success is limited - debtors and financiers prey upon anyone who falls below a certain line. If you pay off your credit cards every month, they’ll feed you more credit, then when you start building up debt they’ll rack up your interest rates such that your instinct is to dig in deeper in some vein hope of finding your way out.

Meanwhile, the past is littered with famous artists, many musicians, who have spent some time living off the state. These stories have become fewer and fewer over the past couple decades - no one can live off the dole anymore. This begs the question: how much social development has the human race missed out on, given that young people have been stretched to their limit, such that they barely even want to contribute anything because their prospects are now so bleak?

People shouldn’t be exploited to their limits. Particularly, citizens of any country shouldn’t be left to rot. Any great country that calls itself wealthy should be able to care for its people, such that these people can find their feet and positively contribute to the collective good. And that collective good must belong to everyone, not just those who sit at the top and do very little to contribute themselves.

The Buddhist Sangha has survived for 2500 years and is essentially a gift economy.

How is it impossible to install?

that’s a fair question. it seems like corruption is universal to all systems of organization and therefore not a good measure of the validity of any given system

Seems like your understanding of communism comes from cold war propaganda

No, we tried communism, the weird dielectric system of government that Lenin came up with.

Communism, the market ideology, can exist within a capitalist framework - all we have to do is say “companies are owned and operated by employees. From now on, we cap ROI when loaning money, no more infinite payout because you provided startup capital”.

Communes and entirely employee owned/operated companies exist, and they do well. They just don’t grow until they implode - they grow to a point and then stop letting people in

Communism is a market system, not a system of government. It doesn’t need to be centralized - and centralization is the real problem IMO

Here’s a gold for your honesty 🏅

Definitely don’t step down.

There’s far too many stray voices trying to influence this kind of community - you only have to look at reddit’s r/antiwork, where after one of their mods made a tit of themselves on Fox News, one of the users made r/workreform. r/workreform had 500,000 new users in a day, and then reddit admin forced the mod of that sub adopt their chosen powermods - they wouldn’t let him hold votes to elect mods from within the community. Said powermods convinced the founding mod to give them full power, after which they kicked him out and told him r/workreform was “now part of [their] projects, we thought you understood that”. He then went on to make r/workers_revolt but lost the all momentum he’d made with his sub.

Hold onto your community. It’s yours. If someone else wants to make their own community to deliver their message, they should make their own community, not take over yours and leech all its subscribers.

I’d be happy to assist with some moderation if you want. Either with this account, or with my alts on other instances - in particular kbin replies here seem to be somewhat isolated from the true federated conversation.

The problem is not the food price. The problem is the unfair distribution of wealth. The solution is to ensure every person can afford a decent standard of living.

Making food cheaper just shifts the problem: More food imported (=>traffic, noise, co2), less incentive to produce food (=>scarcity), worse conditions for workers and livestock (=>unequality, animal abuse), higher reliance on preservatives, pest control and drugged livestock (=>potential negative side effects), more food waste (=>inefficiency).

People have literally been arrested for donating perfectly good food. These people were arrested too. I’m sure the people put in jail would heavily disagree with the idea ‘it’s just a myth’.

Edit: For good measure, here is another group in another location arrested for donating food.

You do realize that we have roughly 3-4 millenias of technological advancements, before we even invented early capitalist theory? The vast majority of human history contradicts your statement.

Capitalism is exceptionally good at short term efficiency, because it’s profits driven and and as long there’s someone else to compete for profits there’s technological advancement. But capitalism is also all consuming and once it’s killed off all its competitors and profits are guaranteed the efficiency of technological advancements stops. Xerox is a great example, they invented a lot of modern things we use today like the foundation of the personal computer, GUI, computer mouse and desktop computing. But they invented those things at the height of their success and because of it did almost nothing with it. They just didn’t need to because they were already making loads of money. Those ideas were instead taken by Microsoft and Apple and they found immense success in it. Had Xerox also killed all the competition then the world we know today wouldn’t exist because there wouldn’t be any need for tech to advance here. The efficiency capitalism gives comes from a purely external source, it’s to beat the competition for profits. Once competition dies out so does the efficiency. Long term capitalism is not more efficient than any other economic system where the efficiency is derived from an internal source, such as the desire to do less work.

And while we’re on the topic of efficiency, the efficiency of capitalism is not necessarily a good thing. Do you know what is efficient? Working from the moment you wake up until the moment you have to sleep. That is what capitalism, at its core, wants. But I doubt it’s something you want. In fact we collectively have decided it’s not what we want because we have laws that exist solely to limit capitalism. The fact that you have time to comment here is inherently anti-capitalist, because capitalism wants that time spent on making a profit.

All you’re saying is that you cannot comprehend a world without capitalism. Let me give you a quick hypothetical that you can hopefully relate to. Imagine you could do something about your work that makes your work easier and also take less time, but the wage your being paid doesn’t change. Would you do it? I’m sure you would because even if you don’t get more money out of it you get more energy (as less is spent on work) and more free time to spend that energy. There are other ways to motivate technological advancement than just pricing, primary being the desire to do as little work as possible. It’s actually superior to pricing because it’s not externally driven. If you’re able to assert a dominant market position you no longer need to innovate because you’re going to make a profit anyway. But unless we’re in full automation (where you never have to work again) there’s always motivation to innovate to do less work.

And now the other part of this hypothetical. Assuming there is something that could be changed to make your work easier and take less time, could you actually change that? You brought up how other forms aren’t as efficient as they require microscopic management and preplanning with competent leaders. But if you’re a worker in a capitalist company the change you would want to make gets bogged down by those same things. A competent leader might implement your change, but for them to even hear your suggestion you have to get through all the levels of management. Now, imagine if you worked in a company where you and your co-workers can decide together that this is a great idea. Compared to a capitalistic company would you consider that slower or faster, and do you think it would be more likely or less likely your innovation gets implemented?

On review, you’re right, but I do think there is a notable ambiguity regarding whatever Smith’s trying to describe with his “invisible hand” concept, which is more of what I was referring to than any sort of magic. An ambiguity which, I think it may be fair to say, is among those misquotings and employed as an argument to defend deregulation and unregulated capitalism.

I’d have to do some further reading to get a better sense of what Smith may have been trying to say with that idea, but at least at a glance it seems I’m not alone in finding it questionable. At best it appears to be the notion of incidental good produced from self-interested endeavors in circumstances of good governance, and to which I think you raise a good point in Smith’s articulation of what prudent governance might look like, e.g.

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [of employers/dealers that live by profit], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, emphases & bracketed insertion mine for clarity, drawn from earlier portions of the paragraph. Ctrl+F and search this section to verify if concerned.