• li10@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    In theory, how would a different system really help?

    Currently the people in power manipulate and circumvent the system, do they magically disappear?

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The move from absolute monarchies ruled by kings and aristocrats to democracies made the power distribution more equal across classes.

      What is needed in a new system is another step in this direction.

      The biggest problem and driver of inequality in the current system is that while we have democratic control of government, the control of business is still largely autocratic.

      Work and business is a huge part of our lives and making sure that the companies work for workers and consumers and not owners and investors is the next major systemic change that should be sought out.

        • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saying that should be the norm.

          I’m calling for systemic change. Individual people making choices to have democratic processes in their businesses is not enough.

          You’re like a serf going “Go move to a republic 🥶.”

          • MNByChoice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re like a serf going “Go move to a republic 🥶.”

            Wait, what? A serf cannot move without the king’s permission. You, I, and everyone can make it a preference to join a co-op or union work place with every job move.

            Are there many co-op positions available in my area and field? No. Unions? No.
            Do I have a preference for them? Yes.
            Maybe I will have to start one.

            One step at a time is better than no steps.

            • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, one step at a time is great. It’s just not a replacement for systemic change.

              If you can unionize or start a co-op, do it! Any amount of worker power will help the overall cause.

              • kbotc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Systemic change requires state violence as you have to convince the benefactors of capitalism to give up their property and powe. The only way to accomplish this state violence is with a bureaucracy and concentration of power. Tada: You created Stalinism. Again. Just like the last 20 times socialism was tried by big picture “revolutions”

                I don’t think worker rebellions get you where you need, so come up with an alternate route.

            • chaalfont@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the issue would be that currently it is not feasible for workers to start co-ops. Subsidies for worker co-ops would be a good option

    • Czarrie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is this belief by so many that somehow, if you create the perfect system, it will somehow overcome human nature or that humans will somehow starting acting collectively altruistic with the right political model.

      In most cases, they also imagine themselves in a position of power in this new government, either up in an upper “leadership” class or somehow silently leading “but I’m not a leader”, as if somehow the idea itself is so potent that people will just, you know, execute it flawlessly without intervention.

      • yogurt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        2020s mfers be like “gather berries? Sorry, I’m too busy serving as a neuron in an intercontinental hive mind that poops abstract labor debt coupons, it’s human nature.”

      • alignedchaos@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In most cases, they also imagine themselves in a position of power in this new government

        Where are you even pulling this from

        If you had a point it got lost in this fantasy claim you’ve made up here

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a dumb argument. There are clearly better and worse ways to organize a society. There’s no reason to believe capitalism is the best and plenty of reasons to believe it’s not.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I haven’t heard of a better method than (properly regulated) capitalism. I’m open to one though.

          Communism and anarchism demonstrably don’t work, so don’t go there with me.

          Socialism I would consider a form of Capitalism (imo the best one).

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Saying socialism is a form of capitalism is…unconventional. I think very few people would agree. Personally I see socialism as something that can be blended with capitalism, but doing so results in a less capitalist system. And when I see someone advocate for capitalism, I assume they mean the mostly unregulated kind like you see in the US, and which is forced in a lot of poor countries under the guise of “economic development”.

            I consider myself a socialist so I guess we’re not as far apart as it seemed at first.

            But anyway, the point I was originally trying to make is more general: the best system might not even exist yet. In medieval Europe they thought feudalism was as good as it got, and ideas like capitalism and socialism hasn’t been invented.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree with all of that.

              My view is, capitalism is an economic program, and socialism is a societal program, and like you said they can be blended. Pure capitalism would have essentially NO societal program (ie no regulations) and would look something like libertarianism.

    • Hillock@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The biggest way it helps is to just make it easier for the government to implement policies that help people. Under the current system something as simple as rent control is difficult to implement since you are infringing on the rights of the property owner.

      And shifting away from capitalism would allow a government to focus on well being of the population without having to worry about the impacts on the stock market. Right now the stock market is so important and shifts down punishes so many people. But in reality it’s such a terrible metric just like GDP. Sometimes a higher GDP just punishes the population of the country for no good reason because inflated prices bump the GDP up even if the citizens can’t afford it.

    • general_kitten
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A different system would help but humanity doesn’t know what that system would be.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’ve known for roughly 175 years. Some no-name economist and his buddy published their ideas in some kind of manifest

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can you give one example of a long-term, large scale, non-hierarchical system in human society?

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ya. Why won’t these fools realize that if something’s never been done before on a large scale to perfection, it’s because it’s clearly impossible. Get on your knees like the rest of us, change is never any good

          • RaivoKulli
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It would be encouraging to see one attempt at it not to have gone to shit though

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So that is a no?

            I am not knocking communism. I am knocking humans.

            Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin.

            And the name of the coin is scarcity. While there is limited resources, humans will fuck over others to get more.

            Both are attempts to parcel out scarce resources.

            Both fail because those that have the power to apportion those resources will favour themselves and their inner circle over the rest of the society.

            • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the difference is the incentive structure. Communism has incidental corruption from humans. Capitalism literally rewards it, directly, buy turning capital into a zero sum game.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is the first time I’ve seen someone directly admit to being in the grip of magical thinking.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Magical thinking, i.e. they don’t agree with our current flawed system and can see the potential of a better way?

          Well if that’s your first time, I feel sorry for you. You must hang out with some truly shitty people.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You literally said people will “magically” go away. If you have no system to prevent people from forming power structures, some of them will. If you do have one, it’s a power structure in itself.

    • EfreetSK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This, I mean this happened in our case - we had socialism for 40 years and powerful people either stayed in power or were replaced by idiots.

      It really reminds me the “Tax the rich” mindset - good in intention but completely oversimplified and naive in proposed execution