3 ms·

Parts of the economy can be controlled centrally, if it makes more sense, or other parts can be decentralized by a variety of different means, including worker

by jrs95 9y ago

Parts of the economy can be controlled centrally, if it makes more sense, or other parts can be decentralized by a variety of different means, including worker co-ops. Even the centralized parts could still operate under a market system if needed, leaving them no worse off information wise than a large corporation. Socialism != Stalinist planned economy. The key part really is the elimination of a capitalist class which does not work and hoards and accumulates wealth that's being created by others. Collective ownership of that capital and "the means of production" is more of a benefit to society.

pdonis 9y ago
> the elimination of a capitalist class which does not work and hoards and accumulates wealth that's being created by others "Collective ownership" doesn't solve this problem; it makes it worse. The only way to solve it is for everybody to own the wealth they create, and then trade. In other words, free markets. "Capitalism" might not be the right name for such a system, but that's because that word has come to mean centralized control of capital, rather than free markets.
pdonis 9y ago
> Collective ownership of that capital and "the means of production" There is no such thing. You've just reinvented the same kind of Communism that the Soviet Union ran a 70-year-plus experiment on. It doesn't work. Control of how capital is used always comes down to a small fraction of humans making the decisions.
- jrs95 9y ago
  We already essentially have a tiny bit of that in the form of the capital gains tax. Raise that a bit to fund public sector investment (but maybe not now because interest rates on borrowing are so low) and set a steep inheritance tax and you've gotten much closer. As for distribution of the money afterwards, doing everything at the federal level isn't desirable for a lot of things, so transfer that to state and local governments in those cases. Although a prerequisite to any of this being a good idea is making our democracy a lot more functional.

by jrs95 9y ago

pdonis 9y ago

> the elimination of a capitalist class which does not work and hoards and accumulates wealth that's being created by others "Collective ownership" doesn't solve this problem; it makes it worse. The only way to solve it is for everybody to own the wealth they create, and then trade. In other words, free markets. "Capitalism" might not be the right name for such a system, but that's because that word has come to mean centralized control of capital, rather than free markets.

pdonis 9y ago

> Collective ownership of that capital and "the means of production" There is no such thing. You've just reinvented the same kind of Communism that the Soviet Union ran a 70-year-plus experiment on. It doesn't work. Control of how capital is used always comes down to a small fraction of humans making the decisions.

jrs95 9y ago
We already essentially have a tiny bit of that in the form of the capital gains tax. Raise that a bit to fund public sector investment (but maybe not now because interest rates on borrowing are so low) and set a steep inheritance tax and you've gotten much closer. As for distribution of the money afterwards, doing everything at the federal level isn't desirable for a lot of things, so transfer that to state and local governments in those cases. Although a prerequisite to any of this being a good idea is making our democracy a lot more functional.