5 ms·
If the only defense of capitalism is competition, why not market socialism? As in, markets, competition, and entrepreneurship still exist, but all firms must be
by jtolmar 7y ago
If the only defense of capitalism is competition, why not market socialism? As in, markets, competition, and entrepreneurship still exist, but all firms must be worker-owned.
- anticensor 7y agoIt is too fragile.
- earthboundkid 7y agoDid I miss when Denmark elected Trump because the people completely distrust the elites and wanted someone to burn it all down?
- fastball 7y agoBecause then you would be forcing everyone to be an equity partner, even if they would rather take a higher salary than share in the risk. Doesn't sound like freedom to me.
- earthboundkid 7y agoThe "freedom" to monopolize capital is not a meaningful freedom, any more than the freedom to starve in a ditch is a real freedom.
- lliamander 7y agoI imagine independent contracting would be a way to avoid that.
- lliamander 7y agoQuibble: I don't really see worker-owned firms as a form of socialism, which I understand as the government ownership of the means of production. Worker-owned firms I associate more with distributism. Worker-owned firms are a great idea, but if that's the only ownership model then you lose some ability to diversify your investments. Everyone's 401k goes poof. Thinking through this, what are the alternatives? Simple cash reserves are out (because most societies can't seem to shake the tendency towards inflation). Bank savings accounts are a good idea, although impractical in our current society because interest rates are so low.