3 ms·

Isn't it possible to have a controlled economy that doesn't exploit people, which is still capitalist within its bounds?

defterGoose 6y ago
Yes, but keep your voice down. Nuance scares the man-children.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Depends on your definition of capitalism. If all companies were worker co-ops and workers had spots equal votes on board, and shares then sure. It'd be a win/win. As it stands, probably not because it doesn't matter how much productivity rises, wages stay stagnant, and that's not how it should work and I'd say it's not healthy for it to work like that. Better production/productivity should have a upward slope with wages, and gradually wages across all industries go up. That's the only way any of this is sustainable.
ManuelKiessling 6y ago
I’m pretty sure that at least for some time, the system of “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social market-economy) in Germany nailed that balance quite well. It’s totally not my area of expertise, though. Still, my gut feeling is that if someone capable would check the numbers, the result would be that from the 1950s to at least the 1990s, the personal economic situation for most Germans improved dramatically, while German companies were extremely competitive and successful in comparison to the rest of the world at the same time. Like, no need to exploit the former or sacrifice the latter; it worked hand-in-hand.
brnt 6y ago
As the others already mentioned: the Rhineland model comes up in such discussions. They're basically that: thoroughly capitalist, but balanced with worker's rights and interests by force of government. I guess you could say labour is more valued, and market controls make companies compete (more) for it than in the Anglo-Saxon model, leading to good wages and distribution of production. It doesn't promote superstars, neither in terms of economic centers which become prohibitively expensive, and not in terms of wages either (far fewer ultra-rich, but many moderately rich in return).

defterGoose 6y ago

Yes, but keep your voice down. Nuance scares the man-children.

gremlinsinc 6y ago

Depends on your definition of capitalism. If all companies were worker co-ops and workers had spots equal votes on board, and shares then sure. It'd be a win/win. As it stands, probably not because it doesn't matter how much productivity rises, wages stay stagnant, and that's not how it should work and I'd say it's not healthy for it to work like that. Better production/productivity should have a upward slope with wages, and gradually wages across all industries go up. That's the only way any of this is sustainable.

ManuelKiessling 6y ago

I’m pretty sure that at least for some time, the system of “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social market-economy) in Germany nailed that balance quite well. It’s totally not my area of expertise, though. Still, my gut feeling is that if someone capable would check the numbers, the result would be that from the 1950s to at least the 1990s, the personal economic situation for most Germans improved dramatically, while German companies were extremely competitive and successful in comparison to the rest of the world at the same time. Like, no need to exploit the former or sacrifice the latter; it worked hand-in-hand.

brnt 6y ago

As the others already mentioned: the Rhineland model comes up in such discussions. They're basically that: thoroughly capitalist, but balanced with worker's rights and interests by force of government. I guess you could say labour is more valued, and market controls make companies compete (more) for it than in the Anglo-Saxon model, leading to good wages and distribution of production. It doesn't promote superstars, neither in terms of economic centers which become prohibitively expensive, and not in terms of wages either (far fewer ultra-rich, but many moderately rich in return).