5 ms·
Is discourse on capitalism and it's alternatives possible without bias/dogma?
I'm not the smartest nor the most educated, but I will at least brag about being pretty unbiased(at least politically), and I find it frustrating how hard it is to discuss these topics CONSTRUCTIVELY as opposed to having a kind of debate where each persons goal is to win by (consciously or unconsciously) using unfair/untrue/misleading means.
This applies to basically any political topic, but to focus on one I'd like to ask about capitalism/socialism/communism/etc. More generally: about realistic possibilities for a system that minimizes often catastrophic downsides of such systems that is also implementable in reality.
Can we just admit each system has its downsides and talk about what can be done to minimize them in the real world? Not trying to change the world here, but hoping some people here can offer insights that might help me form my own opinion.
Under capitalism corporations are driven by profit motive and will do unethical things to achieve profits. Regulation can help, but in a capitalist society these same corporations can affect legislation - this is one example of a form/source of corruption that I think is inherit in any one of these systems and which I think is the fundamental reason why none of them can be perfect.
In theory, communism solves this by having workers control the means of production - the PEOPLE are the ones making the decisions. The proletariat isn't infallible but it's at least better to have them in control since their motives aren't at odds with the wellbeing of the population - they ARE the population. Afaik the downside of this is that it also leads to corruption, as some body(government) needs to oversee and enforce such a system, which necessarily means that a large amount of power will be concentrated in this body. To be honest, I don't fully understand this dynamic, but mostly trust it since the historical outcomes of communism seem to reflect this - if anyone can explain the inner mechanics of why/how power needs to be concentrated in this way under communism I'd love to hear. Another downside is that such a system leads to lack of motivation among workers, this criticism I don't trust as much and suspect it comes from people who think communism = no PERSONAL(not private) property and that everyone is paid the same amount, however I'm sure there are people with a real understanding who can explain this pitfall in a more sensible way and I'd love to hear it.
From what I can tell, "socialist" countries like Denmark and Sweden have at least done a better job than communism/capitalism, based purely on the subjective satisfaction of it's people and it's(relative) lack of human rights/climate/political/etc atrocities. However I'm not very familiar with the political systems in these countries - many tell me they're not even actually socialist, and others tell me it's actually nowhere as good as many people claim. This is kind of where I'm at now, wanting to learn more about these countries and their systems, but I'd love it if people could provide fair and constructive input about any potential systems, both in terms of the efficacy and their realistic potential to be implemented
- aristofun 4y agoYour post is full of unproved, unprovable, arguable and not obvious statements. Which means they have a bias, the bias of your own subjective opinion. I guess when you talk on such a high level of abstraction about a topic way out of a human mind capacity in terms of complexity — you have no choice but to cut many corners and thus introduce inherent bias to cover those millions hidden variables. > and will do unethical things to achieve profits How to you prove this statement? Another question — how do you prove the tendency to do unethical things is related to capitalism (and not just inherent to human nature)? > their motives aren't at odds with the wellbeing of the population Another statement that is not self-evident. Etc. etc.
- jfengel 4y agoThe difficulty is that you're taking a spherical-cow approach to a complex question. Or more like a zero-dimensional point-cow. Setting aside the metaphysical question of what it means to have a discussion without bias, at the very least what you're after implies ingesting amount of objective facts. Given what you've shown so far, the beginning of any discussion would have to be "sit down and listen to the equivalent of many months of basic economics lectures". The question you're asking is very broad. If you actually want answers, you might begin with a serious investigation of the social-democratic countries you mention. People are right: they're not in any sense "socialist", and they're not all paradise. But they are interesting case studies in a fairly successful regime that provides both an advanced economy and a social safety net. Knowing what they do, and why, and how, would mean a serious deep dive into those countries: their history, their resources, their geography, their government, even their literature. That would actually be a worthwhile investment of time.
- nwah1 4y agoLoud ideological people monopolize a lot of the discussion, and the nature of the media landscape ensures that only the most sensationalistic and emotive content goes viral. But certainly, it is possible to have a constructive problem-solving approach. The purported socialism of Scandinavian countries is exaggerated greatly, and they would be the first to say so. But clearly, there are a range of "mixed economy" models, and not all types of government intervention are equally damaging to overall production, and some kinds are greatly beneficial. There are a lot of false dichotomies. People regularly try to talk big government vs small government, when the real question is whether government is appropriate for a given problem. Likewise, people talk about high taxes vs low taxes, but in fact taxes are just incentives and the question should be whether they provide good incentives or bad incentives. And, of course, the original classical liberal view from the philosophical fathers of modern market economies would differ greatly from contemporary views. One of the key differences is that they saw land as its own distinct category, separate from labor and capital, and understood that it had special properties that changes its moral status. Land is not a product of human effort, and varies in quality, and is limited in supply, but is necessary for all life and all production. As such, claiming exclusive property rights over land is unjustifiable from the normal arguments of where just ownership comes from. And such claims come at the expense of others. For this reason, the third of the economy that is tied up in land and natural resources could be seen as a commons that ought to be democratically used for common benefit. Even if that just means leasing it out to private interests, and using the proceeds for common purposes.