• Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You describe a capitalist society with advanced universal healthcare and other such services. That’s essentially Scandinavian model, and it’s valid to want to go this route.

    Socialists would disagree that this is the best for a variety of reasons.

    First off, in defense of socialist regimes, while some select socialist societies did face deficits, sometimes famines even, this came as a result of aggressive and experimental policies (something we now know shouldn’t be done) and poor reporting (something we now have the technology to avoid), all while for most of their history socialist societies did not have issues supplying people with variety of food and necessities. Also, economic issues of socialist countries come as direct consequences of restricted trade with capitalist societies which at all times held the majority of GDP - simply because most countries, especially rich ones, never turned socialist. When the socialist countries reverted to capitalism, they got access to that pool of foreign investment again, boosting their economy. Should it have been in socialist block, tides could turn way differently.

    Second, capitalism is not and cannot be sustainable. As it dictates profit everything be damned, we end up with broken ecosystems, clearly broken timelines for ecological transition and continued destruction of our only habitat for sweet sweet bucks. Regulation only gets you so far, as it does not affect capitalism’s fundamentals which immediately manifest themselves once the loophole is inevitably found (or made).

    Third, as the main driver of capitalism is accumulation of wealth (which is why people make enterprises in the first place), this inevitably leads in money going into less and less hands as billionaires report ever higher profits while the rest of us is told that some sort of “crisis” is taking away our money, rising costs and deteriorating our quality of life.

    Fourth and final, as I told about foreign investment, with modern multibillion international corporations we got into a situation when not companies are fighting to be hosted in a country, but rather countries compete to host corporations, often comprising a significant part of country’s GDP. This reduces the amount of taxes, for example, that a given country can squeeze out of a company in order to actually fuel all that universal healthcare and other services you’d like to see.

    So, to wrap up, socialists recognize there is middle ground, more control over capitalism, and should absolutely push for it. Socialists just don’t think it’s enough to prevent economic catastrophes of the future and struggles of today.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      First off, in defense of socialist regimes, while some select socialist societies did face deficits, sometimes famines even, this came as a result of aggressive and experimental policies (something we now know shouldn’t be done) and poor reporting (something we now have the technology to avoid), all while for most of their history socialist societies did not have issues supplying people with variety of food and necessities.

      innovation requires experimentation. The benefit of a capitalism is that this can happen without catastrophic failure. Sure a company can go under because of an idiot CEO betting it all on something stupid, but that’s just one company.

      You’re always going to have bad leaders. Elon Musk can completely screw up Twitter, but we’ll be fine. Imagine a guy like that in charge of a socialist country.

      It’s difficult to predict how innovations will impact a society. In the Soviet Union they decided only the party leadership needed telephones. But in a capitalist society where people can use their money how they want and markets adapt to it, most of the population got telephones. People were able to choose for themselves how to best allocate resources. Having that decided at the top means you have a group that could get things wrong and society doesn’t develop to it’s fullest potential.

      Avoiding experimentation because it doesn’t work in a socialist society is just demanding stagnation because this “ideal” society isn’t robust enough to handle change very well.

      Large organizations always have problems with the leadership being disconnected and making poor decisions. Right now we’ve allowed corporations to get too large and this is a problem. The solution is trust-busting not replacing the handful of too-large organization with a single large organization.

      Replacing a bunch of dumbass CEOs and their dumbass boards of directors with a single dumbass Premier and their dumbass Politburo doesn’t solve anything. People are going to be dumbasses and a society can’t handle that without people starving then it’s not a good society no matter how ideal it may be on paper.

      It’s doubtful we’d be having this conversation right now if we had a socialist society. Would developing all the technology and running communication cables needed for the internet to work been considered a need by the politburo of a socialist society? They’d probably just have internet just for themselves so the rest of us could focus on working harder. Running cables everywhere might not be considered to be a worthwhile use of resources.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        We have not “allowed” corporations to get big - they always will, that’s the inevitable outcome of capitalism. Being bigger is always more economically effective, and capitalism is all about economic efficiency as it’s direct means to produce more money. The corporations of today were literally predicted in the 19th century, and look where we are.

        Capitalism cannot exist without the premise of consolidation and expansion - it is the driving force that motivates people to do something in a capitalist economy in the first place.

        As wealth and, essentially, power consolidates into fewer hands, we face the same challenges - only now we have to deal with completely unelected authority that owes us nothing. Their downfall can have rippling effect on the entire economy, causing insane crises which, in turn, can quickly spiral out of control as markets are prone to vicious circles. Quite a few capitalist economies faced severe crises for seemingly stupid reasons.

        Socialism, on the other hand, doesn’t have to revolve around profits and monopolization. While economic efficiency that comes with centralized control is certainly hugely beneficial, we can build economy in any other way in order to make it more robust should we want to.

        Soviet Union had telephones, and they were commonly used by everyday citizens - at home in cities, and through telephone boxes in villages and remote areas. I don’t know where you take that from.

        As per Internet, Soviet Union was developing a similar technology (OGAS, essentially dial-up Internet) since 1962. At first, it was designed to connect factories to better allocate resources (something that is now done by corporations and their logistics departments) - something that stemmed from the limitations of the time - but nothing stops the technology from being used on a residential scale, as fairly modern telephone lines were already there and new cables weren’t a big issue.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          We have not “allowed” corporations to get big - they always will, that’s the inevitable outcome of capitalism.

          Yup, and it’s inevitable that weeds will grow in one’s garden and it’s inevitable that the viscosity of oil will break down in an engine and it will seize up.

          Many things require maintenance. Capitalism is not different. Gotta do some trust busting now and then. Add some regulations on some industries in places where it makes sense.

          Capitalism is a machine, and like any machine you have to do maintenance so it works well. Just gotta change the oil sometimes, no big deal.

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Regulations are great, and we should have them; however, there’s a reason they don’t end up reversing the trend.

            That’s because if the capitalist enterprise doesn’t grow, it stops existing. The very reason companies exist is the premise of them getting bigger, producing ever higher profits. Otherwise, the investments don’t come, liabilities accumulate, and company dies.

            You literally can’t have one without the other, growth and profit are key drivers of capitalism. The very premise of growth is what makes these companies worthwhile for investors and owners. Without it, there is no sense in starting an enterprise in the first place.

            (Also, for the sake of clarity - it’s not me who downvotes you. Feel free to keep the discussion going, I have no issue with it)

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Except none of those things try to take over the state through bribes and corruption. Capitalist enterprises do exactly that. How do you solve that problem?