Discussion A question to the ones who are against capitalism / "the system". How would your (perfect) system look like?

[Praestat_Mori]

I see many people here hating capitalism and "the system" or are against it. But what's the system you would like to live in, how would your (perfect) system look like?

 

[indignity]

Anarcho-syndicalism would be good. And there should be no money, no authority, no hierarchy, no one to hold control of anything. No taxes or anything of that nonsense. People would host their own organizations and work within them. Provide opportunities to one another - cooperate, together. Worldwide. Join communities to work within to profit from their work product or create them, give help and receive help, build their own societies themselves without bunches of entitled pricks telling them what they should or shouldn't do. You're not supposed to listen, you're not supposed to be commanded. Everyone should be a leader because everyone matters. no one is more or less important than the other.

 

[DarkRange55]

Anarcho-syndicalism would be good. And there should be no money, no authority, no hierarchy, no one to hold control of anything. No taxes or anything of that nonsense. People would host their own organizations and work within them. Provide opportunities to one another - cooperate, together. Worldwide. Join communities to work within to profit from their work product or create them, give help and receive help, build their own societies themselves without bunches of entitled pricks telling them what they should or shouldn't do. You're not supposed to listen, you're not supposed to be commanded. Everyone should be a leader because everyone matters. no one is more or less important than the other.

This is just a question, not an attack. Just to be clear. What happens if a group attacks another group or if someone chooses not to work or can't work or can no longer work? Thank you for your feedback!

 

[indignity]

This is just a question, not an attack. Just to be clear. What happens if a group attacks another group or if someone chooses not to work or can't work or can no longer work? Thank you for your feedback!

Let them handle it. There'd be no point for working groups to attack each other anyway since it's better to cooperate than be enemies. In case they do, it won't result in any progress (will get nowhere) and the moment they realize it they will have to reach an agreement, otherwise they're just dragging themselves down which I'm sure isn't what they want. if they don't want to work or can no longer afford to, then it's their choice. They could always choose where to work, or when, or if at all. People. organize. themselves. They don't need leadership.

 

[Malaria]

Returning to monke (I don't hate capitalism, but I do hate "the system", so to speak)

 

[DarkRange55]

Let them handle it. There'd be no point for working groups to attack each other anyway since it's better to cooperate than be enemies. In case they do, it won't result in any progress (will get nowhere) and the moment they realize it they will have to reach an agreement, otherwise they're just dragging themselves down which I'm sure isn't what they want. if they don't want to work or can no longer afford to, then it's their choice. They could always choose where to work, or when, or if at all. People. organize. themselves. They don't need leadership.

I guess my question is, say for example, an outside force of criminals formed a gang and used to take enslave another group? I'm just curious what the solution here would be. Thanks again!

 

[Pluto]

 

[Forever Sleep]

Sadly, I'm not sure that many systems would work given human nature. The idea of communism used to sound lovely to me as a child. Everyone being valued and treated equally. The whole knights of the round table thing. But we all know it doesn't work like that in real life.

But- most societal systems rely on the hope that everyone will contribute. Do their best, not exploit. And if they can't- then there are genuine reasons why.

Capitalism seems to allow people at both ends of the scale to exploit. The very rich exploit via tax evasion and they exploit all their workers. The very poor may also exploit if they just can't be arsed to work but manage to claim benefits. (Although, there will of course be genuine cases there too.)

It's hard to know what would work. I do remember being young and watching a programme on Ghana. It was a poor village but, there seemed to be such a sense of community- everyone helped to build huts, grow food, fetch water, cook. I guess maybe sometimes I think I'd like to live in a community of people where everyone did actually help one another.

But, I don't think it would work across the board. Just human nature. There are always going to be freeloaders. There are always going to be people who feel superior and just delegate the work to everyone else. There are always going to be power struggles and exploitation.

I'm not so sure human civilisation is so very different to the animal world. It quite often seems that 'the fittest' survives. I think that quite often translates to the most ruthless. Sociopaths do well in business because they don't care who they trample over. I guess I'd like to be part of a system that doesn't reward that behaviour- definitely.

I don't really think there is an answer though. We're born into slavery effectively. We will always be slaves to our bodies needs meaning we'll have to do things to sustain those needs. Beyond that, it's finding a system that is as fair as possible to everyone but ultimately- it's all based on a problem that we didn't agree to. So- the first action ought to be to allow those who want to leave to go- via assisted suicide. Maybe if enough young adults go before they have even begun their working lives, people will get the hint that maybe they need to reconsider having children to begin with.

 

[DarkRange55]

Let them handle it. There'd be no point for working groups to attack each other anyway since it's better to cooperate than be enemies. In case they do, it won't result in any progress (will get nowhere) and the moment they realize it they will have to reach an agreement, otherwise they're just dragging themselves down which I'm sure isn't what they want. if they don't want to work or can no longer afford to, then it's their choice. They could always choose where to work, or when, or if at all. People. organize. themselves. They don't need leadership.

Or I guess, whats to stop human nature's desire for power taking over?

Let them handle it. There'd be no point for working groups to attack each other anyway since it's better to cooperate than be enemies. In case they do, it won't result in any progress (will get nowhere) and the moment they realize it they will have to reach an agreement, otherwise they're just dragging themselves down which I'm sure isn't what they want. if they don't want to work or can no longer afford to, then it's their choice. They could always choose where to work, or when, or if at all. People. organize. themselves. They don't need leadership.

Or like Forever Sleep said? I'm just curious because I want to better understand. Thank you!

 

[indignity]

Or I guess, whats to stop human nature's desire for power taking over?

To unite. around an idea or a concept that people share consensus within. The idea of freedom I mean. Authority = hierarchy = inequality = abuse of power = suffering. Communities would help those who get oppressed and combat those willing to oppress them. The freedom of 1 person ends where the freedom of another one begins. Unity would make people compassionate about their concepts and ideas and give them a platform of bringing them into reality. They would have to reach agreements with each other because they won't be able to get rid of one another, being unable for people to get rid of someone would force them to cooperate anyway. and there's no point either way to be enemies if society is based around cooperation, not competition. People desire for power because they want to oppress others. they want control of not the situation but people. Making them unable to control people would make them unable to oppress them either, being unable to control anything is what would make them cooperate. You don't need power to cooperate. you only need it to compete. so basically... Power does not make friends, only enemies. People cooperate when they are equal. and turn into enemies because of inequality which is caused by authority.

I probably don't make a lick of sense. I admit it is a utopia but I still believe it firmly.

 

[DarkRange55]

To unite. around an idea or a concept that people share consensus within. The idea of freedom I mean. Authority = hierarchy = inequality = abuse of power = suffering. Communities would help those who get oppressed and combat those willing to oppress them. The freedom of 1 person ends where the freedom of another one begins. Unity would make people compassionate about their concepts and ideas and give them a platform of bringing them into reality. They would have to reach agreements with each other because they won't be able to get rid of one another, being unable for people to get rid of someone would force them to cooperate anyway. and there's no point either way to be enemies if society is based around cooperation, not competition. People desire for power because they want to oppress others. they want control of not the situation but people. Making them unable to control people would make them unable to oppress them either, being unable to control anything is what would make them cooperate. You don't need power to cooperate. you only need it to compete. so basically... Power does not make friends, only enemies. People cooperate when they are equal. and turn into enemies because of inequality which is caused by authority.

I probably don't make a lick of sense. I admit it is a utopia but I still believe it firmly.

Ahh, okay. No, I follow you! Gotcha! Much appreciated!
My last question is, looking at the development of societies over time: tribes, kingdoms, feudal states, ect. Why do you think globally there is not currently an anarchistic… I don't know if "nation-state" is an appropriate term? But you get what I'm saying, right?

 

[indignity]

Ahh, okay. No, I follow you! Gotcha! Much appreciated!
My last question is, looking at the development of societies over time: tribes, kingdoms, feudal states, ect. Why do you think globally there is not currently an anarchistic… I don't know if "nation-state" is an appropriate term? But you get what I'm saying, right?

Anarchy is not profitable. It suits everyone, but it limits those who crave control to create inequality, be on top of something or change things to suit the way they want. The reason why the world is today the way it is is because those who are in control of it are satisfied with everything. it is not in their interest to lose control of people or have themselves organize their own society, and they will do everything to prevent it. Money and power. 2 biggest evils of the world. The minority wants to control majority. It's been that way forever. anarchy, on the other hand has neither minorities nor majorities - people are the same... in everything. Rights, freedoms, power, influence, etc... just equality by design. It is a utopia, but honestly I don't think there is any better form of a society other than the one that is built by the people and for the people. Leaders hate anarchy because it favors everyone, not them particularly as they would like to. It unites people around their ideas, communities and cooperation, not their bosses or authority. Authority wants people to be united around their power. A leader wants people to unite around HIS ideas, not theirs. they (authority) want everyone to be controlled equally. By them. not by themselves. There are no anarchic states because of reasons I mentioned but there are voluntarily associations like those I mentioned before, where everything is organized in a federal manner, with no leaders but collectives aiming to fulfill desires of everyone at once. Decisions are taken collectively. By everyone, not someone. And people work there. and live too. They just exist by themselves and no one has problems with that. They have to get along, and cooperation is what unites them. Being able to work with people that you hate is what every person should learn about - you can not be mature without that. Don't get rid of people. just get along with them - this is the way

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

I like socialist Nordic countries.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

To me the perfect system is just regular capitalism except I'm at the top.

 

[sserafim]

I don't know. Maybe the perfect system would be none at all (anarchy)

Sadly, I'm not sure that many systems would work given human nature. The idea of communism used to sound lovely to me as a child. Everyone being valued and treated equally. The whole knights of the round table thing. But we all know it doesn't work like that in real life.

But- most societal systems rely on the hope that everyone will contribute. Do their best, not exploit. And if they can't- then there are genuine reasons why.

Capitalism seems to allow people at both ends of the scale to exploit. The very rich exploit via tax evasion and they exploit all their workers. The very poor may also exploit if they just can't be arsed to work but manage to claim benefits. (Although, there will of course be genuine cases there too.)

It's hard to know what would work. I do remember being young and watching a programme on Ghana. It was a poor village but, there seemed to be such a sense of community- everyone helped to build huts, grow food, fetch water, cook. I guess maybe sometimes I think I'd like to live in a community of people where everyone did actually help one another.

But, I don't think it would work across the board. Just human nature. There are always going to be freeloaders. There are always going to be people who feel superior and just delegate the work to everyone else. There are always going to be power struggles and exploitation.

I'm not so sure human civilisation is so very different to the animal world. It quite often seems that 'the fittest' survives. I think that quite often translates to the most ruthless. Sociopaths do well in business because they don't care who they trample over. I guess I'd like to be part of a system that doesn't reward that behaviour- definitely.

I don't really think there is an answer though. We're born into slavery effectively. We will always be slaves to our bodies needs meaning we'll have to do things to sustain those needs. Beyond that, it's finding a system that is as fair as possible to everyone but ultimately- it's all based on a problem that we didn't agree to. So- the first action ought to be to allow those who want to leave to go- via assisted suicide. Maybe if enough young adults go before they have even begun their working lives, people will get the hint that maybe they need to reconsider having children to begin with.

Lol I'm gaming the system right now, but idk how long it will last. I'm a hiki while my mom works. I do contribute by being a consumer though. Even if you don't work, consuming resources puts money into the economy.

 

[LevUwU]

I'm incredibly anti-capitalist for many reasons, however, I haven't given much time to what the "perfect" system would be. It invites too much chaos and political babbling. My perfect system is where everyone does things for the sake of kindness and human evolution, where science and progress are valued above money and power. Where people help each other because they can, where people do unfavorable jobs because they want to contribute. Is it unrealistic and utopian? Yes. but perfection never was meant to be achievable. If I could settle on something, it would be similar to Star Trek where innovation is the primary cause for people doing what they do, and automation takes over the labor that humans despise.

 

[CTB Dream]

No sstm wrk this all life wrng cncpt, if put idea no mtr wat % say no ok this no end. but can make btr ,wat slv not sstm wat slv Sci advnc ai etc this redc cost redc time etc also redc sffr anml make lab food, if have Sci advnc this end cptl end many human cncpt end cntry end farm end ecnmy end etc hpn wrld extrm diff simil Sci fi

 

[NumbItAll]

Capitalism has its issues, but there is no system that would fix the issues with humanity and life itself.

 

[sserafim]

Capitalism has its issues, but there is no system that would fix the issues with humanity and life itself.

Wdym

 

[NumbItAll]

Wdym

I just think life is bad and full of suffering, and people will always find ways to treat each other like garbage. I don't really see how any system is appealing (i.e. grass not always greener). Clearly I'm not the most hopeful person though... I agree with @Forever Sleep's take mostly.

 

[trashprincess]

So I don't think in terms of perfect. We live in hell so I don't know if I could imagine heaven. But I will say what I feel could realistically improved things.

Main thing is to regulate power. I believe in anarchistic values, but ultimately I do believe in hierarchy. I think the institutions, organizations, and nations to be too complicated for monkey human brain to fully comprehend. And so I think having figureheads is essentially what allows people to easily makes sense of an abstract concept. And so I feel the next step is to figure out how to utilize this for our benefit.

There's too much power in too few of hands. Simply put, people shouldn't be making decisions that don't effect them. So we need leaders because they make sense, but need limited power so people are directly connected to the decisions they make.

Like business leaders should get no more money, and no better treatment than anyone else. That way, if they want more money, they have to make the company better for everyone. And likewise, they can't condemn others to working conditions they are unwilling to put up with.

Essentially, less Kings and Presidents and CEOs, and more Chiefs and Mayors and Small Businesses. Here in America, in the past, we have successfully made effort in this regard through strong unions, regulations, public services, and extremely high tax rates on the wealthy.

This ain't no fairy tail commie stuff, this is what actually worked in our actual history. And then we (the honks) allowed our racism to let people convince us to give up all of those things and now we're back to the Rockefeller days.

So mainly that stuff. 90% tax rates on richos. Unions for all. Strong regulations for healthy products and working conditions. Welfare for everyone. Boss ass public transit/schools/libraries/healthcare/parks/more. And ALL the reparations- we's got some 'splainin' to do

Also we should be stricter on the concentration of power. Which not only means preventing it as much as possible, but safeguarding against potential problems. One of the biggest things in this regard is transparency, and for that I propose the Truman Show Rule. The more power you have, the more your life should be like the Truman Show. Basically if you're a billionaire, we should watch you poop Don't want that? Don't be a billionaire Simple as that

Also...

IF YOU USE YOUR POWER TO HURT PEOPLE YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE POWER ANYMORE

Former murderer turns his life around and runs for Mayor? Sure But you getting the poop cam

Famous artist uses his tour as a cover for a campaign of sex crimes? We take EVERYTHING and leave him with nothing but a court ordered poop cam (I could be referring to this as a 24/7/365 Body Cam but this is more fun )

One caveat with all this, is the people need to be a LOT more involved with their society. Everyone needs to be voting/campaigning/unionizing/activisming. Additionally it's very important to actively participate in culture as well.

How do you get people to work if they don't have to? Convince them they want to. We already do that now with our entertainment industry. No on needs that stuff, but we keep on buying.

Likewise we should strive to use culture to encourage people to care, and be healthy and happy. I grew up learning sex, drugs, and suffering was cool from the ages of 6-22, and it REALLY had an effect on me. Imagine if I got to grow up learning how to manage my feelings and pursue my dreams.

It would be so much easier if "cool" was emotional intelligence and strong personal connections; not authority and overindulgence. If every birthday party had fruit instead of cake and ice cream. If childhood was about finding yourself instead of just finding how to fit in.

And... It would be REALLY FUCKING COOL if we stopped promoting child abuse, and gaslighting to death the victims of it.

When you spend your whole life seeing the same messages on TV, it can result in internalizing them. Even though people should be resisting against the negative influence of media, simple put, if we had less shitty culture, we'd have less shitty people.

Also we all get exposed to this shit when we're kids, when we can't be expected to be able to resist against it. So its others job to protect us. And at least in my family, they wanted to protect me from everything BUT the things that hurt me.

Lastly relating back to being more connected to our leaders, we should also be more connected to our environment, by making sure we don't use any more technology than we actually need. I think that's what solarpunk is maybe

If there was anything truly perfect, I think it would be less of a civilization, and more of a sanctuary. Basically just us in our natural environment with Healthcare and protection from predators. And all the NERDS too good to be monke can be our doctors and shit

 

[SexyIncél]

I wish they asked this in school

I think a utopia's a zone of experimentation. If the world had one single utopia — it'd become dystopia. Better is multiple different utopias. I like visions like Participatory Economics

People need to cultivate social imagination. There's zillions of books on why capitalism sucks. Would stack up to the moon. But very few books imagine what might replace it. That's why people can't stand listening to leftists — like a doctor that tells you in gruesome detail how you hurt. But you know you hurt! If there's nothing better, why not just try to do the best for yourself?

My last question is, looking at the development of societies over time: tribes, kingdoms, feudal states, ect. Why do you think globally there is not currently an anarchistic… I don't know if "nation-state" is an appropriate term? But you get what I'm saying, right?

Rojava is the big current one — radical democracy, eco-feminist

Social logics are always around, at least potentially. They change form. For example, feudal logics are alive & well in corporate form:

"If the ongoing importance of a manager is measured by how many people he has working under him, the immediate material manifestation of that manager's power and prestige is the visual quality of his presentations and reports. The meetings in which such emblems are displayed might be considered the high rituals of the corporate world. And just as the retinues of a feudal lord might include servants whose only role was to polish his horses' armor or tweeze his mustache before tournaments or pageants, so may present-day executives keep employees whose sole purpose is to prepare their PowerPoint presentations or craft the maps, cartoons, photographs, or illustrations that accompany their reports. Many of these reports are nothing more than props in a Kabuki-like corporate theater—no one actually reads them all the way through. But this doesn't stop ambitious executives from cheerfully shelling out half a workman's yearly wages of company money just to be able to say, "Ooh yes, we commissioned a report on that."

— David Graeber, "Bullshit Jobs"

This isn't capitalist logic. Under capitalism: "The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need." btw Yanis Varoufakis's book "Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism" sounds interesting; haven't read it

Same with communist logic. If your coworker needs a hammer, you don't say "What'll you give me for it?" You just hand them the hammer. Firms operate internally with "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Because it's efficient

The current system isn't particularly stable. Anyone who's 25 has been around for over 10% of the US's history. (Some here have been around for over 30%!) There's high material innovation, but low social innovation. It's the big bottleneck. This week, a restaurant owner & I discussed how he can't feed the hungry — because seriously hungry people don't have imaginary social points. And how technologists can't automate work so we have 10 hour workweeks

Or I guess, whats to stop human nature's desire for power taking over?

Humans have many motivations. Some desire to rule others; some desire to be free (from others' rule). There's many tactics:

• education: befitting free people
• coercion: for violent people & random axe murderers. Brian Dominick taught a class on political vision, where he analyzed how a police force might work in a Participatory Economy. For example, restrictions against unionizing, not letting assholes become police, etc
• leadership promotion: sharing skills & confidence to become leaders

 

[sserafim]

I wish they asked this in school

I think a utopia's a zone of experimentation. If the world had one single utopia — it'd become dystopia. Better is multiple different utopias. I like visions like Participatory Economics

People need to cultivate social imagination. There's zillions of books on why capitalism sucks. Would stack up to the moon. But very few books imagine what might replace it. That's why people can't stand listening to leftists — like a doctor that tells you in gruesome detail how you hurt. But you know you hurt! If there's nothing better, why not just try to do the best for yourself?


Rojava is the big current one — radical democracy, eco-feminist

Social logics are always around, at least potentially. They change form. For example, feudal logics are alive & well in corporate form:


This isn't capitalist logic. Under capitalism: "The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need." btw Yanis Varoufakis's book "Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism" sounds interesting; haven't read it

Same with communist logic. If your coworker needs a hammer, you don't say "What'll you give me for it?" You just hand them the hammer. Firms operate internally with "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Because it's efficient

The current system isn't particularly stable. Anyone who's 25 has been around for over 10% of the US's history. (Some here have been around for over 30%!) There's high material innovation, but low social innovation. It's the big bottleneck. This week, a restaurant owner & I discussed how he can't feed the hungry — because seriously hungry people don't have imaginary social points. And how technologists can't automate work so we have 10 hour workweeks


Humans have many motivations. Some desire to rule others; some desire to be free (from others' rule). There's many tactics:

• education: befitting free people
• coercion: for violent people & random axe murderers. Brian Dominick taught a class on political vision, where he analyzed how a police force might work in a Participatory Economy. For example, restrictions against unionizing, not letting assholes become police, etc
• leadership promotion: sharing skills & confidence to become leaders

Lol did you see my DM?

 

[DarkRange55]

I wish they asked this in school

I think a utopia's a zone of experimentation. If the world had one single utopia — it'd become dystopia. Better is multiple different utopias. I like visions like Participatory Economics

People need to cultivate social imagination. There's zillions of books on why capitalism sucks. Would stack up to the moon. But very few books imagine what might replace it. That's why people can't stand listening to leftists — like a doctor that tells you in gruesome detail how you hurt. But you know you hurt! If there's nothing better, why not just try to do the best for yourself?


Rojava is the big current one — radical democracy, eco-feminist

Social logics are always around, at least potentially. They change form. For example, feudal logics are alive & well in corporate form:


This isn't capitalist logic. Under capitalism: "The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need." btw Yanis Varoufakis's book "Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism" sounds interesting; haven't read it

Same with communist logic. If your coworker needs a hammer, you don't say "What'll you give me for it?" You just hand them the hammer. Firms operate internally with "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Because it's efficient

The current system isn't particularly stable. Anyone who's 25 has been around for over 10% of the US's history. (Some here have been around for over 30%!) There's high material innovation, but low social innovation. It's the big bottleneck. This week, a restaurant owner & I discussed how he can't feed the hungry — because seriously hungry people don't have imaginary social points. And how technologists can't automate work so we have 10 hour workweeks


Humans have many motivations. Some desire to rule others; some desire to be free (from others' rule). There's many tactics:

• education: befitting free people
• coercion: for violent people & random axe murderers. Brian Dominick taught a class on political vision, where he analyzed how a police force might work in a Participatory Economy. For example, restrictions against unionizing, not letting assholes become police, etc
• leadership promotion: sharing skills & confidence to become leaders

I think we ran into this issue on another thread. That nation state isn't a state-less, government-less, money-less society. It has a ruling council. So it depends on your definition on anarchism. I always interpret it as meaning absolutely government or authority or money.

I wish they asked this in school

I think a utopia's a zone of experimentation. If the world had one single utopia — it'd become dystopia. Better is multiple different utopias. I like visions like Participatory Economics

People need to cultivate social imagination. There's zillions of books on why capitalism sucks. Would stack up to the moon. But very few books imagine what might replace it. That's why people can't stand listening to leftists — like a doctor that tells you in gruesome detail how you hurt. But you know you hurt! If there's nothing better, why not just try to do the best for yourself?


Rojava is the big current one — radical democracy, eco-feminist

Social logics are always around, at least potentially. They change form. For example, feudal logics are alive & well in corporate form:


This isn't capitalist logic. Under capitalism: "The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need." btw Yanis Varoufakis's book "Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism" sounds interesting; haven't read it

Same with communist logic. If your coworker needs a hammer, you don't say "What'll you give me for it?" You just hand them the hammer. Firms operate internally with "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Because it's efficient

The current system isn't particularly stable. Anyone who's 25 has been around for over 10% of the US's history. (Some here have been around for over 30%!) There's high material innovation, but low social innovation. It's the big bottleneck. This week, a restaurant owner & I discussed how he can't feed the hungry — because seriously hungry people don't have imaginary social points. And how technologists can't automate work so we have 10 hour workweeks


Humans have many motivations. Some desire to rule others; some desire to be free (from others' rule). There's many tactics:

• education: befitting free people
• coercion: for violent people & random axe murderers. Brian Dominick taught a class on political vision, where he analyzed how a police force might work in a Participatory Economy. For example, restrictions against unionizing, not letting assholes become police, etc
• leadership promotion: sharing skills & confidence to become leaders

The very definition of a commodity means that it does not have any knowledge component and technology is now at a stage that it quickly acts to increase supply. This may not have been true in the 1970's when we had increases in gold and oil prices because the technonomic medium of the world was not powerful and adaptable enough to respond to higher prices with increases in supply but now we are in that age. And its no longer an age where anything that has anything that has a scarcity-based model can really rise a lot in price. That includes bitcoin because there are 12,000 other cryptocurrencies. Any inert commodity is a bet against technologicalprogress.
Monetary creation ("printing) offsets technologicaldeflation, which is exponentially rising, explaining the absence of inflation.

Productivity and efficiency and technology -- can feed more people and lift out of poverty

• Monetary economics MV=PY which Keynes was also school in before we got to GDP accounting
• Y = C + I + G + (x-m)
• and yes BOP accounts matter current =- capital account
• Technology and productivity certainly explain most of our current living standing
• And gold value is almost independent (and commodities) of underlying economy

A short well researched book showing the challenges of growth, inequality and class over 300 years. Lots of challenges ahead

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674273559

Our ability to purchase fantastic electronics for very little cost is because our ability to produce electronics advances even faster than the ravages of inflation.

I wish they asked this in school

I think a utopia's a zone of experimentation. If the world had one single utopia — it'd become dystopia. Better is multiple different utopias. I like visions like Participatory Economics

People need to cultivate social imagination. There's zillions of books on why capitalism sucks. Would stack up to the moon. But very few books imagine what might replace it. That's why people can't stand listening to leftists — like a doctor that tells you in gruesome detail how you hurt. But you know you hurt! If there's nothing better, why not just try to do the best for yourself?


Rojava is the big current one — radical democracy, eco-feminist

Social logics are always around, at least potentially. They change form. For example, feudal logics are alive & well in corporate form:


This isn't capitalist logic. Under capitalism: "The last thing a private firm, competing with other private firms, would do is to hire people it doesn't actually need." btw Yanis Varoufakis's book "Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism" sounds interesting; haven't read it

Same with communist logic. If your coworker needs a hammer, you don't say "What'll you give me for it?" You just hand them the hammer. Firms operate internally with "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Because it's efficient

The current system isn't particularly stable. Anyone who's 25 has been around for over 10% of the US's history. (Some here have been around for over 30%!) There's high material innovation, but low social innovation. It's the big bottleneck. This week, a restaurant owner & I discussed how he can't feed the hungry — because seriously hungry people don't have imaginary social points. And how technologists can't automate work so we have 10 hour workweeks


Humans have many motivations. Some desire to rule others; some desire to be free (from others' rule). There's many tactics:

• education: befitting free people
• coercion: for violent people & random axe murderers. Brian Dominick taught a class on political vision, where he analyzed how a police force might work in a Participatory Economy. For example, restrictions against unionizing, not letting assholes become police, etc
• leadership promotion: sharing skills & confidence to become leaders

Executive Council (Rojava) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm also not being critical of this form of governance, I'm just saying that this is not the most robust and well developed nation with a very high standard of living.

But you also have to keep in mind I am not formally trained in economics. my background is in finance and science. I know some economists but I am not one of them. So take what I say, with a grain of salt on the subject.

 

[Final_Choice]

Something along the lines of a post-scarcity society or a technological eudaimonic society governed by an autonomous and dynamic system in order to eliminate human error and greed while also maximizing the potential for human growth, happiness, and fulfillment, as well as being able to dynamically change in order to benefit the people and the system itself as much as possible. Though we're not at that level of technology yet and we'd have to demolish at least many parts of the long-standing systems we have today, which would naturally be met with opposition since it would fix lots of major imbalances of different groups in our society.

 

[SexyIncél]

The very definition of a commodity means that it does not have any knowledge component and technology is now at a stage that it quickly acts to increase supply.

Interesting! But I'm not sure I understand how this relates? (Or maybe it's its own point, to be read on its own?)

I'm also not being critical of this form of governance, I'm just saying that this is not the most robust and well developed nation with a very high standard of living.

Rojava's just 10 years old! :)

I'm just impressed it exists. Should be studied & others should build other experiments. It's a crime that few know about it. If people complaining about capitalism or patriarchy would support things like it, we'd be in a very different world. But noooOOOooo

I think we ran into this issue on another thread. That nation state isn't a state-less, government-less, money-less society. It has a ruling council. So it depends on your definition on anarchism. I always interpret it as meaning absolutely government or authority or money.

Hmm, I'm veering offtopic, so I'll just put my thoughts in a spoiler

Spoiler: Random stuff no one will read :)

Well, there's only real-world approximations to ideals. It's even controversial if we can call our systems "capitalism". (At least among libertarians & Yanis Varoufakis.) At the social level, we're basically in Crazytown

Anarchism has a (badly named) concept of "dual-power". Basically alternative autonomous social structures, coexisting alongside — and eventually challenging — state/capitalist structures. An anthropologist said of Rojava: "The unique thing is that this seems to be the only known case of a dual power situation where both sides are not just in alliance, as in Bolivia, but were actually set up by the same movement, even, in some cases, the same individuals."

So suppose you have an airport. Then you'll need a state — otherwise you're not an entity that can sign treaties & agreements. Just to organize a flight out of the country. The entire world is currently organized as a nation-state system & there's enormous pressures to be a state. And states basically run on the mafia model — being a state ain't easy

Revolutions are messy

In terms of revolutionary theory, I would say that the case of Rojava is in certain ways unique. What we find is essentially a dual power situation. On the one hand, there is the democratic self-administration, which looks very much like a government, replete with ministries, parliament, and higher courts. If you simply read the formal constitution of the Rojava cantons you would have very little sign this was anything other than an enlightened social democratic, or perhaps at most democratic socialist, state. It includes numerous political parties but was largely set up by the PYD.

On the other there's the bottom-up structures, organized by TEV-DEM, the Movement for a Democratic Society, many of whose members are also PYD or former PYD, where initiative flows entirely from popular assemblies. The balance of power between these two institutional structures appears to be fluid and under constant renegotiation. This is what one would expect in a revolutionary dual power situation; one might draw an analogy here, for instance, between the relation of MAS, the socialist party in Bolivia, and the popular assemblies of urban centers like El Alto.

The unique thing is that this seems to be the only known case of a dual power situation where both sides are not just in alliance, as in Bolivia, but were actually set up by the same movement, even, in some cases, the same individuals.

[...]

But to be allowed to arrange a flight outside the country, one would have to be signatory to an endless variety of treaties and agreements: security agreements, customs agreements, health and safety agreements, commercial agreements... Only states could make such arrangements. Unless the democratic self-organization declared itself a state, and got someone else to recognize it as such, there would be nothing for them to do.

The only possible response is twofold: first of all, to try to find the minimal degree of state-like organizational structure one can, short of an actual state, that will meet the standards of the "international community" and thus be able to interact with it; and second, to create a kind of membrane, a means to communicate information and move resources back and forth between those formal structures and the bottom-up structures created in the spirit of democratic confederalism, that nonetheless does not cause those bottom-up structures to be compromised.

— Revolution in Rojava

 

[DarkRange55]

Interesting! But I'm not sure I understand how this relates? (Or maybe it's its own point, to be read on its own?)


Rojava's just 10 years old! :)

I'm just impressed it exists. Should be studied & others should build other experiments. It's a crime that few know about it. If people complaining about capitalism or patriarchy would support things like it, we'd be in a very different world. But noooOOOooo


Hmm, I'm veering offtopic, so I'll just put my thoughts in a spoiler

Spoiler: Random stuff no one will read :)

Well, there's only real-world approximations to ideals. It's even controversial if we can call our systems "capitalism". (At least among libertarians & Yanis Varoufakis.) At the social level, we're basically in Crazytown

Anarchism has a (badly named) concept of "dual-power". Basically alternative autonomous social structures, coexisting alongside — and eventually challenging — state/capitalist structures. An anthropologist said of Rojava: "The unique thing is that this seems to be the only known case of a dual power situation where both sides are not just in alliance, as in Bolivia, but were actually set up by the same movement, even, in some cases, the same individuals."

So suppose you have an airport. Then you'll need a state — otherwise you're not an entity that can sign treaties & agreements. Just to organize a flight out of the country. The entire world is currently organized as a nation-state system & there's enormous pressures to be a state. And states basically run on the mafia model — being a state ain't easy

Revolutions are messy

My friend who is a career computer scientist (software engineer) thinks UBI will be inevitble at some point. This is just my personal guestamite:

By 2100, Climate Change will have taken some effect, and several coastal areas will be under water. However, as the past 100 years have led a shift towards carbon-free energy, most global warming has either slowed down or nearly stopped. Current coastal cities will likely have invested in some barriers to stop water from flooding the city with it, thus making some city streets actually below the new sea level.

Technology has advanced dramatically since the early 21st century. Computers are now powerful enough to surpass the processing capability of the human brain, leading to intelligent AI systems that can control many different systems, such as traffic (including sky and sea traffic), energy usage, water lines, emergency services, communication, and law enforcement.

Many cities now heavily use robots and automated vehicles for regular work: policing is mostly a robotic job with partial human oversight, commercial shipping and delivery is handled by heavy-lift automated drones, taxi and public transit is fully automated, ambulance and fire departments are reliant on robots for fast and effective emergency response, construction firms use them to ensure building projects are completed in a safe and timely fashion, and even the military is heavy on robotics, as smaller infantry units with robotic exoskeletons and armor work in conjunction with large amounts of automated fighting vehicles, VTOL craft, fighters, naval vessels, orbital fighters, etc.

Besides regular work, robots are widely accepted and used by most of the public, as they are like companions, friends, or even just a reasonable voice to turn to in a time of need. Despite fears otherwise, humans and AI manage to peacefully coexist, altough some AIs are used by hostile governments and terrorists to occasionally steal secrets or create havoc in the general system. Thus, AIs are usually fighting each other off, and helping humans fight each other off.

Speaking of governments, as population increases in many cities worldwide, local governments once again gain more power and pecedence over federal governments as each faces its own unique issues. These governments are mostly AI run, with humans in oversight positions. If something gets fucked up somewhere along the chain, the elected officials are usually blamed. The federal government's only real purpose by this point is to ensure economic balance, scientific research, national security and political unity, much of which is handled at the local level anyway, so usually the feds are seen as idiots debating over pointless topics for political gain.

A form of basic income has been instituted in most first-world countries as a measure to protect the economy from collapse, thus ensuring most citizens have some money to spend to keep it going. Manufacturing has mostly become decentralized, since most of it is done by either home machines or small automated factories, thus many companies just make money by selling consumers the legal right to produce their product. This has an added advantage of freeing the company of responsibility if their product fails, unless the fault is proven to be in the blueprints.

I don't claim to have all the answers or solutions or a crystal ball but I'm sure technology will continue to be disruptive.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I believe that there isn't a perfect system at all due to human nature. When I see people hating capitalism, I don't understand why as I believe that the thing that they should hate is human nature, not capitalism. It's because of human nature where we have to slave away. It's because of human nature that things will always be shitty with no way to improve it

 

[MyChoiceAlone]

i think we have a pretty good infrastructure just need to make sure the rich don't evade taxes

 

[Untimely]

I see many people here hating capitalism and "the system" or are against it. But what's the system you would like to live in, how would your (perfect) system look like?

For me, it would be the marxist-leninist idea of communism.