I’m bored. Bored of hearing the tired old argument that socialism provides for the needy and capitalism help people raise to the top in a free market economy. Personally? I think there’s good and bad to each one. I just think that each system is so fundamentally flawed that I think it’s time to change that record disc already.
Socialism is great. As I say I’m an anarcho-socialist. I believe that everyone has that shining light and can be someone of worth. Socialism inspires that, it encourages collectivism, providing for the few, helping the needy. But I find it very rigid in its thinking. There needs to be some sort of authoritarian presence otherwise who will stop anyone taking what they want from who they want? Also, what about those that work hard and want to achieve something in their life? I think people that work hard to achieve what they need should be rewarded accordingly. We see a situation in Britain right now where people have become disenfranchised by a system that rewards people for working, and doing nothing equally.
Just not 45 Million pounds per year. That’s stupid and unequal.
And the same for Capitalism. It’s great to see the rise of quick thinking and entrepreneurial types in the system who devise quite forward thinking and awe inspiring technologies. People taking it upon themselves to join the free market and make a living for themselves, but with this there is such a centralisation on the individual. It promotes wealth, but it also promotes greed. Gross inequality in wages, and certainly towards responsibility and duties taken. The CEO of Walmart makes $16,000 or so per second or something daft like that, whereas his front line works make $10 per hours or near that. Inequality? Greatly so.
Is it so beyond us to devise a system that caters for both collectivism and capitalism? It doesn’t seem hard really. I mean economists and those that lead the country can sit there and think, ok, obviously this isn’t working. So today we’ll scrap everything and start again. Perhaps they won’t, because then that would create a system that doesn’t cater to those that are already profiteering psychopathic amounts from it.
It would be great to devise a system that caters to all walks of life. For those that want to create and manage and be inspired, they should be rewarded. And there also should be remuneration for community focussed activity. I totally get there are all walks of life, and that to make people happy you need to provide enough of what they want – so perhaps instead of weighting a great deal on financial reward, and having the corporate few that hold all the keys to the finances, decentralise the system. Have a system where there is competition where currently there is none. Give back the power of voting to the people, and perhaps we might see the rise of a new build. I don’t know.
What do you think?
Hey sorry for filling up your comments section, I didn't realize how long that reply had gotten and that was rude of me, I apologize.
Literally my response should have been a blog posting on it's own. I've moved my response to my blog so no one has to wade through it unless they want to.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@williambanks/towards-a-better-tomorrow-part-4-the-final-destination
Excellent post though @gangsta ! I've upvoted and I'm following you now.
what a great read.
Thank you!
Definitely some interesting statements here. Money has been the biggest fallacy around for years. Yet it kind of translates the value of something. Which is why I agree, the perceived value of stuff is based on the type of demand for it. That's where the level of scarcity comes in - or the perceived levels- to accumulate as much money as possible. Based on this we have been able to create this system in Capitalism to create stuff that have perceived value - time tells us all the time that it was not as valuable as we thought though -- and offer the respective amount asked for it. All now knowledge/creativity/time are money. In what you stated it will be more obvious than before (at least I hope so)
Yes that is the readers digest version of it. Thank you for reading it!
collectivism is the worst thing that can happen to humanity. So no we do not need collectivism. Not a single bit. Humans are not ants in a colony but uniquer individuals. Collectivism leads to blaming "others" for your failures.Collectivism births racism and xenophobia and war and most ills that plague humanity.
The greatest advancements of mankind came from individualism. All of them. It is what we need more of.
Collectivism/individualism is nothing but a false dichotomy. There are aspects of both in most situations in life.
And these words need to be clearly defined, not coloured by personal assciations. Both collectivism and individualism are double edge swords.
If am in a group, I need to balance my personal needs against the needs of the group. If I lose track of other the perspective of other people I have taken the individualist perspective too far.
On the other hand, you can´t see things from the perspective of a group, because a group consists of individuals. So groups are abstract entities based on identification, and this is dangerous,because it opens up the possibility that people lose track of their personal perspective to further the groups interest.
Of course,the reason people work to further a group interest can be as selfish as a pure individualist perspective,as the group is satisfying yourpersonal needs for safety and a feeling of meaning.
In conclusion, it´s complicated.
So, as a Anarcho-Socialist, who considers collectivism and helping the needy a beneficial aspect of socialism, can the rest of assume you will be sharing the payout from this post equally...or will you be contemplating the Anarcho-Capitalist approach of keeping it all to yourself...I'm just curious how this works, because from my personal experience, there is always a bit of hypocrisy associated with those claiming to be "socialist" in some form or another...and please, don't be offended...I am genuinely curious as to how this "socialism" everyone seems to be embracing, is going to work...because I can tell you right now, my money is on you keeping the payout of this post to yourself, rather than sharing it equally as "socialism" would otherwise dictate, and why wouldn't you...it's your work, why should any of the rest of us be entitled to an equal share of it.
Glad to see a post on Steemit that isn't just pro-anarchy actually getting some traction! Gives me some hope for Steemit making it.
I always see Unions and leftists, argue against automation. Many people are fearful about machines taking over their jobs. McDonalds, Walmart, etc. low end jobs. They resist the sign of the times: by protesting, rioting, and sometimes destroying the very machines that will soon replace them. They don't realize that it's not just machines replacing people, it's systems replacing ALL people.
The paradigm shift is a move towards machines and systems. Much like the one we are occupying now. Or more precisely like the blockchain. I'm more enthusiastic to have automation that will replace the middle men, management, administrative jobs. Like smart contracts, blockchain, that can truly adhere to the principals of democracy and reach true free market.
TL;DR
The shift is coming. To replace ALL middle men(banks, politicians, brokers, beuracrats etc..)
A very interesting post; can you explain to me how all of the innovation the world has enjoyed which progressively increased the standard of living for everyone has been bad? How much of that innovation happened under authoritarian socialist societies? Nations that encouraged individual creativity, and industry have flourished creating great societies. When group think has been encouraged the world has witnessed the worst forms of oppression. We should encourage those who are disadvantaged to invest in their human capital and increase their self worth instead of working towards dragging all of society to the same miserable place.
Hmmmm not sure how to unpack your questions. I'm not advocating for a socialist society. In fact, I'm pro free market. What I am more excited is the elimination of bureaucrats from both the public and private sphere. Those two groups have led us to have capitalism and socialism run a muck. What I want is a system that we can TRUST and that doesn't get corrupted by semi erudite bureaucrats
Apologies for hitting the wrong reply button I was directing my comments against gansta. However I agree wih you except for the fact I don't believe auotmation will fix the bureaucratic problems. Nor do I think we can build a system we can trust. Nor do I want to trust bureaucrats or machines. I do agree the machine running a smart contract is more trust worthy.
Sounds good but people do not understand it, the ultra-super rich. Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, Allen. They hold stock, not cash. They received the stock because when their companies were new they awarded themselves stock. And as the WorldCom trial showed with Jeffrey Schilling, sell too much of your stock as an executive, even if you want to retire and do something else completely, the company and the stock price can collapse! An executive will be imprisoned for it, fast. Other executives who also own a vast amount of stock, might just commit suicide.
Buffet and Gates decided to donate 15 billion for AIDS care in Africa, nothing wrong with that except, they had to sell stock in order to do it and when they did...
Every system has its flaws, problems, crooks, and total heroes. As far as collectives capitalism, they are everywhere in the United States, especially in Rural Agricultural areas. It is legal to start them and they can be profitable.
Where do you find collectives in America that are huge? If you go to a town and the gas station says 'COOP' it does not mea chicke coop. Everything in the town might just be owned by the Co-op, everybody.
So, did you know that? Did you know that like trade guilds, agricultural coops go back thousands of years around the entire planet?
really good. musing aloud: decentralisation is the key to being able to reconcile the tension between liberty and equality. IT has the potential to do this because it could link myriad human scale local communities across the world. this potentiality was massively multiplied by the invention of the blockchain.
I think you have the right idea,apart from the part about the authoritarian presence. That is the opposite of what we need. We need flat,local governance structures. And we need a post-scarcity society,because economy is at the roof of most of our problems. So much of politics is about the distribution or redistribution of resources. This will be solved,production costs will eventually go so low that most basic needs can be purchased cheaply. And then the next step is collaborative ownership of the means of production,including many services that will be automated. I belive this will happen naturally, because it cuts costs.
A very central point here is that we can only produce as much much as our environment can take,i.e the economy has ecological constraints. This needs to be a central premise in our philosophy as a society.
Now for those services that can´t be automated, we have different models. My wiew is that the remaining work should be divided in a kind of collective gift economy.
Alternatively, and this might agree with you more, capitalism will continue in limited fashion, but the goods and services that we trade will be ever more based on information and attention. This is already happening.
My conclusion is that socialists, anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists should agree to disagree for now. If we really want to create a better society, let´s accelerate events, and fight for the post-scarcity society,and then go from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Scarcity_Anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
there's no such thing as a post-scarce society. Discussing about how to plan for one now is the equivalent of discussing how to survive a zombie apocalypse, it's fun, but completely unrealistic.
Give some arguments please, captainpuppy. I mean we can claim things all day, to no avail.
I disagree. In fact there are historical examples of 'abundant' economies. PreColumbian NorthWest Indians for example.
I agree with the need for any 'centralized' authority. How about a 'decentralized authority' instead? One where you could choose which group you want to pay tribute (taxes) to (if at all) for various services like protection, fire fighting services, etc.
interesting idea, can you explain more? I would rather have a non monetary system,as I think money will be redundant in the future, but this future might be far off still. Meanwhile we need transition models. Your idea could fit there. This reminds me of a project called resilience, made by a swedish guy called Johan nygren,who is also on Steemit
Please check this link and compare it to your idea;
https://resilience.press/taxemes-voluntary-wealth-redistribution-through-natural-selection-d1f586987c71#.a2xsxnp7s
I meant -- I agreed with your comment that a central authority is not needed.
Basically, the idea behind a 'decentralized authority' is that the power structure exists and you cannot remove / dismantle it completely, as then something else would naturally form in its place in the wake of the vacuum.
Instead, decentralization of power should be the goal; how that can be accomplished, or even what that is are another matter.
this is very thought provoking. automation, AI and robotics will increase the amount of liesure to the point that a gift - busking economy will be possible, greatly enhancing conviviality, the development of the unique human individual and the releasing to the greater good of the concomitant creativity and enquiry. concentrations of power, pyramid, style would be inimical to this possibility. decentralisation would be its very condition which is why blockchain technology is so important.
Yes, the blockchain is a key technology. Decentralisation is extremely exciting, because it seems to change the nature of the game, giving power to the people. THese are very exciting times.
Also the safe network is a key technology.
Sorry for the long rant, maybe it was out of place. I think your post was good, and we are definitely on the same side.
I am following you now, and I´m hoping to collaborate with you in the future, to try to improve the sorry state of our society.
Thanks! I didn't see that as a rant. I'm always up for a conversation. It's one that we need to have.
There are many sides to capitalism - Steemit is a part of my favorite trend of decentralised platforms. For example, where Uber failed, even more decentralised Arcade City stepped in. It's a market solution to a problem created by government regulations - it connects passangers (customers) with drivers (service providers).
We can "vote" with our resources (not only money) to support project that we consider useful and fair. If you don't like Walmart, you should avoid shopping there and take your money elsewhere. The freer the market, the more choice we have and it's up to us how we use it.
Keep working, stop paying.
We workers already make all the stuff, why in the hell are we buying it back from billionaires?
F'em, we work, we take what we need from the shelves.
This guy said it first,.... https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
gangsta, I don't think there is a true free market capitalist economy anywhere except perhaps the black market, yard sales, swap meets, etc. All countries are basically socialist including the USA. That is why all the world economies will probably soon be collapsing. @gamgam
The free market works best when it's free. The less free it is the less well it works. Don't blame a fettered market for not working well.
That's an interesting point, can you direct me to some resources? :)
Gansta, Read my response to Kooskikoo. Watch the video. :-)
A true free market is not what people mean when they talk about capitalism,so your comment is obscuring the point ,gangam
All countries are basically socialist?? So why are socialists criticizing capitalism, are you really saying that rising inequality, and precarity,including diminishing rights for workers,privatisation,the selling out of natural resources, companies having a free reign to pollute the environment,etc,etc, all of this is socialism?
And people who define themselves as conservatives or neo-liberal ,etc,are all socialists without their knowledge?
Far out,man what can I say.
You really enlighten the masses.
Kooshitoo, The old saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is appropriate here. Sure corporations misuse their power, but governments tilt the balance in their favor. The more government you have the more they can tilt the scales in the favor of large corporations. It was Rockefeller I believe that said "Competition is a sin". The more you allow the free market to work the more free we all are to pursue our dreams. Corporations love the system we have now because they are working hand in hand with the government. Socialism is just a way for a few people to have power over the rest of us. Socialism doesn't work because the people in power always abuse it and the people out of power don't have an incentive to work hard. Your ideal of a benevolent leadership and a grateful hard working people never comes to fruition. Please consider watching this. https://steemit.com/politics/@gamgam/the-five-basic-forms-of-government-explained
I have no ideal of a benevolent leadership. I do not want leadership, I want governance. Governance without hierarchy. I identify as a communalist in the tradition of Murray Bookchin. You could call it anarchism, it´s basically the same,just not individualist anarchism.
Socialism is not dictatorship:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
But this is a moot point, as I´m not a socialist.
The central point is that capitalism and socialism are both old solutions,based on scarcity and centralisation.
What we need is a post scarcity scenario. Read the comment of williambanks above, it pretty much sums it up.
hmm, come to Europe or go to Canada, this is the way these countries are design: social security, free or cheap med care and you have a the right as well to be an entrepreneur..
Most countries in Europe are neither govern to the right or left but rather the center with a bit left with left government and a bit of right with right gov...
One of the first things we went over in college Microeconomic class is that socialism does not work and can hold countries back economically. I'm surprised this was actually mentioned in college cause in high school teachers make socialism sound amazing.
socialism has failed (or is failing) every time it's been tried.
People post on Steemit purely for capitalistic purposes. Why sit writing articles unless there is some personal benefit? If not for the chance of reward - why bother?
please read it for a moment,
I need your help.
https://steemit.com/life/@odyprabowo/we-need-your-help-please-read-it
im trying to make social movements
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal