First up, just because it hasn’t worked, there’s no reason it can’t work - or is there? I’m all ears. You missed that bit.
Beyond that, the most common issue is the fact that communism is typically achieved abruptly, with little to no pre-work. If you don’t address the centralisation of wealth (and by extension, political influence), of course power is going to collapse back into authoritarian hellishness.
Transition via social democracy, taxing away the inequality, getting the populace on board with world-class social services, providing more services over time, as you transition from worker representation on boards and equity stakes to full worker ownership and workplace democracy over time.
Taking the benefits of the people fuelling the economy - workers, and handing it to wealthy shareholders that contribute nothing as they consolidate into monopolies, creating market failure in an economy fundamentally built on markets makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There’s a better way - it just takes a bit of work.
The idea is to minimise the power imbalance to prevent individuals from being able to act on their own interests to the detriment of others, while changing incentive structures to minimise the benefit of doing so.
The government can intervene (and has done so historically) to crack up monopolies. By failing to do so in an economic system where economic power is tantamount to political power, we’re signing the execution order for democracy. Look at the political influence that the likes of Musk, Bezos, and Gates already hold. It spits on the face of democracy - a concept that I happen to value. This is a problem with a simple set of solutions.
The path we’re on only leads to worse lives for all of us - lower wages (they’ll only avoid slavery as long as the government stops them - look at Western companies operations in developing countries), less competition, higher prices, less social mobility, the elimination of the concept of meritocracy, escalating tragedy of the commons… We can and should do better.
The greatest predictor of corruption, as with most crime, is inequality. Removing massive inequality eliminates the means to fund corruption, while a fairer allocation of resources disincentives it (though I’d also support strong penalties for engaging in it).
Western companies operate overseas because they’re financially incentivised to do so - this is largely due to cheap labour with minimal protections (slaves more frequently than there should be), but also due to factors like proximity to raw materials. The fact that they would move to America in a heartbeat isn’t exactly a selling point - it’s just more evidence of the harm done by capitalism, and an argument for worker enfranchisement. The long, well documented history of the CIA overthrowing governments to install regimes more favourable to US commercial interests doesn’t exactly help this point either.
The free market doesn’t self regulate - it naturally collapses into monopolies, and all the associated suffering, graft, and market failure. The corruption is an example of the failure of these companies to self regulate as they work to bypass existing regulation. Regulators regulate companies chase profit - no matter what… We should empower the regulators to stop the worst tendencies of companies operating under the profit motive. Again, look to western countries operating in the developing world for all the evidence you need of this - nestle is a great, though far from unique case study - abhorrent labour practices, environmental vandalism, political fuckery, and predatory marketing in particular.
This brings me to ask - why would you cheer for our political democracy to be choked out by a lack of economic democracy? Why would you not want democracy in your workplace rather than having the fruits of your labour leeched away by unaccountable, unproductive, uninformed owners?
It is impossible for a corruptible central power to effectively use its authority to self regulate.
Then how do you expect corporations to self-regulate? This looks an awful lot like doublethink to me. I suspect it’s also why you’ve chosen to run from my questions. I’ll need you to come to the table if you expect me to continue to answer your questions.
How would you stop a successful workers cooperative (…) from using their influence to get politicians to pull up the ladder behind them?
Can you clarify what ladder would be pulled up under communism?
Do you break up any unions that become too powerful?
What harmful behaviour would we be fighting against following the abolition of the commodity form?
The reason that monopolies form in a “free market” is because the established can, through the government, use violence to enforce their market superiority.
Completely ahistorical take. Companies don’t need the government to commit violence, and without the counterweight of the threat of government violence, they’re near guaranteed to commit that violence if it’s the most profitable decision. Look at corporate behaviour in the absence of regulation.
Without absurd intellectual property laws (these need reform) , bespoke government regulations secretly crafted in corporate boardrooms (where’s the motivation for this and the disproportionate economic power to do so in an economy run by/for workers), the ability to move one’s operation to a nation without environmental & social protections while still reaping the benefits of selling in the western world (you’re arguing for regulation now?) , and the promise to fall back on government bailouts should things turn sour (without the incentive to engage in high-risk activity for profit, bailouts would be far less common under communism, and only done if necessary), each and every one of these bloated monopolies would fall like the rotten trunks of long dead trees. (maybe focus on your point rather than flowery language. Again, history proves otherwise time and again. Regulation is required to break up monopolies, basic economics like economies of scale, first mover advantage, and the capital power to engage in anti-competitive pricing or straight violence all naturally lead to monopolies. Bases on your talking points, I suspect you’re an ancap - go look at Pullman for a case study)
The system is broken because we give politicians the power to unfairly develop and enforce the rules of the game
The solution to this is to remove the economic/political power of the companies, implement strict anti-corruption legislation, minimising the means and motivation for companies to sway politicians, and shore up our democracy, not hand the reins of power to corporations that care about nothing but profit. The issue is that companies are buying politicians to skirt regulation and minimise their influence… And your solution is to eliminate the regulation and let companies do as they please?
You’ve vaguely gestured toward potential issues you can’t articulate, said that companies self-regulate rather than regulators, and propose that in response to corporations behaving badly after they pay politicians to step away, we should make the government step away in the hope (against all evidence to the contrary, basic economic principles, and basic common sense) so that the corporations, motivated by nothing but profit will magically develop ethics? This is incoherent - get it together, my dude.
Self-regulation - go look up Pullman, the Nestlé’s baby formula scandal, or the actions of any company immediately after they get the deregulation they’ve been lobbying for. While regulation is absolutely anti-competirive in some instances (looking at you, YouTube), there’s a reason most companies lobbying spend billions advocating for deregulation not more regulation.
Workers vs boards. What portion of the population are workers, what portion hold board seats? Which helps the vast majority of the population, all the productive capacity, and almost all the consumption in the economy, and which area a drain on all of that, centralising wealth and power into a set of unelected oligarchs? What higher price are you going to seek in a decommodified economy?
Freedom - freedom from someone telling you what to do is great and all, but I’d rather the freedom to live the way you want, to not be coerced into wage slavery at that of homelessness, starvation and death. We can absolutely achieve this if we shift our priorities from legislating protection shareholder profits to protecting the basic needs of people. After your previous line of inquiry, I have to ask - how do you stop politicians from bringing back policy you don’t like? I don’t see how it’s possible without shoring up our democracy in unison, which you’re passionately advocating against.
Regulation is by no means a necessary component in a monopoly, and it tends to be the only reliable way to break them - which is why antitrust laws exist. Outside that, pick any industry with a high capital cost, assume someone had first mover advantage - Likely monopoly - just use economies of scale and predatory pricing to drive either your infant competitors, or those mired in debt from the capital cost of rapid scaling out of business, or acquire them. Natural monopolies like power and water transmission and rail are great examples of this. Regulation is needed to keep them from exploiting their monopoly - not to kill competition.
In my country, we have a supermarket duopoly - and the government has had to intervene several times to stop collusion. They’re both massively vertically integrated, and diversified. Want to enter the market? You won’t be buying from any of the farms or manufacturers they own. Want to buy from anyone else? Assuming they’re not contractually locked up, they have the market power to dictate the price you pay from their suppliers (which is just about everyone). Unless you can open hundreds of supermarkets overnight, you can’t compete. Aldi have barely managed to enter the market over the span of 2 decades wiith massive international backing and their own vertical integration. How would legislation be locking out the small players here, and how will deregulation solve this?
Here I go fixing communism again…
First up, just because it hasn’t worked, there’s no reason it can’t work - or is there? I’m all ears. You missed that bit.
Beyond that, the most common issue is the fact that communism is typically achieved abruptly, with little to no pre-work. If you don’t address the centralisation of wealth (and by extension, political influence), of course power is going to collapse back into authoritarian hellishness.
Transition via social democracy, taxing away the inequality, getting the populace on board with world-class social services, providing more services over time, as you transition from worker representation on boards and equity stakes to full worker ownership and workplace democracy over time.
Taking the benefits of the people fuelling the economy - workers, and handing it to wealthy shareholders that contribute nothing as they consolidate into monopolies, creating market failure in an economy fundamentally built on markets makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There’s a better way - it just takes a bit of work.
deleted by creator
The idea is to minimise the power imbalance to prevent individuals from being able to act on their own interests to the detriment of others, while changing incentive structures to minimise the benefit of doing so.
The government can intervene (and has done so historically) to crack up monopolies. By failing to do so in an economic system where economic power is tantamount to political power, we’re signing the execution order for democracy. Look at the political influence that the likes of Musk, Bezos, and Gates already hold. It spits on the face of democracy - a concept that I happen to value. This is a problem with a simple set of solutions.
The path we’re on only leads to worse lives for all of us - lower wages (they’ll only avoid slavery as long as the government stops them - look at Western companies operations in developing countries), less competition, higher prices, less social mobility, the elimination of the concept of meritocracy, escalating tragedy of the commons… We can and should do better.
deleted by creator
The greatest predictor of corruption, as with most crime, is inequality. Removing massive inequality eliminates the means to fund corruption, while a fairer allocation of resources disincentives it (though I’d also support strong penalties for engaging in it).
Western companies operate overseas because they’re financially incentivised to do so - this is largely due to cheap labour with minimal protections (slaves more frequently than there should be), but also due to factors like proximity to raw materials. The fact that they would move to America in a heartbeat isn’t exactly a selling point - it’s just more evidence of the harm done by capitalism, and an argument for worker enfranchisement. The long, well documented history of the CIA overthrowing governments to install regimes more favourable to US commercial interests doesn’t exactly help this point either.
The free market doesn’t self regulate - it naturally collapses into monopolies, and all the associated suffering, graft, and market failure. The corruption is an example of the failure of these companies to self regulate as they work to bypass existing regulation. Regulators regulate companies chase profit - no matter what… We should empower the regulators to stop the worst tendencies of companies operating under the profit motive. Again, look to western countries operating in the developing world for all the evidence you need of this - nestle is a great, though far from unique case study - abhorrent labour practices, environmental vandalism, political fuckery, and predatory marketing in particular.
This brings me to ask - why would you cheer for our political democracy to be choked out by a lack of economic democracy? Why would you not want democracy in your workplace rather than having the fruits of your labour leeched away by unaccountable, unproductive, uninformed owners?
deleted by creator
Then how do you expect corporations to self-regulate? This looks an awful lot like doublethink to me. I suspect it’s also why you’ve chosen to run from my questions. I’ll need you to come to the table if you expect me to continue to answer your questions.
Can you clarify what ladder would be pulled up under communism?
What harmful behaviour would we be fighting against following the abolition of the commodity form?
Completely ahistorical take. Companies don’t need the government to commit violence, and without the counterweight of the threat of government violence, they’re near guaranteed to commit that violence if it’s the most profitable decision. Look at corporate behaviour in the absence of regulation.
The solution to this is to remove the economic/political power of the companies, implement strict anti-corruption legislation, minimising the means and motivation for companies to sway politicians, and shore up our democracy, not hand the reins of power to corporations that care about nothing but profit. The issue is that companies are buying politicians to skirt regulation and minimise their influence… And your solution is to eliminate the regulation and let companies do as they please?
You’ve vaguely gestured toward potential issues you can’t articulate, said that companies self-regulate rather than regulators, and propose that in response to corporations behaving badly after they pay politicians to step away, we should make the government step away in the hope (against all evidence to the contrary, basic economic principles, and basic common sense) so that the corporations, motivated by nothing but profit will magically develop ethics? This is incoherent - get it together, my dude.
deleted by creator
Sorry - again, this is completely ahistorical.
Self-regulation - go look up Pullman, the Nestlé’s baby formula scandal, or the actions of any company immediately after they get the deregulation they’ve been lobbying for. While regulation is absolutely anti-competirive in some instances (looking at you, YouTube), there’s a reason most companies lobbying spend billions advocating for deregulation not more regulation.
Workers vs boards. What portion of the population are workers, what portion hold board seats? Which helps the vast majority of the population, all the productive capacity, and almost all the consumption in the economy, and which area a drain on all of that, centralising wealth and power into a set of unelected oligarchs? What higher price are you going to seek in a decommodified economy?
Freedom - freedom from someone telling you what to do is great and all, but I’d rather the freedom to live the way you want, to not be coerced into wage slavery at that of homelessness, starvation and death. We can absolutely achieve this if we shift our priorities from legislating protection shareholder profits to protecting the basic needs of people. After your previous line of inquiry, I have to ask - how do you stop politicians from bringing back policy you don’t like? I don’t see how it’s possible without shoring up our democracy in unison, which you’re passionately advocating against.
Regulation is by no means a necessary component in a monopoly, and it tends to be the only reliable way to break them - which is why antitrust laws exist. Outside that, pick any industry with a high capital cost, assume someone had first mover advantage - Likely monopoly - just use economies of scale and predatory pricing to drive either your infant competitors, or those mired in debt from the capital cost of rapid scaling out of business, or acquire them. Natural monopolies like power and water transmission and rail are great examples of this. Regulation is needed to keep them from exploiting their monopoly - not to kill competition.
In my country, we have a supermarket duopoly - and the government has had to intervene several times to stop collusion. They’re both massively vertically integrated, and diversified. Want to enter the market? You won’t be buying from any of the farms or manufacturers they own. Want to buy from anyone else? Assuming they’re not contractually locked up, they have the market power to dictate the price you pay from their suppliers (which is just about everyone). Unless you can open hundreds of supermarkets overnight, you can’t compete. Aldi have barely managed to enter the market over the span of 2 decades wiith massive international backing and their own vertical integration. How would legislation be locking out the small players here, and how will deregulation solve this?