The Democracy of the founding fathers was Greek Democracy, predicated upon a slave society, and restricted to only the elite. This is the society we live in today, even with our reforms towards direct representation. The system is inherently biased towards the election of elites and against the representation of the masses. Hamilton called it “faction” when the working class got together and demanded better conditions, and mechanisms were built in (which still exist to this day) that serve to ensure the continued dominance of the elite over the masses. The suffering of the many is intentional. The opulence of the wealthy is also. This is the intended outcome.
The problem isn't necessarily entirely capitalism, but rather capitalism that is heavily skewed in one direction with regulatory capture, therefore it's no longer true capitalism. Large corporations have the protection of numerous governments to shield them from a truly free market.
In other words, a local farmer selling his reasonably sized crop yields for fair profit is fine. A large multinational food corporation that manipulates food prices for greedily high profit margins--and this same corporation gets laws passed to ensure smaller farmers are kept under thumb--is not.
True large scale socialism is a pipe dream. It mostly works in small groups, but it most certainly does not when that group consists of millions of people. A balanced approach of moderate, well regulated capitalism and social democracy is the best solution, in my opinion.
Edit: The first few sentences appear to have been poorly worded and many are mistaking me for someone advocating for true/unregulated capitalism, but that is not the case. I'm simply remarking that even if our system was meant to be completely capitalist originally (which is still bad), it's not even that anymore. It's a bastardized version of it where corporations no longer have to compete fairly, as they've made themselves keys to the kingdom to ensure no one can potentially challenge them, so to speak.
My last paragraph of my original comment is essentially my point. True socialism isn't possible at scale, but a mixture of it and capitalism is.
Brain dead take, capitalism always ends in the consolidation of capital and power. It naturally flows resources into fewer and fewer hands as the only goal is to make more and more profit. We're living in it and you're denying it. Take a look around you.
Apparently you didn't actually care to read what I wrote and comprehend what I meant. I am specifically calling out the system we're currently living in.
I did. The true long term goal for our species should be eliminating our reliance on monetary systems. Money is just a tool for inequality at this point.
I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think it's realistic for a long, long time. Humans will require an evolution of sorts for anything like that to occur. You'd need the vast majority of humans to stop being selfish/entitled. That's never going to happen without dramatic change. In small pockets of society, e.g. communes? Sure. At scale in places like NYC, Delhi, London, etc? No way.
You're ultimately right. Though, as you said in current mentality, if there is a way to be more equal someone will do it. Civic centers like that would have to be reformed after whatever new way lf things comes next. I'd imagine our descendants will have to squat in our ruins before that also happens.
Power always accumulates within capitalism. Large corporations don't usually start that way, Walmart and Target started as single stores that got lucky. Capitalism is reliant on the state. We have a name for the system where capitalism existed without reliance on the state; it's called feudalism. A competition will always end with one winner and several losers, so free market competition results in a monopoly and several failed businesses. To prevent this, governments make rules to prevent the competition from ending, which results in more wealth and capital to influence government even more and break down those rules. In capitalist society, it is the ultimate goal to become the international megacorporation that manipulates markets and suppresses worker rights to maximize profit. So, I'll ask you, what's the difference between corporate capitalism and this 'true' capitalism?
You misunderstood what I meant. What I'm saying is that corporations have taken over the governments that are supposed to be regulating them and now write the rules that benefit themselves, a.k.a. regulatory capture. This is bad. Thus why I wrote what I wrote.
Capitalism isn't inherently bad. Unchecked capitalism will eventually become corrupted, this is known. I'm not advocating for true capitalism, I was merely making a remark about the current situation. If you read my last sentence, I'm a proponent for well regulated capitalism that's run by a system of social democracy.
Regulatory capture was predicted well over 100 years ago. It is in inevitable outcome of the liberal Democratic capitalist model.
So while you might say, that many of our problems would be solved if we just stopped this damn regulatory capture, to do so, would reflect a lack of understanding of the inevitability of actors gaining enough capital to influence and even overpower the state. You cannot fix it through capitalism. Even soft social changes like syndicalism would only result in syndicates capturing regulatory processes , rather than corporations.
It was predicted over a 100 years ago? Lol, a 100 years ago we were trying to climb out of the Robber Baron Era, the definitive era that showed how rotten unbridled capitalism could become... until some key events, politicians, and laws helped put a stop to their total control (and then of course the Great Depression came crashing in). This is in the context of the US, anyway.
Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. Keep dreaming of the impossible, I agree it is a nice dream but I promise you it will never happen at scale until humans evolve and/or modern societies have been reduced to ash.
1867 to be exact.
Indeed, and that is around the time that the Labor Revolution started to mobilize in the US. By then, there were already the beginnings of major monopolies that would continue to snowball to their peak by the end of the 1800s/early 1900s.
I will leave off with this: I don't entirely disagree with you. Certain industries should absolutely have no profit motive: Healthcare, basic utilities, basic infrastructure, etc. should 100% be publicly owned, funded, and operated. In the US, we've seen firsthand what has resulted from privatizing these goods and services (i.e. it's been very bad).
However, in my opinion, humans are still fairly primitive animals and motive is heavily driven by immediate/short term reward. I think it would be amazing if we could abandon that short sighted thinking/ambitions and strive for a harmonious utopia of pure socialism. But I just don't see how it's possible when you're dealing with billions of animals, much of whom have generational trauma that drives much of our destructive behavior. You'd need to address that trauma, cease all violence, and provide basic needs to everyone so that people can live comfortably and without fear for generations. Good luck getting the vast majority of folks on board with that goal.
socdem is a perfectly good intermediary to a socialist society, so I won't bad talk it. However, none of the problems we currently face as a civilization can be solved through capitalism.
Yea yeah no true Scotsman. Where is this “true capitalism” in existence? Or is this another “homo economicus “ that definitively can never exist?
Large scale socialism has worked, multiple times. Do you not think industrializing a peasant society, more than doubling lifespan, cutting working hours in half, I could go on but I’ll leave it there, are things successful countries do? What determines success?
Arguably the most capitalist societies were probably nomadic hunter gatherers where everyone was always on the move, every man and woman was out there for themselves. Not really everyone's cup of tea let alone particularly enjoyable to be fair
There’s no evidence of any time when humans were “Out there for themselves”. History shows definitively that humans have actively collaborated in social arrangements in every instance that we have found.
Sounds like somebody needs to take an anthropology course or two. You are badly confused. You're not even wrong, you're just light years off base and clearly speculating with a kind of pure almost childlike ignorance of the subject.
You have a very generous definition of the word "worked."
It's just a simple fact that managed or hybrid capitalism produces by far the best results for the most people. I will never understand the need to see the world in black and white terms when it's quite obvious to nearly everyone that mixed economies provide the best allocation of resources together with the highest quality of life. This is a subject that mainstream economists see as largely settled, apart from the details.
I can't believe I'm seriously arguing with a communist. Maybe this is enough Internet for me for today.
No I have a rather defined definition of worked. It is “improved the lives of the vast majority of citizens”. Which socialism did, and does.
25% of American children don’t get enough food to sustain proper development. And that’s a proper allocation of resources to you? Millions of Britains rely upon food banks because the resources are so unevenly distributed that a few individuals hold the majority of it, and that is a proper allocation of resources to you?
Nearly a million people are homeless (40% of which work full time) in the US. Is that a better allocation of resources than providing housing as a human right?