Tweet
Quackdoc In socialism, people still own stuff. It's solely(!) the ownership structure of workplaces (=means of production) that would change, along with a focus of ensuring that all basic needs are met, for everyone. It also means that labor is organized in a more democratic fashion. Byebye bad working conditions or salaries getting adjusted below the rate of inflation.
Since sustainability (economical, environmental and societal) and social welfare are prioritized higher than profit maximization, harmful practices like supermarkets throwing away perfectly good food and pouring bleach on it to prevent "dumpster diving", or generally, containers of useless goods getting produced and then shredded or burnt because they didn't sell, wouldn't happen.
Things like converting the whole energy grid to emission-free sources would also be easier to implement, because it doesn't need to be profitable and as reliant on external investors, just cost covering (material, transport, labor, maintenance). Other than that, it creates an environment that makes it easier to ensure that human rights are met: I.e. there is a fundamental right to housing, food, education and access to medical treatments, which is independent from ones status of employment and financial standing!
Capitalism fails to properly address all of these things, because it puts too much power, wealth and influence into the hands of a select few, to the point that these people can decide over the future of thousands of others, aswell as circumvent the democratic process by leveraging politics into doing their bidding and greatly influencing media coverage.
I don't think that capitalism can be "fixed", in the sense that already it works as intended: It structures the economy, and society as a whole, such, that those with enough money cannot loose, at the cost of the wellbeing of the majority. With tremendous effort, the system could be regulated, but I'd argue that these changes are be bound to erode over time - we've already seen this, just take the last 50-60 years in nearly every western, 1st world country for example. Thus, there needs to be a fundamentally different system.
Since sustainability (economical, environmental and societal) and social welfare are prioritized higher than profit maximization, harmful practices like supermarkets throwing away perfectly good food and pouring bleach on it to prevent "dumpster diving", or generally, containers of useless goods getting produced and then shredded or burnt because they didn't sell, wouldn't happen.
Things like converting the whole energy grid to emission-free sources would also be easier to implement, because it doesn't need to be profitable and as reliant on external investors, just cost covering (material, transport, labor, maintenance). Other than that, it creates an environment that makes it easier to ensure that human rights are met: I.e. there is a fundamental right to housing, food, education and access to medical treatments, which is independent from ones status of employment and financial standing!
Capitalism fails to properly address all of these things, because it puts too much power, wealth and influence into the hands of a select few, to the point that these people can decide over the future of thousands of others, aswell as circumvent the democratic process by leveraging politics into doing their bidding and greatly influencing media coverage.
I don't think that capitalism can be "fixed", in the sense that already it works as intended: It structures the economy, and society as a whole, such, that those with enough money cannot loose, at the cost of the wellbeing of the majority. With tremendous effort, the system could be regulated, but I'd argue that these changes are be bound to erode over time - we've already seen this, just take the last 50-60 years in nearly every western, 1st world country for example. Thus, there needs to be a fundamentally different system.
They were just one huge monopoly corpo controlled by the government.
Comment