/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 35465
125 kB, 1200 × 676
What are some good alternatives to Communism and Capitalism? Communism obviously doesn't seem to work so well except at industrializing and militarizing agrarian economies and has many of its own well known other problems, but I've been slowly coming to realize there's quite a lot wrong with Capitalism too. So what's the alternative? What are some other economic systems and theories worth trying? Also general econ thread thread I also just realized after typing that last sentence how much of a shitshow this could be so if it does go to hell mods can lock it and delete it but no politics please only as close to objective principles of economics as possible.

Also I think that automation has proven to not be such a miracle cure because you still end up with basically a serf or slave class like all empires and even feudal societies ended up being just without using animals or human beings as slaves and plus it just seems like it'll end up putting people out of work rather than everyone living easy lives thanks to fuller automation. Silicon Valley is a great example of how terrible that idea can turn out to be with fewer enfranchised people, more homeless, and less human control over anything like that terrible dystopian vision everyone seems busily embracing in some areas called "the internet of things." I really don't get the appeal of having a personal car where you don't have control over its operation anymore. That "feature" of mobile devices with less user control is already infuriating.
>>
No. 35468
>>35465
>Communism obviously doesn't seem to work so well
There was no communism in reality, though. Communism is a hypothetical sort-of-utopian model, which supposedly should replace capitalism when there would be enough resources for everyone and the industry can satisfy each and every demand, so there would be no need in the economy whatsoever. If you were referring to countries like USSR, PRC, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and so on, they were implementing various kinds of socialism instead, hoping to live to see a bright communist future someday. Also, "trying" an economic system is absurd. All economic systems, including oldest slavery-based ones and feudalism, are products of the existing conditions and circumstances. Attempts to just switch the system on a whim of some ruler or politician who decided to give some scholar's ideas a go ultimately end in failure.
>>
No. 35470
>>35468
All "socialism" countries was actuall authoritarian/totalitarian goverment capitalism, where goverment is singe corporation and monopolist and ruler same time and it end being shit same as all monopolies.
Original communism theory comes from ideas of XIX centuary. It based on true observarion that people has no ability to go up on Maslow pyramid because most of lower classes if people in need of earning money to basicly survive. What this theory not count, is that humans is stupid bydlo. And when everyone will have all ohysical basic economic goods for free some will want just more while most of others become idle and everythjng will end like in WALL-E cartoon.
>>
No. 35472
>>35470
They considered their countries "socialist". And technically they could be right, since the means of production were in public (i.e. state) property, the economy was planned and market competition was nonexistent. There never were any countries that called themselves "communist", though.
>>
No. 35497
I liked the recent piece by Branko Milanovic on this topic:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-12-10/clash-capitalisms

>Capitalism now has no rival, but these two models offer significantly different ways of structuring political and economic power in a society. Political capitalism gives greater autonomy to political elites while promising high growth rates to ordinary people. China’s economic success undermines the West’s claim that there is a necessary link between capitalism and liberal democracy.

>Capitalism has no rival, but its two variants offer significantly different ways of structuring political and economic power.
>Liberal capitalism has many well-known advantages, the most important being democracy and the rule of law. These two features are virtues in themselves, and both can be credited with encouraging faster economic development by promoting innovation and social mobility. Yet this system faces an enormous challenge: the emergence of a self-perpetuating upper class coupled with growing inequality. This now represents the gravest threat to liberal capitalism’s long-term viability.

>At the same time, China’s government and those of other political capitalist states need to constantly generate economic growth to legitimize their rule, a compulsion that might become harder and harder to fulfill.
>>
No. 35500
Define them. Both can have a lot of ways of interpreting the term depending on who is talking. I mean, there are pro-market anarchist circles where capitalism is a dirty word.
>>
No. 35548
198 kB, 1417 × 1417
The problem lies with ideology
>>
No. 35549
>>35548
I thought it lies with corruption (human nature)
>>
No. 35551
239 kB, 1417 × 1417
172 kB, 1200 × 1200
>>35549
I was just looking for an opportunity to post Slavoj.

But I agree. I'm myself are well off and I just can not understand, how there are people who want more. Like what the hell to do with more than 100k/year (Ok, let it be 100k/year and 2Mio. once in your life).
The urge to have more and more is not just alien to me but seems to be the problem in the end.
>>
No. 35555
113 kB, 680 × 958
>>35551
this reminds me I've heard Disco Elysium described as a Slavoj Zizek simulator and I don't get the joke
The thing to keep in mind isn't even human nature's greed but something far worse which I think is tacit about Capitalism yet literally never discussed: the desire to control or have power over other people.

Actually now that I think about it the deliberate reason why this is never discussed is probably because it completely blows apart the one greatest myth about Capitalism which is that somehow a) any person get get rich if they're driven enough, and b) that being rich doesn't automatically make you have political power because Capitalism has been tried in Western democracies. Of course if you outright state that the real reason for the driving force of Capitalism is having enormous power over others then you're basically admitting that our representational democracy is a total fraud itself as well as admitting the free market ain't free. Both of which are probably true sadly.

Like my mentality is greed over one dollar is too many, because a billion is never enough. I was thinking about it last night and figured out that if I could just work a bydlo job and make $20,000 a year and have affordable housing that would be plenty enough for me. Almost the entirety of the driving force behind getting rich isn't about having things, but about having social status directly, which in America is tied directly to money probably unlike any other society. You can be the most boorish, horrible person and so long as you're richer American society says you're "better" than others.

Nobody who decides to get rich--and I don't mean a pissy little well off 200k/year income I mean actually rich--does it just because they want nice things. People solely want to get rich because it's a shortcut to power. I personally wouldn't ever be satisfied until I had approximately $16.7 trillion, give or take.
>>
No. 35559 Kontra
>>35551
>>35548
Zizek always reminds me of the question
>So, where do you see yourself in 30 years?
for some reason.
>>
No. 36903 Kontra
>>35551
thanks bro, now I have Zizek on my wallpaper