711
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone?

That's how capitalism should work, in its best and purest form. Everyone starts with an equal playing field and competes for profits. The competition promotes advancements in science and efficiency that make life better for everyone.

Obviously this is an unattainable ideal, but it's something to strive for.

[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yea meritocratic society would be cool. But also getting there would be a shit show. I think we should hold it as an ideal to achieve but also accept that things don't need to be always be fair.

Shore up public education federally and give good evidence how private education is against meritocratic society and therefore against what capitalism should be. Every kid should have access to resources and standard education up until they are old enough to compete based on their own merit. And then it's a rat race.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

If they made me king of America, that would be my number one policy objective.

  1. Free masters degrees for anyone going into teaching. Eventually free college for all will be a goal, but first, teachers.

  2. Massive investments into schools. I want a single class to have a maximum size of 7 students. This will require a lot more teachers but also a lot more physical space. In the 6 years it takes to train up new teachers, also build new buildings.

  3. Hire all those teachers with masters degrees for very high salaries. Comparable with private industry. Be very strict with teaching credential requirements and require ongoing testing and studying to maintain a teacher's license. Hire 2-3 teachers aides per teacher.

How do we fund this? Nationalize all state education departments. School funding is no longer tied to how much the property in that neighborhood is worth. Base it purely on enrollment, with no incentives for helping kids graduate. Minimal restrictions on funding except strong oversight against administration hoovering up all the money for themselves.

I think if you get highly educated, well-paid teachers in small class settings with adequate funding and an assistant, the teachers will go above and beyond for students. You don't need so much top-down control. Hire very good teachers, and then give them the freedom and the ability to teach well.

One generation of this, and so many problems will fix themselves. The Republican party will collapse. Climate change will become the #1 priority (though hopefully by that point we've stabilized our GHG output and are in the sequestration phase). We'll be inoculated against misinfo. We'll have an explosion of new products and businesses.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That would be a significant departure from its original meaning. Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working. On the other hand, socialism is ownership or control of the economy by workers. Worker coops definitely could be considered a form of socialism, albeit it is probably the one that is most similar to capitalism since it still involves markets. So if you want to call worker coops capitalist then it would be both capitalist and socialist at the same time which is rather confusing to me.

But I mean words change, I think it’s a bit confusing to call this capitalism but maybe it would be more politically viable if we called it that. Lots of people are afraid of socialism because of the USSR and their atrocities.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working

I think that's only true because in early capitalism, only the existing wealthy were able to participate in the system. That's still the case to a large degree, but it's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It was just an incidental aspect of capitalism in the world as it existed.

True capitalists believe that the more competition, the better. Giving ordinary workers a higher stake in their company promotes a much broader level of competition. I think it's totally fair to describe worker co-ops in terms of capitalism, and as you said it would really help the branding.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I disagree. The concentration of wealth has always been a core feature of capitalism from the beginning, and the original definition was all about that feature of it. It’s what separates it from earlier merchant economies.

The only times we’ve seen this trend reverse is during major calamities, or by highly organized political action, usually by socialists or anarchists.

Capitalists claim to love competition and the system works much better in its presence. But the reality is that capitalism always trends towards monopoly without or fixed efforts to resist corporate power.

Coops will need organized support as well if they are to grow at the expense of traditionally owned businesses. For one thing, there needs to be a legal structure that outlines how they can operate, grow, etc. There also needs to be a source of capital for them to get off the ground. I personally think expecting workers to front this capital is unrealistic since most have little in the way of savings. Community banks and credit unions would be a great option for this credit source. Locally minted currencies could also help, though that’s a whole separate and quite complicated topic.

But yeah if you want to rebrand this as a new and improved form of capitalism I guess I won’t stop you, even if it’s technically incorrect.

I highly recommend this video if you’re interested in worker coops, how they work, and how they can be expanded in the modern economy: https://youtu.be/yZHYiz60R5Q?si=QZbmpUqgjpuz9IHp

[-] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's what I like most about this. Is it's such a mix of both that maybe it is possible to have more people come around to the idea. Why have these Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos who become insanely wealthy at a scale that is practically more powerful than some countries all because they run a business. And not like they did it without going public. They amassed the wealth by becoming a publicly traded company. We should have better regulations.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
711 points (95.3% liked)

General Discussion

11946 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS