There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Critics of capitalism, what concrete economic policies do you support?

Capitalism is criticized a lot on here (especially by American users, it seems to me). Most of that seems well-founded, but I also have the feeling that most of these complaints are simply venting and not the first step to improvement.

So I would like to know what specific changes you (especially Americans) want to see from lawmakers.

apfelwoiSchoppen , (edited )
@apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world avatar

I suggest becoming informed and read about other economic systems yourself. There is a bit of ad hominem in your question. For many the materialist concerns of the current dominant economic system is why people complain. Those complaining aren’t the cause and should not be rebuked. The rich are getting richer and the poor; poorer. The chasm between the two only grows wider.

That said, many folks on the political spectrum would at least like to see the US end of neoliberal capitalism and a return to Kantian/welfare economic capitalism. You see flavors of this in European Democratic socialist countries, albeit even those are succumbing to neoliberalisation.

If you get into rights based discussion, many in that spectrum and further left would like to see positive rights enshirined constitutionally as well as the ERA. This would bring about many of those kantian economic mechanisms by default.

For many more on the left, we literally want to seize the means of production and distribute wealth equally among the masses. Bring about socialism to progress to communism. The DSA believes in a change and revolution from within, and have a national platform and a growing base. There are also the PSL, which demands a more revolutionary overthrow of capitalism into communism. Briefly put.

sbv ,

a return to Kantian/welfare economic capitalism

I’ve grown up under neoliberalism (I think). Thanks for pointing these out. I’m going to look them up.

Contramuffin ,

Not an answer, but I do want to point out that your question may be missing a crucial point. Primarily: There are different types of capitalism. When people mock or complain about the current economy, you might hear about “late stage capitalism.” That’s because that’s referring to the current type of capitalism that we’re operating under. And Bernie Sanders believes in capitalism, too. But his belief is in a different type of capitalism.

This is all to say, when people complain, it may not even be that they want to replace capitalism, but even shifting to a more friendly type of capitalism would significantly remove a lot of strain from workers. I don’t mean to imply that that’s what the people you’re referring to meant, but I think it is important to consider that criticism against capitalism does not necessarily mean a full shift away from capitalism

DessertStorms , (edited )
@DessertStorms@kbin.social avatar

No, late stage capitalism isn't a kind of capitalism, it is the inevitable conclusion of capitalism.

Sanders is a liberal, liberals support capitalism.
Others are neoliberal, slightly more conservative "socially" (as if society can somehow be separate from economy), but still support capitalism.
And there are conservatives, who openly don't care about society (or anyone in it who isn't like them) and, you guessed it, they support capitalism.

They all serve the same system.

(edit to add: a system designed to never let anyone who openly opposes it get near a position of power)

Not being comfortable with this, or believing in the illusion of choice they give, and pretending like some capitalism is fine, is ridiculous.

Capitalism in its essence is about constant financial growth, which will always and forever be impossible in a finite universe. It might take longer to decay if you sprinkle some social policies and safety nets on to that, but at the end of the day it will always end in vast inequality, exploitation, and destruction of the environment.

Apollo2323 ,

I believe that Capitalism is great to get out a country of poverty and developed into a advance economy with wealth build for all of citizens. But just think about this : infinite grow? Does it make sense? For us humans and for the planet? So companies can keep breaking profit records each year. In my opinion that a very unstable system , we have finite resources on earth and we should instead reuse them and make them more reusable so in that case probably infinite grow can make sense. But since that cost money and then it will harm grow and everyone will freak out that a company didn’t grow more than last year but still made billions.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

So, capitalism is itself defined more than one way depending on who’s talking, and I only have a problem with some versions of it:

In the sense that certain people get to just own stuff, while others have to work, I’d say capping wealth at like 7 digits would be a simple solution. You can save up a few million across a high-earning but normal career, but nobody makes it to 8 unless they’re a bigshot. Over time random social mobility should hopefully smooth out the remainder of class distinctions. If not, maybe 6 digits, although some dentists are going to be pissed.

In the sense that we organise our economy around profit motive and competition, I don’t have an issue with it because it seems to work well. If you need to buy something, there’s always somebody selling it and vice-verse. If you look at history, or at the crazy supply chains that exist to facilitate that, it’s quite an achievement.

In the sense that people privately own the means of production, there’s a bit of a trick deciding what the means of production even are. A foundry definitely counts, and a toothbrush definitely doesn’t, but what about a van, which you could use personally or to transport people? You could licence them separately depending on use, but then you couldn’t work as a “rideshare” even if there was a major shortage of taxis, which is dumb red tape. It’s far more productive to talk about things in terms of their market value rather than getting any more granular, which is why the law usually does that.

hallettj ,
@hallettj@beehaw.org avatar

This comment really speaks to how I feel.

In addition to flattening the wealth curve on the high end, I think the first change I would want is to increase the federal minimum wage. For decades wages have been stagnant while cost-of-living has grown which has led to mass economic insecurity. I think a lot of current political tension is a direct result. That makes it difficult to cooperate to implement policies that would help people.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

Basic income - probably at right where our minimum wage is now - would be my solution to the poverty at the other end. Honestly that’s more important, but it didn’t really fit into the format of my post so well.

Some other assorted economic policies on my wish list: Publicly-funded elections, the end of restrictive residential zoning, bigger carbon taxes right around the social cost, very open economic immigration policy, a government sponsored system for opening up intellectual property, and maybe some sort of single-payer law system because it’s a bit shit you can buy justice sometimes.

A lot of people would call me a communist for this. Communists are currently telling me I’m an idiot in another thread. Thankfully we live in an open society where I can just do my own thing and it doesn’t matter.

bl_r ,

Personally, I want to see the removal of capitalism, as it is a terrible system, alongside other oppressive systems like the State. Because that doesn’t happen overnight, and it isn’t something congress would ever vote on, I support strong social systems, high taxes on the wealthy and corporations, strong environmental protections, and especially legislation that strengthens communities. Strong worker protections and benefits wouldn’t be bad to see either.

lily33 ,

Well, for starters:

  1. Platforms. I don’t believe that the people who create, or invest in, large internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Uber, Booking, Upwork, etc, have a natural or moral right of ownership to said platform. They should certainly receive returns on their investment - but they shouldn’t have full operational control. Instead, as the platofrm grows, operational control should slowly transition to its users. eventually, they should have the final say on, in the case of YouTube. what content in acceptable, what procedures should be used to remove unacceptable content, how to appeal, etc.
  2. Employment. One of the big issues I see is that employees are under someone’s direct control for 1/3 of each day, and have to do what their boss says. And while they technically consented to that relationship, I don’t see that consent as freely given, because for most people there isn’t a viable alternative. This could be done through more worker cooperative, or encouraging freelancing. Even for people who decide to remain in traditional employment, they should have more official control than they do now.
  3. AI. It seems many people here hate AI, but AI does have the potential for large productivity gains. And while, in the past, productivity gains have note resulted in less work, but rather higher GDP, we could always force the issue. After all, people did it ~100 years ago, and the economy didn’t collapse because of that.
Lettuceeatlettuce ,
@Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml avatar

You’re coming off fairly condescending. Leftists of many stripes not only have thorough critiques of Capitalism, but offer a wide range of solutions, both legislative and grass-roots.

There may be a lot of ranting, but most of it is based within robust theory and legislative efforts.

Strengthening unions and workers rights laws is almost always advocated for. Weakening the ability for corporations to exploit their workers and the general population/environment is another.

I’m an Agorist, that means I advocate fighting Capitalism from the ground up using grey and black markets to subvert existing Capitalist structures.

So acquiring and distributing pirated materials like college textbooks and otherwise expensive software is one example. Helping people jailbreak/hack their devices to run unofficial software that the corporations don’t approve of is another.

There’s lots of information out there, don’t mistake memes and ranting for empty idealism.

Mahlzeit OP ,

So acquiring and distributing pirated materials like college textbooks and otherwise expensive software is one example.

That’s an interesting example, because in threads on AI lawsuits there are many calls for expanding intellectual property, without any consideration for public benefit. It’s such an outright doubling down on all the pathological aspects of capitalism. It made me look whether there are any equally concrete demands going the other way and eventually make this post.

Lettuceeatlettuce ,
@Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml avatar

Thanks for your reply, sorry if I came off aggressive in my initial response.

For me I’m as hardcore anti-intellectual property as it gets. I think the very concept of IP is nonsense. And I don’t mean nonsense like it is stupid or silly or I don’t agree with the laws, I mean literally logically contradictory.

I view laws against copyright/IP infringement the same way I would view a law against poaching unicorns.

Despite the propaganda, IP law almost always protects giant corporations, not the “little guy.” It’s used to create and maintain multi-billion dollar IP portfolio monopolies. It supresses creativity and literally kills people in the case of pharma companies and their ridiculous drug patents.

I would love at a minimum for copyright to have a hard limit no matter the conditions. Like for all creative works, 20 year hard limit. After that, no matter what, it enters public domain forever. There are a million issues to work out, but not being able to hold IP for literally a century in some cases would be something.

averyminya ,

Copyright should probably not be given to the publisher unless the publisher is the artist.

PlasterAnalyst ,

Health insurance through work.

Somehow health, vision, and dental insurance are a fixed price. The highest earners pay the exact same as the lowest. However, retirement savings through work are based on a percentage of income. Both of these things benefit higher earners the most

luthis ,

A specific pay-rate ratio between shareholders and all employees. Executives and shareholders should not be getting paid 100x what the bottom employees get paid. This kind of inequality is what is bringing about the collapse. As company profits increase, all employees should get the benefits, not just the execs and shareholders.

PeepinGoodArgs ,

EPI.org has a lot of solutions I support.

Mahlzeit OP ,

Thanks, looks like a good resource.

ExLisper ,

Tax the rich, regulate industry, punish CEOs and boards for crimes committed by corporations.

tastysnacks ,

I support any policy that increases competition or against policies that remove competition. Public companies need great justification to merge. The vast majority of the food we buy is run by like 4 companies.

AngrilyEatingMuffins ,

Are you unaware of the vast corpus of leftist texts about just this? Do you think leftists are just teenagers on TikTok?

HubertManne ,

there is such a variation from what I see. Some anti capitalist are just anti corporatist while others would throw out the whole idea of buying/selling.

Nimux ,

A planned economy ideally, even if that would hardly be immediately doable for most first world countries, as they lack any actual industrial capacity. If all useless jobs were to disappear overnight, most of the population would end up unemployed. In addition a lot of the “economy” of first world countries comes from abusive monetary relationships with third world countries, wish should obviously be ended as soon as possible.

Therefore a transitionary period would be needed, during which we would reindustrialize and develop some level of self-sufficiency. That last part might be less important for the US, as they’re unlikely to get sanctioned by themselves.

Eventually a planned economy allows for production for use instead of for sale, providing to each according to their needs, and requiring work according to their abilities.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •