So, every other subthread is someone talking #capitalism this and #socialism that with very poor commonality of definitions. So here's one to try on for size:
Capitalism: a system of economics in which the state determines through threat of violence a special group of people who have exclusive say in how capital goods are used.
That covers for example both the USA, and USSR pretty well. any other capitalist countries we'd like to discuss?
In this conception the USSR was "state capitalism", the general population had no say in capital use, it was the govt appointed bureaucracy. In the US in contrast we have what I'd call "monetary capitalism" in which a person who has acquired a lot of money in their account can buy a license (called the title) to capital assets. The govt will shoot or jail anyone other than the title owner who uses the asset.
Yes useful. I like your idea of commons capitalism as an alternative compatible with todays world. Not as much as I like Anarchy, but hey would be better than more of the same at least.
I agree with the anthropology argument. But my impression of commons capitalism is that it's kind of "communism except with a real democracy". Like, you join the commons nonprofit and every member gets some kind of vote on the nonprofit's actions. It's definitely better than USSR and better than just a couple billionaires and some hedge funds voting. So, it could be kind of OK. I don't like it if there aren't many different nonprofits doing it so you can choose.
Well, the nonprofit owns all the means of production, and if it has no members then it's just communism with the board of the nonprofit being the politburo no? Or am I missing something?
@Cirdan
I guess my point is "benefits the workers" is inherently something that the workers need a say in what that means. if the board of the nonprofit has the sole final say on what that means (authoritarian) then I don't agree with it. If the workers have some specific kind of vote and petition mechanism and it's effective then yes I think it would be fairly reasonable. @GhostOnTheHalfShell
@Cirdan
I don't doubt that it could be my point is just that the definition of social benefits for workers is dependent on what the workers consider to be a benefit and in order to meet its stated goal those things must be incorporated through the workers expressing their preferences. I would want to see the specifics of a example nonprofit in each case and read their bylaws etc which of course doesn't invalidate the idea it just means details matter @GhostOnTheHalfShell
@Cirdan
Just as an example suppose one of these nonprofits is doing well and receiving more and more money do they give the workers a higher tier of HealthCare coverage, or do they reduce hours worked? Or do they vote on it and take the choice most preferred by a score vote system? Or perhaps they give each individual worker a choice in which of those options that worker prefers? For me The more worker autonomy the better in some sense. @GhostOnTheHalfShell
@Cirdan
Not necessarily, a worker can be paid in a mixture of cash and equity. Say I am hired to make bagels for $75k/yr and am paid $60k/yr in cash and $15k/yr in equity for example. Just random numbers for example purposes. @GhostOnTheHalfShell
@Cirdan
Right, I think the answer to that is probably pretty clear. Worker coops generally don't have the same relationship to the creation of money (banks and sales of goods to the govt) @GhostOnTheHalfShell
A worker coop doing a good job should have relatively lower equity, paying out dividends to the worker/owners instead. Not zero equity, but at least not the kind of equity Apple accumulates into their hoard. Also they aren't typically selling stock into the stock market due to control issues, so their means to get "big" and therefore "fundable by banks" is limited.
Right, so they tend to be fairly stable and self-sustaining but a small portion of the economy overall. The Cheese Board in Berkeley for example, two location (last I heard) one in Berkeley one in SF, and probably tens of employees probably a few million a year in gross sales. Good for those 30 people or whatever, but not altering the landscape of bakeries CA wide or US wide.
Ah, #capitalism. Neoclasical (mainstream) economic theory tells us it ensures resources will be put to the best, most efficient use. However, ignores the obvious: wealth equals power, so that what is "best" for society is what the richest value.
Like chasing everlasting youth by getting weekly blood transfusions from your teenage son and $40,000 gym membership add-ons.
@FantasticalEconomics
It's easily possible to make a system controlled by a variable whose value is completely uncorrelated with the variable it controls...
Drive over hills while using cruise control. The throttle pedal controls the speed and yet while the throttle goes up and down, the speed remains constant. There is zero correlation between cause and effect. @AlexanderKingsbury@jackofalltrades
@FantasticalEconomics
You are using the word "imply" as if it were the word "suggest". Yes, correlation suggests some causation may be at work, but the word "imply" in "correlation does not imply causation" means "logically prove". As in big feet implies small shoes will not fit. @AlexanderKingsbury@jackofalltrades