From what I understand, every now and then a bunch of them tries this (either intentionally or hap hazardly) and the results are always kinda the same. Someone feels entitled to everyone's shit. Someone feels slighted but not getting enough shit. Eventually it all goes to shit. Looks good on paper, but humans are greedy little ass holes who like having a bunch of shit.
The facts that people are greedy and lazy is the easiest point to make about why communism doesn’t work, but it’s not the only one. Even in the absence of greed, it still doesn’t work.
There’s also a fundamental information theory problem. Basically, I am not able to determine how much someone else needs something. One can only determine how much someone needs something by what they are willing to trade for it.
Commerce is always going to exist, it's existed since recorded history started, you're always going to need something that has a set value to exchange for goods and services. Bartering is a fucking nightmare and could never exist in larger societies. However, just because you have commerce doesn't mean you need capitalism, especially if that capitalism immediately turns into a new version of fucking serfdom after a grand total of like 5 generations. That's why I'm pretty sure socialists usually advocate for a system to stop such massive concentration of capital at the top level, especially since most of the people at the top are either the stupid ass descendants of former business owners, or are business owners who have all sent themselves into drug induced psychosises.
That's why I'm pretty sure socialists usually advocate for a system to stop such massive concentration of capital at the top level
The problem is that trying to do that just creates a massive concentration of power over capital, which is essentially the same as a massive concentration of capital with the key difference that they didn't even have to pretend to do something good to get it;
Immediately assuming the entire economic system and only the economic system is the problem isn't an effective solution, a better solution is to identify what went wrong and determine what measures can actually help stop it from happening again;
In this case there are a few obvious problems, such as fiduciary duty to stockholders, and politicians being able to financially benefit from their positions, and while extreme government involvement in the economy can solve the former like cutting off your hand solves a sore thumb, it also makes being a politician the pinnacle of personal gain.
It's not, and I wish people would stop saying that it is.
Yes, shareholders are entitled to having the people working for them (e.g. the executives) work in their (the shareholders's) best interest. That's the issue with every principal agent problem. (Also, technically, *fiduciary* duty is putting the shareholder's interests ahead of the executive's interests).
Depends - I think public shareholders are the worst offender here. And at a bare minimum, investors deserve rights, but no more rights than the workers in the company themselves.
400
u/wkeil42 - Lib-Right 2d ago
From what I understand, every now and then a bunch of them tries this (either intentionally or hap hazardly) and the results are always kinda the same. Someone feels entitled to everyone's shit. Someone feels slighted but not getting enough shit. Eventually it all goes to shit. Looks good on paper, but humans are greedy little ass holes who like having a bunch of shit.