- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
Then take a look at China as an example. Its explosive growth started when it embraced capitalism (authoritarian flavor, but capitalism). Before that it more or less stagnated. Capitalism is obviously not the only requirement but it is a necessary one.
China grew steadily under Mao, but was not an industrialized economy. Under Deng, Capitalistic market reforms took place and foreign Capital was brought in to speed up development, but as you’ve said, the State still maintains dominance over the economy.
Capitalism is not necessary for development. Humanity developed for thousands of years pre-Capitalism, which itself is only a few hundred years old. You do not require individual mini-dictators competing for higher and higher profits in order to develop, industry can be run by the collective.
It just can’t be at scale. Would be lovely if it could.
People who don’t own something have no incentive to improve it. A factory run by a collective will always prioritize wages over modernizing equipment etc.
People will not invest into new ventures if they don’t get profits, prioritizing luxuries/lifestyle instead.
Why can’t it be at scale?
People who share ownership can democratically decide how to invest in industry, and elect a representative if they so choose. Planning is careful and democratic, and the need to invest in industry is something that is easy to understand with a well-funded education system.
On top of that, you can just-as-nonsensically claim that Capitalists will always prioritize their own pockets over modernizing equipment, which is just as false.
People will invest in productivity so that they can work less, prioritizing their material conditions.
Share ownership of what? If you mean just the factory they work in or a small group, then you get most of the same issues you denounce in capitalism. Some factories will inevitably become rich and prosperous, some will go bankrupt. There will still be wealth inequality. You will also get various new issues such us how do you found new factories and industries without re-inventing capitalism or at least having the same consolidation issues.
If you are talking about all the capital in the nation/world, then the gains you can obtain from improving your own productivity is insignificant, evaporating the motivation. It is much easier to slack off and leach of others.
Share ownership of the Means of Production collectively at scale.
Additionally, even if we follow your strawman of there being wealth inequality from different worker cooperatives, these are not “the same issues as Capitalism.” You eliminate exploitation with worker cooperatives, there isn’t a Capitalist stealing surplus labor value.
You create new industries and new factories via collectively directed investment. You can do this through the government, or workers councils.
No, it is not much easier to slack off systemically.
You can only argue off of vibes, I suppose.
Ok, I am a member of whatever group votes on investment in a new industry. If I approve the investment, the money can’t be used for my and my collectives wages. So what do I gain to offset the loss of wages? What makes me want to do the investment? Surely I can’t get a share of the profits, since those will belong to the workers in the new industry. I would be exploiting their work like a capitalist.
You socialize the investments and the gains.
How? Specifics. Or should I answer as vaguely as you: “I and my friends will steal your socialized gains for ourselves without anyone noticing”.