A world beyond Capitalism

@DavidT8899 while at the same time creating an even bigger ladder leading to very little direct change or imporvement in the material reality of people due to shifting standards. We always have to focus on Relative Poverty numbers as well.

Only because in comparison to previous systems it might have worked initially doesn't mean that it is still working. Capitalism had its necessity at some point but outlived it's usefulness.

@Gloomy And what would you replace it with?

@DavidT8899 Personally Socialism but since there is no set definition for it besides workers owning the means of production I would say improving society bit by bit while slowly abolishing influence of private companies and establishing a more democratic order especially within workplaces. It does also need a redistribution of wealth and less reliance on companies that exploit "third world" countries.
No societal evolution is fully planned before it occurs that would be impossible.

@Gloomy "abolishing influence of private companies" aka abolishing the private property rights of the people themselves, that seems pretty anti "democratic", to me. We experience things at the level of the individual, we create and thrive at the level of the individual. Everything great came from an individual mind.
In any system, a small number will be hyper productive and intelligent and do a lot of the work and become very successful and lift the group up as a whole, whilst a great number of people dont have such great ability and so they don't produce much, and so also do not bring the group up as a whole. The productive can use the extra resources to become even more productive, which then creates even more resources and now because there are more, these resources can now be purchased more cheaply. This sets a chain reaction off of the productive creating more and more and being able to provide it for less and less, which in turn means the less well off will have more opportunity. However, if you were to say to the hyper productive "you've got to give 50% of everything you produce to the less productive", these productive people now have 50% less to produce with, and so that society will now produce 50% less. I can make a great example of that with welfare scroungers. Where I'm from, the UK, almost everything is socialised. It is very easy to claim welfare for "mental health" to such a high level of resources that you could live off of it and never bother working. And many do. The money redistributed to them then goes to drugs, overeating etc ie producing nothing, money which if it was allowed to stay in the hands of the productive, could have produced even more for society. And again, from the UK, we have a sales tax of 20%, an income tax of 20-40% (which also sneakily rises to 60% in some cases), property tax and so on. This results in goods becoming more expensive, and the consumer having less money to buy these more expensive goods. This also reduces the amount of people being able to attain middle class living standards which would afford such people spare money to invest into business which would cause competition for the established big businesses and force the lowering of prices to avoid being undercut. It would generate more jobs for the working class etc. That all works to create an even bigger wealth gap between the ultra rich and the working class. I could go on, but it's the absolute opposite of the emancipation of the working class that it may be on the surface. Only voluntary socialism, among a high trust closely united (by whatever unit) group for a short period would be beneficial at all.

@Gloomy You can own the means of production. Buy stock in a company and you own the means of production.

@graphite @GloomyYou might put a laughing face, Gloomy, but graphite is right. A private company, that means property owned by an individual, the very individuals you claim you want to raise up with socialism. Capitalism already allows people to raise up. People do a heck of a lot better in the long run when they are brought up through their own work, own creativity, own financial risks, as opposed to being brought up by dependency on a big government. I'd rather put in the hard work and use my resources to create more resources, on my own, then be dependent on someone else to feed me, on their terms. And in being able to create more resources for myself, I can contribute more to society which then makes that society better in the long run, and I'm sure better in ways you'd like, too. It is much better for a child, that once they become an adult, they have to go out and create the means to provide for themselves and in doing so strengthen themselves and those around them, than to stay with their parents who will provide for them if they pay a fixed board each month (like taxes).

@pianoplayingsteve I don't want to raise the individuals up but the collective on the same level (which doesn't mean all should earn the same amount). Private companies allow individuals to raise above other people. No one should be raised up or put down that is the point. The mere notion of raising up through financial and profit means is disgusting and a flaw that needs to be annihilated mercilessly. I believe democratic workplaces and common ownership is possible after a transitionatory period with nationalized industries.

@Gloomy Oh gosh, where to begin. You tell me "ah classic libertarian argument" or whatever other labels you have for my views, whilst you use the most cliche, generalised marxist ideas out there.

"but the collective on the same level", so the entire planet, on the same level?

"Private companies allow individuals to raise above other people. No one should be raised up or put down that is the point" Of course they should, if there is no incentive to go the extra mile by raising people up for their greater contributions, the vast majority of people won't put any effort in. And if no one gets put down for negative practices, there will be a lot less incentive to not do damaging things.

"The mere notion of raising up through financial and profit means is disgusting and a flaw that needs to be annihilated mercilessly. " What you are professing is disgusting. In an economy, if a system is generating profit, this means that it is efficient enough to be creating excess, excess which can then be invested into the wider society. It tells you that the services or materials being provided is something that the society wants. And what is disgusting about your view is that you want to "annihilate" those who create to such a degree that they create excess, that they create for the society. Profit doesn't just fall from the sky. It doesn't fall by simply being greedy. Profit comes from providing high quality services or goods.

" I believe democratic workplaces and common ownership is possible after a transitionatory period with nationalized industries." *Transitionary. As did many communists. Capitalism to socialism which gradually expands into state control of resources - communism. But then unfortunately, despotism. You end up with a concentration of wealth into the hands of a very small number of people, whilst the breadcrumbs they give to the masses is "equal" in being next to nothing. It's the very same wealth inequality issue you might raise with capitalism, yet this was enforced, in particular in the case of the soviet union, through the most brutal of violent intimidation. Entire cities were arrested and executed over the suspected non compliance of one citizen. Victims had their bodies cut open, intestines tied to a dog and the dog whipped so it'd run and pull the intestines out. Eyes would be gouged out, and I won't go further. When Stalin consolidated his power, it wasn't enough to just kill his generals, he killed the generals, their immediate subordinates and all the friends and family of the generals and their subordinates. You say it was unnecessary, yet the only way that an ideology so counter to human nature, to mathematical constants, to evolution as communsm is going to survive is through profound tyranny.

As for your use of "nationalised". The nationstate would cease to exist under communism. Nationstates and the cultures and subcultures that spring from them require inequality to exist. In order to differentiate between nations, there will need to be variation, and that involves everything being at different, as you put it "levels".

@pianoplayingsteve private companies are not a self justifying hierarchy. All hierarchies which do not logically self justify or are natural should be dismantled.

@basilfawlty89 Yes they are self justifying, else they wouldn't be able to exist in a free society.

@pianoplayingsteve "my great grand daddy earned money off owning slaves, and my family has had wealth ever since so I bought company shares and now grow rich off others work" is not a self justifying hierarchy.

@basilfawlty89 I started from the ground up. My parents weren't wealthy, didn't own slaves. I just worked hard and was as careful with my money as I could, volunteered for great causes which gave me connections and always tried to be fair with the people I worked with. How evil, huh?