Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn't work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
It's very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren't on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don't want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan's comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
Edit: "Thing bad" doesn't broaden or deepen anything. "Thing has specific shortcomings which aren't present in specific alternative to thing" is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
I, a socialist don't. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we're slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.
Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it's not like I expected more from the community based around memes
No because I don't give you a gift only if you give me one. It's not a transaction. They are gifts.
...but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it's a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can't occur then you're relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.
The alternative is you're expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There's little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.
So ah... What's the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
The western left doesn't agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That's a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won't bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That's the actual system I see.
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals.
What an absolute flaccid take.
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren't there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like "there's nothing stopping someone who's born poor from becoming a millionaire". Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there's so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it's almost statistically impossible. It's so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they're a rounding error. I don't think you're one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you're not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you're claiming is so statistically rare, I don't believe you. And then you're also claiming it's common.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don't speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you're so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you're trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you're talking about.
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it's so stacked against it occurring, it's effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what's stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I'm really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. "Nothing is stopping you." Yeah and "nothing" is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of "nothing". Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it's possible.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet's is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.
You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you're not competing if you aren't actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you're saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that's still over a third of the population who can't even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they're betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It's not an even playing field, at all.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
Some of the workers may be managerial.
But the managerial workers don't own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they're not considered the "superior" of any other workers.
That doesn't really change the overall point. People are stupid. It's the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it's worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it's still a point worth considering.
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I'm sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they'd be better elployees
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won't fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It's the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don't.
Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn't put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
Than I don't really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
As far as I understood, the company's shares belong to the employees ("everyone gets a seat on the board") and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
Can he be replaced at all times?
How is the compensation of the employees determined?
How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
Can employees be fired?
How can employees join and leave the company?
Do they return their shares on leaving?
Can they buy and sell their shares?
How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
Can some employees put in more capital than others?
Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don't have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn't mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I've ever heard in my life.
Conservatives seem to do that everywhere, no matter where they are. Just look at the website formerly known as Twitter... All it has is right wing shitheels and they've turned on each other for not worshipping each others opinions. Hell Musk just blocked Catturd2.
Serious question. Is it possible to do this with very large populations? It seems like it might get inherently more complicated with several tiers of government (federal, state, county, city, etc...)
It definitely feels like Dunbar's Number is a gate to keep this from being effective in large communities.
If we can't view more than a finite amount of other humans as being "real," how do we begin to get massively large groups of humans to care for one another? This is a question I don't have the answer to.
Honestly I believe this to be a way more important issue to discuss than the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs whatever else argument. If your ideas can easily be perverted by corruption then it won't work.
I have some ideas but I'm just some idiot on the internet. I think you need checks and balances. Have at least two groups with similar power at odds with one another. One example is corporation vs government. But I don't think just 2 groups is good enough. Ideally you probably want 3 groups at the very least. I know many governments around the world already uses this sort of structure internally (eg different branches of government), but I don't think these solutions take into account the existence of mega corporations that can act across country borders.
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an "uncorrupt government" is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it's remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I've pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
Capitalism is not "when you have markets." I totally agree that it's important to have well regulated markets. But capitalism perverts democracy with bribery and lobbying. Democratic Socialism is when you have a democratic government and a democratic economy.
Markets don't "create wealth". People's work creates wealth. Banks don't create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.
Regulation isn't only desired, it's crucial for any market economy to work, lest they devolve into corrupt, abusive monopolies and oligopolies. Granted, bad regulation can be equally abusive and real cases are plentiful.
Just as important as regulation is taxing who has more money, because generating wealth won't automagically distribute it in any ideal manner. The worst problem nowadays is just how easy it is for rich assholes to legally evade taxes no matter which country they're from.
Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to what it's good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic "food stamps" system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury "fun bucks" that you don't lose out on if you don't have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I've been mulling over, I'm sure there's a million holes in it.
Classes will always exist if there are limited resources. Which there currently is and always will be for the foreseeable future. The gaps, size, number of, and mobility between them can vary though. But scarcity will always create at least two classes.
Class will always exist but it's been proven that a strong middle class is a sign of a bountiful economy that actually works for it's workers.
The shrink of the American middle class is exactly what's caused most of the economic issues in America.
We allowed our middle class to be destroyed in an attempt to raise a few of those people to the top. Because upper middle class people were duped into believing they were closer to being rich than they were to being poor
Class should absolutely be something we strive to abolish. The idea that some people deserve to benefit disproportionally from the workings of our society is nonsense.
I think they're arguing that the bigger the middle, the better. It seems like you two might be arguing the same thing. Making everyone middle is functionally equivalent to removing classes
Yeah but striving for a "middle" class implies the existence of an upper and lower class. If you're already in fantasy land (uncorrupt government) why not make the fantasy as ideal as possible? Answer: for conservatives the ideal is having an upper and lower class because conservatives seem to inherently think they deserve more than other members of society, even if the reality is that they're lower class, they need the existence of an upper class so they have someone's boots to lick. Since they're just one big idea away from being upper class obviously.
Yeah but striving for a “middle” class implies the existence of an upper and lower class.
There is, and always has been. You're putting the cart before the horse. We are so far removed from removing class, it's not worth discussing. Expanding the middle class is an achievable goal, and works towards what you're talking about.
Didn't mean to seem argumentative and my response was probably better meant for the parent of your comment but yours had some things I wanted to mention too. Sorry if it seemed aggressive.
My experience has been the opposite. I've found that the majority of users tend to lean towards neoliberal and center-right ideologies. I guess most of them are probably American, so their warped worldview has them considering these ideologies as 'left-wing' instead 🙃
Market != Capitalism. You can have a free market without capitalism, and capitalism without a free market.
The hexbears will attack me for saying that a regulated free market is good and a planned economy is bad. The others will attack me for saying that capitalism is bad and that we should have market socialism instead. But if we can't have that, a capitalist free market has proven much less bad than any planned economy, as long as it's regulated enough that it stays free.
I just really dislike the whole left/right tribalism. Politics is a lot more complex than left/right and just marking someone as either just increases polarisation...
I'm very much on the left socially and left of center economically, but even I feel like every other comments section on here reads like some insane tankie commune.
The statement in the image is just loaded with terminology that comes with a lot of baggae. It's no surprise people tear into it. Can't speak to whether that makes them leftist or just poly sci students.
"Uncorrupt" misunderstands the nature of corruption. How do you envision resolving the interests of the forces that give validity to said government while still keeping a capitalist structure?
"Generate wealth" presupposes a specific kind of wealth created by the government and given validity by the capitalist structure. You win at the rules of the game you made up. "Middle class" has a similar problem. "Prosperity" to a nation starving under the global capitalist regime might look quite different. Why use one benchmark over the other? Because of the game you want to choose.
Reform VS revolution is basically always the debate in a movement.
Yes there is evidence that welfare for the people was able to provide the middle class in the US with wealth. And democratic socialism seems to be working well in Europe.
But the threat of the rich coming back and taking it is very really. Reagan in the 80s. Brexit. Other "populist" movements in other countries.
Half hearted reform barely works for the poor and we're always an election or two away from shit.
Honestly, as a European, there is no such thing as democratic socialism here. There a handful of countries with a decent welfare system, others who used to have a decent one but which are demolishing it bit-by-bit since the 80s/90s.
There are way less differences between the US system and European systems than between European system and what a Democratic socialism looks like.
Europe doesn't have socialism and a lot of countries would be super pissed at you if you called them that. People died trying to get out of socialism and they don't want it now.
Who's the monopoly here on Lemmy? The collective group of individuals that disagree with you? Because that's almost the literal opposite of a monopoly.
I believe you are probably right. the problem is that capitalists only focus is profit. so if their profit is limited by this hypothetical non-corrupt government they will try their absolute best to make sure they get their way in the government, and since they have a lot of money they also have the power to do that.
also the ideology of endless growth for the sake of growth (how capitalism works) is literally impossible on a planet with limited recourses
I'm lower-left quadrant but always cop a fair amount of shit from others on 'the left' (nebulous term though it is) for my feelings on capitalism. The people I speak to have never seen anything but corruption, and have a combo of zero faith and utter hatred for it.
My personal feelings are that with strong, enforced checks & balances, capitalism can be combined with socialist policies to create a fantastic standard of living (see Norway), without it becoming cancerous. Unfortunately most of our western political systems (and capitalism is strongly influenced by political systems) seem to be run on a wink and a nudge, an assumed sense of 'fair play' which we all know has been shown to be worthless in recent years.
Strong unions; an educated populace; politicians who actually give a shit; this is what we need. But, capitalism has an absolute stranglehold on the populace of most western countries via print / tv media. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse and the hens are getting shit on.
Well, and the corporate owned media with a hypercapitalist agenda, all the lobby organisations, the lack of proper public education for centuries, red-blue-whitewashed historytelling, the oppression of the black minority, a deeply flawed election system, the imprisonment crisis, and related the opiod crisis, gerrymandering, not enough unions, the fucked up healthcare situation itself...
Luckily, I live in Europe. I got free healthcare, free education, have okay workers rights and not so much rising facism than you gals and guys overseas.
The American Dream ™ is the biggest scam in the history of America. It's the land of opportunity for some. Ever since the change in corporate greed in the late 70s and early 80s (especially fucking Reaganomics), the wealth has been accumulating more and more among fewer and fewer and workers are being treated as resources instead of people. Pensions used to be much more common. Now the US (or at least one party and mich of another) has effectively convinced a large portion of the populace that literally trying to protect workers is evil. The lions share of profit used to go to actual workers with investors taking a cut off the top. Now the investors take most and barely pay workers. A vast majority of Americans are part of a system where they don't get to keep what they rightfully earned with their work. Instead poor people give a larger and larger portion of their work value to investors. It's fundamentally unsustainable and people keep believing they might be one of the people who have a chance to make it big (even though they're more likely to win the lottery than to make it on their own).
Yeah yeah two parties bad we fuckin know but talk to us when both sides start hard shoving for the removal of human rights. Talk to us when Republicans stop gerrymandering voting maps because they know it's the only way they'll get elected.
It's not fucking both sides it's one side actively shitting all over the country while the other side gets blamed for it. Meanwhile half our citizens have been so dumbed down that they can't remember any Republican scandal longer than 5 god damn minutes.
I'm not from USA, but from the outside in, it's pretty obvious what Biden can, and can't do. You have to take his achievements (which there are many of, unfortunately the dems don't seem to be very good at trumpeting their actual good works) with the pinch of salt that they haven't had the control in the senate they need to enact the policies they like. Enough people vote for 3rd party or feel fatigued / despondant like you, that they didn't get the actual control of senate, and lost the house in midterms.
Whether it's slow walking (or blocking) appointments, fake dems like Sinema, dems that have to be stupid-capitalist to maintain power (Manchin), they've just not had the numbers.
You have a point that Clinton was pretty good, and was probably the first showing of the Republicans becoming obstructionist and never relenting since.
The Democratic Party has control of the Senate in name alone. Sinema and Manchin do not toe the line and have effectively threatened to even switch parties if they aren't taken seriously. The "control" the Democrats have had in the past four years of any branch has been teetering on the edge of a pin. They basically had enough to just stop harmful Republican policies that would have been passed instead. The one thing Republicans do better than Democrats is to simply back each other up no matter how corrupt one of them might be. Trump probably could have shot a person in broad daylight in the middle of fifth avenue and Republicans would ensure that nothing happened.
This is such a childish and naive statement. No matter what system is put in place, the president alone can't make a radical difference in a positive direction, only shitty ones.
I moved to California, so, almost another country.
But I was speaking more of the state and local governments, which have more of an impact in my direct life.
However I think anyone who was able to get health insurance with a pre-existing condition would probably say a Democrat president has directly helped their quality of life, possibly in that they would have no life at all without that Democrat president. Just for one example at the federal level.
You can have socialist policies without being a socialist society. Our (UK) NHS is a socialist policy, free healthcare at the point of use. My country is decidedly not socialist!
Everyone knows what "free" means especially when they refer to it as socialist. Pointing out it's taxes is such a tired statement that folks who pretend to be smart like to pull out as a gotcha. You're not actually adding any value to the conversation by saying that. And yes, universal healthcare would absolutely be supported by the founding fathers. But virtually no one in one specific party votes in that direction and generally votes to go in the other. At least some of the other party try and fight for it.
I said free healthcare at the point of use, not free healthcare. And it's nothing like your US systems, I was personally charged £0 for my emergency appendictomy surgery, £0 for the ambulance ride, and £0 for the hospital stay.
Nothing stops people from voting for these things in America either except our bad two party system.
Ftfy. Nothing stops anyone from voting for it right now. There's only one side even remotely fighting for it. It's just ignorance, laziness, and hate that keep it from happening.
What matters is the ability the allocate resources according to the needs of us all and that people have confidence in future resources to be happy. Private ownership is contrary to the first; it helps with the second. That is any "capitalism" must be limited to pertonal needs.
Ok, let me try to make this simpler and more direct, since abstraction clearly isn't your strong suit. The problem is with this:
production is decided by society itself
In practice, this becomes a committee sitting in a room somewhere deciding what & how much the society needs, and then how to go about producing it. The problem with this is that it can only ever be reactive and not proactive (a need must be recognized before it can be addressed, therefore the need must exist first in order to be recognized). Having a government make all production decisions will never be flexible or fast enough to actually sustain a society.
Socialism has many of the same benefits as capitalism. It's also compatible with other systems. A socialist country can trade with a capitalist. I have no issue with slowly moving toward socialist but I don't think there is much to be gained in protecting capitalism.
This I think is a key part of misunderstandings... I'm not trying to protect capitalism, I'm trying to be realistic in how we go about modifying society towards more socialist goals. We're not going to upend the global capitalist systems in our lifetime, I don't think. And imo things are going to get worse before they get better, as wealth continues to be concentrated in fewer hands, as productivity increases due to further automation. I hope the tipping point isn't something that causes massive loss of life, like the collapse of civilisation.
It's like... imagine you have a lake filled with crocodiles, sharks, and jellyfish. We need to get to the other side. Wanting to get there isn't enough, we need a solution. We can just keep endlessly pushing people in expecting them to somehow cross the lake (trying to 'destroy' capitalism), or we can build a bridge across (slowly modify capitalism to have strongs checks and balances).
Anyway it's just my personal opinion, I stand by it
I fail to see how anything you said was useful in that I already admitted that it would need to be gradual, so you spent a lot of time on an entirely unnecessary analogy and thensome. However, you offered none of that in your initial comment. You just said that capitalism could still work. If there was any misunderstanding, it was on you for not sharing something you expected people to magically already know.
I have no issue with slowly moving toward socialist but I don't think there is much to be gained in protecting capitalism.
That was my reply to you about not needing to be a socialist society to have socialist policies. I clearly understand the principle of gradual change without childish analogies that waste everyone's time. You mention nothing in your comment about gradual change. Simply that we don't need a socialist society. Don't become condescending when people can't read your mind due to your inability to communicate. See how few words I used to discuss gradual change? No need for childish condescension for such a simple idea.
I'm not even sure what a government would look like in order to allow capitalism to function without corruption and exploitation. The regulations needed would be so overbearing that the markers surely would not thrive. Our entire society is based around the idea of abusing what is essentially slave labor to live far beyond our means. Without massive corruption, the US would just be another unremarkable country struggling to stay afloat.
The problem is how do we get there? In a market there will always be actors powerful enough to corrupt the governmenta and influence regulation in an undemocratic way.
Even in a market dominated by socialist companies where workers have power. Workers having ownership isn't some panacea against corruption and willingness to dominate others. You can still end up with a company full of terrible people who have no qualms cornering a market and then committing to rent-extraction. They can even commit to those horrible practices in an internally democratic way!
What this planet needs is a Magna Carta of sorts that limits the power of all people, corporations or other entities or groups. Simple as that. We need limits! Extreme inequality will ALWAYS breed civil unrest.
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won't be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can't be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
That's an extremely narrow view point I'd say. In my country the government promotes the growth of existing big corporations so that there can be more jobs and infrastructure development - but this has in the end lead to a widening of gap and has essentially only made the rich even richer.
I genuinely believe promoting start ups is better for the middle class than big corporations, as usually startups pay a crazy amount of money if you ask for it compared to what a big rich corpo would give you (ironically).
I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.
There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no "best one" and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.
One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.
The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.
I hadn't experienced hexbear (literally) shitting up the place yet, has a way to block entire instances been implemented or do I gotta find a new one that isn't federated with them?
What a system is capable of doing initially for a lucky fraction of the populace and where its inevitable and terrible end leads for the vast majority are two entirely different things.
I think, personally and without solid justification, that our generation is a sacrificial one. If we accept our lives as being imperfect, but aim to reduce the imperfection of those that come after, we're on the best path. Planting trees whose shade we'll never sit in, with the caveat we're also helping people see that the shade is more valuable than the lumber, and that the world always needs more of both.
In a properly functioning government, the different branches provide checks on each others' powers, with the ultimate backstop being the power of the people via voting.
Long-term, I think the problem is that no system of rules will be, or can be, complete enough to maintain a stable society - regardless of the philosophy the system is based on. And that's assuming the rules will be enforced and followed 100%. Rules written today won't be complete enough for tomorrow.
Obviously we can create a system that can adapt by adding new rules, but the ever-growing stack of rules creates its own set of problems, as the new rules interact with the old and create internal conflicts. Over time the system loses consistency and coherence.
I think something external to the rules is necessary, something that motivates a common cause... but I don't know what that would be.
I know. Historically I think the only examples of societal guiding principles that have really functioned for more than a decade have been religions.
But of course, religions come with all sorts of nasty baggage that hobbles societal development, frequently including anti-science behavior. Religion isn't the answer, it causes too many other problems.
Really depends on what you mean by market. Like a market has existed since humans have and probably will until post-scarcity. The market we have now with arcane rules that all end up enriching people with more money than any one human will ever need is something that has been in the making since industrialization. That market is pretty much at a point where salvaging it is not really possible even if there was any attempt made to do so. Control of how that market works seems to be at the hands of bad actors who just want to squeeze as much wealth out of it as they can, screwing over anyone else.
Like for example the power companies in my country stopped producing power on their own and bought power from neighboring countries just to sell it to locals at a higher rate. Basically just acting as middle men without providing anything of worth. That drove the price of power to hit 300% more than the year prior. The only reason they stopped was because our government started their own power plan with locally produced power forcing those companies to compete with it but the damage was done and power prices never went back to normal like they never do when companies inflate prices. A market regulated by people who only care about profit will never work.
Keep in mind, you are posting this to lemmy.ml, so I don't know what you expected... Maybe something like this would be better recieved on lemmy.world or on your account's instance.
The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they're not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren't extreme enough for you is silly.
I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren't extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.
Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It's not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.
Folks don't realize real change can't happen drastically and realistically be expected to remain. It's going to be baby steps. Getting them to believe gradual change isn't worth fighting for is a great way to maintain the status quo. They don't raise they are their own worst enemies.
Exactly. It sucks, but it's just the truth. I'd love to vote for an openly socialist presidential candidate, but we have to slowly shift the political views for a long while before that's viable.
We should fight, unapologetically, for 100% of everything we want to see. When did the right wing tea party say "Thank you for meeting us half way, we are so grateful, we will now go along to get along." Never. The right wing get 80% of everything they want from an absolute minority position precisely because they fight for 100% of everything they want 100% of the time. The left needs to pay attention.
There are no long term allies, only long term interests.
When did the right wing tea party say “Thank you for meeting us half way, we are so grateful, we will now go along to get along.”
They also never said "we refuse to vote as some kind of moronic protest against politicians not far right enough for us".
The Tea Party gained control of a significant fraction of the Republican party by voting in primary elections, something which we on the left are too stupid to do.
"You talk clean and bomb hospitals
So I speak with the foulest mouth possible"
RTJ
And I think we're aware things won't happen quickly, but that doesn't mean we have to be uncritical of capitalist politicians who are also actively hostile to leftism.
Also every inherently flawed, means tested, half measure liberal policy that gets confused for leftism (like Obamacare, which was based on Heritage Foundation ideas) just makes it harder to get support on the left.
Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left
And why is that a bad thing, I'd rather not support the side of politics that support bigotry and the exploit of humanity so the rich few can live in luxury
Maybe it's just because I am usually in LGBT and trans spaces, but I see a lot more women than I did on Reddit. They might not all be cis women but still.
It may be because I'm in similar spaces, but I see way more trans women than cis women. In my experience, it seems like a good 80%-90% of the fediverse is "assigned male at birth."
The theoretical part is the "uncorrupt government" you speak of.
The only way to keep a govt "uncorrupt" as you put it is under pain of literal death. And even then its not foolproof. Some will still be tempted.
If you want a govt that will serve the people while being as incorruptible as possible you have to choose politicians by lottery instead of election. They get called, go serve, then go back to the life they had before. Like 4 years of Jury Duty. Political graspers, climbers, those will always trend towards corruption. Like that old addage, anyone actively seeking political office is unfit to serve in that capacity as their motivations are suspect. Power, authority, etc. All that is only intensified in a system as inconceivably corrupt and broken as ours is.
Your point is based on an idealistic and wishful "uncorruot government". You cannot have an uncorrupt government. What's needed is a different form of political decision making, one where the common folk participates in the political questions, not just some answers, where accountability is protected and a priority.
I don't know the exact blueprint for this, maybe it is as unattainable as an "uncorrupted government". What I know is that nobody really tried it yet, while so called "liberal democracy" has proven its failings to all and the fascist have been taking advantage of those failings since the start. The only way yo avoid this is to change our questions, not to all agree on the answers
The problem there is the same as that of idealised communism, you're relying on humans to do what they typically don't do. Humans will take for themselves at the cost of communities if they feel they can get away with it, including the ones in government.
except of course no government can regulate a Freed market.
If we truly Freed the market of government controls the workers could ownership of the fruits of their labor and the laws of supply and demand would regulate the market naturally
the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It's not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won't be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt's job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it's essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
Got bombarded with hate when I said a solution to Nazis isnt to kill Nazis lol the left are just as unhinged as the right. Most Americans are mentally ill because they can't afford to see a therapist.
I'm an anarchist and I agree with this. The main reason I am an anarchist is because I don't believe it's actually possible for a government to be uncorruptible, so I'd rather not have one.
It's like saying "the world would be better if it was a utopia." No shit. But how likely is it to happen?
Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
So every company remodeled after REI, got it.
We love oversimplifying generalizations that make us look like absolute buffoons though.
At least according to trustworthy sources, i.e. your gut feeling.
/s
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn't work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
/s
Or as normal people call it, "money"
How would that even work.
It's very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren't on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don't want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan's comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.
I'm confused, isn't criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?
No, it broadens and deepens understanding.
Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: "Thing bad" doesn't broaden or deepen anything. "Thing has specific shortcomings which aren't present in specific alternative to thing" is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
"thing has specific shortcomings" is a useful criticism.
I, a socialist don't. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we're slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.
Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it's not like I expected more from the community based around memes
So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?
If this isn't true, why do think markets serve no purpose?
Do you really think all exchange of goods is a market?
Yes. Do you not?
So Christmas gifts are a market?
No because I don't give you a gift only if you give me one. It's not a transaction. They are gifts.
...but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it's a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can't occur then you're relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.
The alternative is you're expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There's little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.
Hunger is such a poor motivator.
Did... did I say they couldn't? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.
So ah... What's the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
Did I attack the system in my comment or did I give a bare bones breakdown of what socialism is?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892938
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892727
Maybe even check my other posts in this thread to get a better idea of my opinion on this instead of jumping to conclusions.
They said it in the first comment
Good luck here lol
The western left doesn't agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That's a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Wanting to burn down the system without a coherent and specific approach to replace it only hurts people.
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
You're asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.
You don't seem like you understand modern capitalism.
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won't bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That's the actual system I see.
What poor people do you think are donating wages to "radical politicians"? Have you ever met any poor people?
Wanna loan me $850,000 so I can start my own business? If it works I'll pay you back in 20 years.
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.
Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren't there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
Law enforcement?
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like "there's nothing stopping someone who's born poor from becoming a millionaire". Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there's so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it's almost statistically impossible. It's so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Ok now I know you're a troll. And a liar.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they're a rounding error. I don't think you're one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you're not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you're claiming is so statistically rare, I don't believe you. And then you're also claiming it's common.
Ergo, troll.
I'm done talking with you.
Banks frequently do.
I don't have access to the same network of third world slaves that Starbucks does.
As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It's scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don't speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you're so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you're trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you're talking about.
Literally everything this person has said about how the coffee industry works has been wrong.
What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?
You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics.... right?
They aren't growin em in fuckin Seattle.
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it's so stacked against it occurring, it's effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what's stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I'm really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. "Nothing is stopping you." Yeah and "nothing" is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of "nothing". Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it's possible.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet's is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you're not competing if you aren't actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you're saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.
You know the great majority of people don't have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude
Own outright? Or have a mortgage?
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that's still over a third of the population who can't even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they're betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It's not an even playing field, at all.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
I trust my average coworker much more than the average CEO.
Highly depends on your coworkers. My current coworkers? Yeah they're great, we have two electrical engineers on my team, buncha geniuses.
My last job? Oh man I wouldn't trust those guys as far as I could throw em.
And how did you feel about upper management at that job?
Untrustworthy but at least smart.
Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don't own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they're not considered the "superior" of any other workers.
You must need a better job. I've had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.
You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?
If I made my hiring manager worried more about quality I wouldn't be hired
That doesn't really change the overall point. People are stupid. It's the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it's worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it's still a point worth considering.
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I'm sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they'd be better elployees
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won't fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It's the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don't.
No, they're just idiots. Myself and others have had the same training and responsibilities and do fine. It's not that difficult of a job.
I guess you haven't met many CEOs, then.
Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn't put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
Who said that's the case?
Than I don't really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
@lightnsfw @dingus
You really think the people currently running your company are any different from those other coworkers?
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don't have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn't mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I've ever heard in my life.
Education related to the exploitation of their workers
Ftfy
You must be a joy to work with.
I'm great to work with. No one has to worry if the task they assign me is going to be done right and on time.
Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they're not immediately worshiped for their opinions?
Conservatives seem to do that everywhere, no matter where they are. Just look at the website formerly known as Twitter... All it has is right wing shitheels and they've turned on each other for not worshipping each others opinions. Hell Musk just blocked Catturd2.
Conservatives? I read this as a SocDem post
Wtf is an uncorrupt government?
All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.
It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.
Serious question. Is it possible to do this with very large populations? It seems like it might get inherently more complicated with several tiers of government (federal, state, county, city, etc...)
It definitely feels like Dunbar's Number is a gate to keep this from being effective in large communities.
If we can't view more than a finite amount of other humans as being "real," how do we begin to get massively large groups of humans to care for one another? This is a question I don't have the answer to.
Because you don’t have to view them as “real” to know that caring for others can make things better for you too.
I don’t think the issue is the being able to care, the issue is the arseholes turning groups against each other for their own gain.
"I only do the right thing because God will punish me if I don't" vibes lol.
Why can't you just operate from a principle of making things better for everyone?
Exactly. We could also eliminate carbon emissions by moving everything via unicorns and fairy dust.
"Military Intelligence"
Two words combined that can't make sense 🎵
Honestly I believe this to be a way more important issue to discuss than the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs whatever else argument. If your ideas can easily be perverted by corruption then it won't work.
I have some ideas but I'm just some idiot on the internet. I think you need checks and balances. Have at least two groups with similar power at odds with one another. One example is corporation vs government. But I don't think just 2 groups is good enough. Ideally you probably want 3 groups at the very least. I know many governments around the world already uses this sort of structure internally (eg different branches of government), but I don't think these solutions take into account the existence of mega corporations that can act across country borders.
you mean for example germanys separated power of the legislative, executive and judicative powers? yeah, that works out pretty shit.
I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.
Weird how that is, huh?
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an "uncorrupt government" is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it's remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I've pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
Capitalism is not "when you have markets." I totally agree that it's important to have well regulated markets. But capitalism perverts democracy with bribery and lobbying. Democratic Socialism is when you have a democratic government and a democratic economy.
Markets don't "create wealth". People's work creates wealth. Banks don't create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.
Regulation isn't only desired, it's crucial for any market economy to work, lest they devolve into corrupt, abusive monopolies and oligopolies. Granted, bad regulation can be equally abusive and real cases are plentiful.
Just as important as regulation is taxing who has more money, because generating wealth won't automagically distribute it in any ideal manner. The worst problem nowadays is just how easy it is for rich assholes to legally evade taxes no matter which country they're from.
Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to what it's good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic "food stamps" system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury "fun bucks" that you don't lose out on if you don't have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I've been mulling over, I'm sure there's a million holes in it.
Why do you want a middle class? So you have a class to aspire to and a class to denigrate? Why do you want classes?!
Classes will always exist if there are limited resources. Which there currently is and always will be for the foreseeable future. The gaps, size, number of, and mobility between them can vary though. But scarcity will always create at least two classes.
People are always going to have vision problems, so it's wrong to wear glasses.
What? You'll need to take me through the process of how to interpret that as a response to what I said.
We haven't invented glasses yet. They've never been successfully tested.
Class will always exist but it's been proven that a strong middle class is a sign of a bountiful economy that actually works for it's workers.
The shrink of the American middle class is exactly what's caused most of the economic issues in America.
We allowed our middle class to be destroyed in an attempt to raise a few of those people to the top. Because upper middle class people were duped into believing they were closer to being rich than they were to being poor
Class should absolutely be something we strive to abolish. The idea that some people deserve to benefit disproportionally from the workings of our society is nonsense.
I think they're arguing that the bigger the middle, the better. It seems like you two might be arguing the same thing. Making everyone middle is functionally equivalent to removing classes
Yeah but striving for a "middle" class implies the existence of an upper and lower class. If you're already in fantasy land (uncorrupt government) why not make the fantasy as ideal as possible? Answer: for conservatives the ideal is having an upper and lower class because conservatives seem to inherently think they deserve more than other members of society, even if the reality is that they're lower class, they need the existence of an upper class so they have someone's boots to lick. Since they're just one big idea away from being upper class obviously.
There is, and always has been. You're putting the cart before the horse. We are so far removed from removing class, it's not worth discussing. Expanding the middle class is an achievable goal, and works towards what you're talking about.
It's about as realistic as magically removing corruption in a capitalist government...
Sure, but you can work towards reducing corruption.
Why are you arguing with me? I just tried to clarify the misunderstanding between you two
Didn't mean to seem argumentative and my response was probably better meant for the parent of your comment but yours had some things I wanted to mention too. Sorry if it seemed aggressive.
Wholesome AF. Enjoying the discussion.
I want a middle class so strong everyone is in it. In fact let’s get rid of the upper and lower classes
My experience has been the opposite. I've found that the majority of users tend to lean towards neoliberal and center-right ideologies. I guess most of them are probably American, so their warped worldview has them considering these ideologies as 'left-wing' instead 🙃
I agree! Let me know when you find an uncorrupt government or uncorrupt corporation.
Market != Capitalism. You can have a free market without capitalism, and capitalism without a free market.
The hexbears will attack me for saying that a regulated free market is good and a planned economy is bad. The others will attack me for saying that capitalism is bad and that we should have market socialism instead. But if we can't have that, a capitalist free market has proven much less bad than any planned economy, as long as it's regulated enough that it stays free.
There are hardcore liberals around here too. That's what you get when there isn't an algorithm to promote fascists.
"uncorrupt government"
😂😂😂
I just really dislike the whole left/right tribalism. Politics is a lot more complex than left/right and just marking someone as either just increases polarisation...
I wish it was just "towards the left".
I'm very much on the left socially and left of center economically, but even I feel like every other comments section on here reads like some insane tankie commune.
The statement in the image is just loaded with terminology that comes with a lot of baggae. It's no surprise people tear into it. Can't speak to whether that makes them leftist or just poly sci students.
"Uncorrupt" misunderstands the nature of corruption. How do you envision resolving the interests of the forces that give validity to said government while still keeping a capitalist structure?
"Generate wealth" presupposes a specific kind of wealth created by the government and given validity by the capitalist structure. You win at the rules of the game you made up. "Middle class" has a similar problem. "Prosperity" to a nation starving under the global capitalist regime might look quite different. Why use one benchmark over the other? Because of the game you want to choose.
It's weird. It's almost like educated people skew left. So very weird...
I thought left also meant protection against unregulated markets? Without regulations it is just going to be capitalismplusplus.
There is not such thing as middle class, pure sophistic. There are
only2 classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie.In today's skewed political spectrum, "Left" is what would be considered moderate in a reasonable perspective.
Pity, you have to defend your ideas in a free market of thought.
Market ain’t correctly regulated. Monopolistic practices are being used to suppress non conforming thoughts. :P
Reform VS revolution is basically always the debate in a movement.
Yes there is evidence that welfare for the people was able to provide the middle class in the US with wealth. And democratic socialism seems to be working well in Europe.
But the threat of the rich coming back and taking it is very really. Reagan in the 80s. Brexit. Other "populist" movements in other countries.
Half hearted reform barely works for the poor and we're always an election or two away from shit.
So I kind of get both sides.
Honestly, as a European, there is no such thing as democratic socialism here. There a handful of countries with a decent welfare system, others who used to have a decent one but which are demolishing it bit-by-bit since the 80s/90s.
There are way less differences between the US system and European systems than between European system and what a Democratic socialism looks like.
Europe doesn't have socialism and a lot of countries would be super pissed at you if you called them that. People died trying to get out of socialism and they don't want it now.
OK thanks for your input. You clearly know a lot about how different people in the world talk about different political systems.
Who's the monopoly here on Lemmy? The collective group of individuals that disagree with you? Because that's almost the literal opposite of a monopoly.
I believe you are probably right. the problem is that capitalists only focus is profit. so if their profit is limited by this hypothetical non-corrupt government they will try their absolute best to make sure they get their way in the government, and since they have a lot of money they also have the power to do that.
also the ideology of endless growth for the sake of growth (how capitalism works) is literally impossible on a planet with limited recourses
Boot-flavored capitalist Kool-Aid must be so refreshing during such a torrid summer
The world was a better place when politicians had to worry about get tarred and feathered, quartered, or thrown out of windows.
I'm lower-left quadrant but always cop a fair amount of shit from others on 'the left' (nebulous term though it is) for my feelings on capitalism. The people I speak to have never seen anything but corruption, and have a combo of zero faith and utter hatred for it.
My personal feelings are that with strong, enforced checks & balances, capitalism can be combined with socialist policies to create a fantastic standard of living (see Norway), without it becoming cancerous. Unfortunately most of our western political systems (and capitalism is strongly influenced by political systems) seem to be run on a wink and a nudge, an assumed sense of 'fair play' which we all know has been shown to be worthless in recent years.
Strong unions; an educated populace; politicians who actually give a shit; this is what we need. But, capitalism has an absolute stranglehold on the populace of most western countries via print / tv media. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse and the hens are getting shit on.
You're getting shit from leftists because you're doing the "socialism is when the government does stuff" just from the other side.
And referencing the "political compass" unironically.
Now that's just cliquey, damn dude what are you 14?
Well, and the corporate owned media with a hypercapitalist agenda, all the lobby organisations, the lack of proper public education for centuries, red-blue-whitewashed historytelling, the oppression of the black minority, a deeply flawed election system, the imprisonment crisis, and related the opiod crisis, gerrymandering, not enough unions, the fucked up healthcare situation itself...
Luckily, I live in Europe. I got free healthcare, free education, have okay workers rights and not so much rising facism than you gals and guys overseas.
What logic?
The American Dream ™ is the biggest scam in the history of America. It's the land of opportunity for some. Ever since the change in corporate greed in the late 70s and early 80s (especially fucking Reaganomics), the wealth has been accumulating more and more among fewer and fewer and workers are being treated as resources instead of people. Pensions used to be much more common. Now the US (or at least one party and mich of another) has effectively convinced a large portion of the populace that literally trying to protect workers is evil. The lions share of profit used to go to actual workers with investors taking a cut off the top. Now the investors take most and barely pay workers. A vast majority of Americans are part of a system where they don't get to keep what they rightfully earned with their work. Instead poor people give a larger and larger portion of their work value to investors. It's fundamentally unsustainable and people keep believing they might be one of the people who have a chance to make it big (even though they're more likely to win the lottery than to make it on their own).
Yeah yeah two parties bad we fuckin know but talk to us when both sides start hard shoving for the removal of human rights. Talk to us when Republicans stop gerrymandering voting maps because they know it's the only way they'll get elected.
It's not fucking both sides it's one side actively shitting all over the country while the other side gets blamed for it. Meanwhile half our citizens have been so dumbed down that they can't remember any Republican scandal longer than 5 god damn minutes.
bUt HeR eMaIlS!!
BuT hUnTeR bIdEn!!
bUt TrUmPs DiCk Is So TaStEy!!!
I'm not from USA, but from the outside in, it's pretty obvious what Biden can, and can't do. You have to take his achievements (which there are many of, unfortunately the dems don't seem to be very good at trumpeting their actual good works) with the pinch of salt that they haven't had the control in the senate they need to enact the policies they like. Enough people vote for 3rd party or feel fatigued / despondant like you, that they didn't get the actual control of senate, and lost the house in midterms.
Whether it's slow walking (or blocking) appointments, fake dems like Sinema, dems that have to be stupid-capitalist to maintain power (Manchin), they've just not had the numbers.
You have a point that Clinton was pretty good, and was probably the first showing of the Republicans becoming obstructionist and never relenting since.
The Democratic Party has control of the Senate in name alone. Sinema and Manchin do not toe the line and have effectively threatened to even switch parties if they aren't taken seriously. The "control" the Democrats have had in the past four years of any branch has been teetering on the edge of a pin. They basically had enough to just stop harmful Republican policies that would have been passed instead. The one thing Republicans do better than Democrats is to simply back each other up no matter how corrupt one of them might be. Trump probably could have shot a person in broad daylight in the middle of fifth avenue and Republicans would ensure that nothing happened.
This is such a childish and naive statement. No matter what system is put in place, the president alone can't make a radical difference in a positive direction, only shitty ones.
Yeah, Reagan really did a great job letting AIDS kill all those people because he hated the gays.
Oh, and kickstarting the modern homeless crisis by closing all the countries mental health facilities without another solution in the wings.
My quality of life improved dramatically when I moved away from Republican led areas and into Democrat-led areas.
Ergo, you are wrong.
I moved to California, so, almost another country.
But I was speaking more of the state and local governments, which have more of an impact in my direct life.
However I think anyone who was able to get health insurance with a pre-existing condition would probably say a Democrat president has directly helped their quality of life, possibly in that they would have no life at all without that Democrat president. Just for one example at the federal level.
You can have socialist policies without being a socialist society. Our (UK) NHS is a socialist policy, free healthcare at the point of use. My country is decidedly not socialist!
Everyone knows what "free" means especially when they refer to it as socialist. Pointing out it's taxes is such a tired statement that folks who pretend to be smart like to pull out as a gotcha. You're not actually adding any value to the conversation by saying that. And yes, universal healthcare would absolutely be supported by the founding fathers. But virtually no one in one specific party votes in that direction and generally votes to go in the other. At least some of the other party try and fight for it.
I said free healthcare at the point of use, not free healthcare. And it's nothing like your US systems, I was personally charged £0 for my emergency appendictomy surgery, £0 for the ambulance ride, and £0 for the hospital stay.
Ftfy. Nothing stops anyone from voting for it right now. There's only one side even remotely fighting for it. It's just ignorance, laziness, and hate that keep it from happening.
What matters is the ability the allocate resources according to the needs of us all and that people have confidence in future resources to be happy. Private ownership is contrary to the first; it helps with the second. That is any "capitalism" must be limited to pertonal needs.
Who decides what constitutes a "need"? Will this proposed society be based purely on subsistence?
You and those whose needs would cause their needs to go unmet.
Aaaaand that's how communism ---> dictatorship
"Congratulations comrade, this week you get a new toaster!"
"...my shoes are falling off my feet..."
"We do not have shoes, comrade! This week we made toasters!"
Ok, let me try to make this simpler and more direct, since abstraction clearly isn't your strong suit. The problem is with this:
In practice, this becomes a committee sitting in a room somewhere deciding what & how much the society needs, and then how to go about producing it. The problem with this is that it can only ever be reactive and not proactive (a need must be recognized before it can be addressed, therefore the need must exist first in order to be recognized). Having a government make all production decisions will never be flexible or fast enough to actually sustain a society.
Socialism has many of the same benefits as capitalism. It's also compatible with other systems. A socialist country can trade with a capitalist. I have no issue with slowly moving toward socialist but I don't think there is much to be gained in protecting capitalism.
This I think is a key part of misunderstandings... I'm not trying to protect capitalism, I'm trying to be realistic in how we go about modifying society towards more socialist goals. We're not going to upend the global capitalist systems in our lifetime, I don't think. And imo things are going to get worse before they get better, as wealth continues to be concentrated in fewer hands, as productivity increases due to further automation. I hope the tipping point isn't something that causes massive loss of life, like the collapse of civilisation.
It's like... imagine you have a lake filled with crocodiles, sharks, and jellyfish. We need to get to the other side. Wanting to get there isn't enough, we need a solution. We can just keep endlessly pushing people in expecting them to somehow cross the lake (trying to 'destroy' capitalism), or we can build a bridge across (slowly modify capitalism to have strongs checks and balances). Anyway it's just my personal opinion, I stand by it
I fail to see how anything you said was useful in that I already admitted that it would need to be gradual, so you spent a lot of time on an entirely unnecessary analogy and thensome. However, you offered none of that in your initial comment. You just said that capitalism could still work. If there was any misunderstanding, it was on you for not sharing something you expected people to magically already know.
No need to get pissy, I was just trying to re-explain myself in a way you'd understand.
That was my reply to you about not needing to be a socialist society to have socialist policies. I clearly understand the principle of gradual change without childish analogies that waste everyone's time. You mention nothing in your comment about gradual change. Simply that we don't need a socialist society. Don't become condescending when people can't read your mind due to your inability to communicate. See how few words I used to discuss gradual change? No need for childish condescension for such a simple idea.
Don't be a dick. You just wasted my time with elitist shit about how smart you are. You mad because they said "don't be pissy"?
Well ya sounded pissy to me, and you're doing an even better job of it now. Be better than that
But 'we'd be better off in a world free of corruption' isn't a right-leaning position.
I'm actually very centrist; I don't want to eat the rich.
After all, I'm a vegan and think that anyone involved in the meat industry should be put in jail.
So, dead center. That's me.
.ml? I always thought it was for Marxist lenninist.
But that could have been tongue in cheek
I think you meant "free real estate for the CIA and their a puppet dictators".
It's what happens every time another country doesn't want to sell their natural resources for pennies.
"Uncorrupt government"
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Keyword being uncorrupt.
Governments are run by people, at the end of the day
If money can make money that feedback loop will always break the system
That's why I am here tbh
All great social media does. The secret is that reality favors the progressive left
I'm not even sure what a government would look like in order to allow capitalism to function without corruption and exploitation. The regulations needed would be so overbearing that the markers surely would not thrive. Our entire society is based around the idea of abusing what is essentially slave labor to live far beyond our means. Without massive corruption, the US would just be another unremarkable country struggling to stay afloat.
yeah!! if MY party was in power, the government would not be corrupt!!! its definitely not the system that is flawed
The problem is how do we get there? In a market there will always be actors powerful enough to corrupt the governmenta and influence regulation in an undemocratic way.
Even in a market dominated by socialist companies where workers have power. Workers having ownership isn't some panacea against corruption and willingness to dominate others. You can still end up with a company full of terrible people who have no qualms cornering a market and then committing to rent-extraction. They can even commit to those horrible practices in an internally democratic way!
What this planet needs is a Magna Carta of sorts that limits the power of all people, corporations or other entities or groups. Simple as that. We need limits! Extreme inequality will ALWAYS breed civil unrest.
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won't be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can't be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
That's an extremely narrow view point I'd say. In my country the government promotes the growth of existing big corporations so that there can be more jobs and infrastructure development - but this has in the end lead to a widening of gap and has essentially only made the rich even richer.
I genuinely believe promoting start ups is better for the middle class than big corporations, as usually startups pay a crazy amount of money if you ask for it compared to what a big rich corpo would give you (ironically).
I mean, it's hard to argue against that, because there is evidence that it works in Europe. Might need less corrupt governments in some places tho
I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.
There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no "best one" and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.
One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.
The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.
I hadn't experienced hexbear (literally) shitting up the place yet, has a way to block entire instances been implemented or do I gotta find a new one that isn't federated with them?
Left are the goodies
Right are the baddies.
Simples.
Uncorrupt is good.
What a system is capable of doing initially for a lucky fraction of the populace and where its inevitable and terrible end leads for the vast majority are two entirely different things.
When properly regulated, capitalism does raise standard of living for the vast majority.
The problem in the US is it's so lightly regulated that we we living under an oligarchy in the name of "freedom."
You got downvoted but you are correct. It raises it higher for some more than others but it does improve for everyone.
Just a tinsy tiny one.
But look, I will happily state my true opinions on here. Let them downvote me. My skin isn't paper thin.
Reality has a leftist bias.
The video below offers a nice exploration on left v right in terms of the conditions in a nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I think, personally and without solid justification, that our generation is a sacrificial one. If we accept our lives as being imperfect, but aim to reduce the imperfection of those that come after, we're on the best path. Planting trees whose shade we'll never sit in, with the caveat we're also helping people see that the shade is more valuable than the lumber, and that the world always needs more of both.
All systems: Government, Market, etc, should be regulated assuming corruption already exists.
Because one way or another it will reach that point long after you're gone, if not before then.
Um, who regulates the government?
The people, ideally.
Also other branches of government.
In a properly functioning government, the different branches provide checks on each others' powers, with the ultimate backstop being the power of the people via voting.
Long-term, I think the problem is that no system of rules will be, or can be, complete enough to maintain a stable society - regardless of the philosophy the system is based on. And that's assuming the rules will be enforced and followed 100%. Rules written today won't be complete enough for tomorrow.
Obviously we can create a system that can adapt by adding new rules, but the ever-growing stack of rules creates its own set of problems, as the new rules interact with the old and create internal conflicts. Over time the system loses consistency and coherence.
I think something external to the rules is necessary, something that motivates a common cause... but I don't know what that would be.
Sounds like religion.
I know. Historically I think the only examples of societal guiding principles that have really functioned for more than a decade have been religions.
But of course, religions come with all sorts of nasty baggage that hobbles societal development, frequently including anti-science behavior. Religion isn't the answer, it causes too many other problems.
Really depends on what you mean by market. Like a market has existed since humans have and probably will until post-scarcity. The market we have now with arcane rules that all end up enriching people with more money than any one human will ever need is something that has been in the making since industrialization. That market is pretty much at a point where salvaging it is not really possible even if there was any attempt made to do so. Control of how that market works seems to be at the hands of bad actors who just want to squeeze as much wealth out of it as they can, screwing over anyone else.
Like for example the power companies in my country stopped producing power on their own and bought power from neighboring countries just to sell it to locals at a higher rate. Basically just acting as middle men without providing anything of worth. That drove the price of power to hit 300% more than the year prior. The only reason they stopped was because our government started their own power plan with locally produced power forcing those companies to compete with it but the damage was done and power prices never went back to normal like they never do when companies inflate prices. A market regulated by people who only care about profit will never work.
Keep in mind, you are posting this to lemmy.ml, so I don't know what you expected... Maybe something like this would be better recieved on lemmy.world or on your account's instance.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'bias'
So does reality, strangely enough.
Uncorrupt government. Lmao
I'm confused by something. Isn't this meme pretty far left compared to reality?
Half?
The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they're not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren't extreme enough for you is silly.
I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren't extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.
Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It's not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.
Folks don't realize real change can't happen drastically and realistically be expected to remain. It's going to be baby steps. Getting them to believe gradual change isn't worth fighting for is a great way to maintain the status quo. They don't raise they are their own worst enemies.
Exactly. It sucks, but it's just the truth. I'd love to vote for an openly socialist presidential candidate, but we have to slowly shift the political views for a long while before that's viable.
Gradual change sets the conditions for drastical change.
Hatred of allies: NO
Holding our allies' feet to the fire: YES
We should not meekly accept a few crumbs.
We should fight, unapologetically, for 100% of everything we want to see. When did the right wing tea party say "Thank you for meeting us half way, we are so grateful, we will now go along to get along." Never. The right wing get 80% of everything they want from an absolute minority position precisely because they fight for 100% of everything they want 100% of the time. The left needs to pay attention.
There are no long term allies, only long term interests.
They also never said "we refuse to vote as some kind of moronic protest against politicians not far right enough for us".
The Tea Party gained control of a significant fraction of the Republican party by voting in primary elections, something which we on the left are too stupid to do.
"You talk clean and bomb hospitals So I speak with the foulest mouth possible"
And I think we're aware things won't happen quickly, but that doesn't mean we have to be uncritical of capitalist politicians who are also actively hostile to leftism.
Also every inherently flawed, means tested, half measure liberal policy that gets confused for leftism (like Obamacare, which was based on Heritage Foundation ideas) just makes it harder to get support on the left.
Why should some people be allowed to be rich but not most people?
And why is that a bad thing, I'd rather not support the side of politics that support bigotry and the exploit of humanity so the rich few can live in luxury
Good
ok but how do you prevent the government from being influenced by the wealth of individuals. let me know when you find a way
It also has a very clear male bias, significantly more so than reddit used to.
Reddit was no different from 2005 ~ 2009/2010
Edit: and honestly. Still.
Maybe it's just because I am usually in LGBT and trans spaces, but I see a lot more women than I did on Reddit. They might not all be cis women but still.
It may be because I'm in similar spaces, but I see way more trans women than cis women. In my experience, it seems like a good 80%-90% of the fediverse is "assigned male at birth."
Tbh all i saw when i joined lemmy was baby trans spaces and i blocked all of those 😐
You need to be 2 times as nerdy to understand lemmy, so it’s obvious
Reality is not left leaning. Leftist politics are reality-leaning
This meme is based on an impossible assumption, maybe that's the joke. But I ain't certain.
That's why I'm here. All the corporate owned social media are blatantly far-right fascists. Everywhere else is just thick with Nazis and racists.
The problem with that view is that it is idealistic in nature - government, by its very nature, will always become corrupt.
It can. In theory.
The theoretical part is the "uncorrupt government" you speak of.
The only way to keep a govt "uncorrupt" as you put it is under pain of literal death. And even then its not foolproof. Some will still be tempted.
If you want a govt that will serve the people while being as incorruptible as possible you have to choose politicians by lottery instead of election. They get called, go serve, then go back to the life they had before. Like 4 years of Jury Duty. Political graspers, climbers, those will always trend towards corruption. Like that old addage, anyone actively seeking political office is unfit to serve in that capacity as their motivations are suspect. Power, authority, etc. All that is only intensified in a system as inconceivably corrupt and broken as ours is.
A bit late to the party
Capitalism has far and away provides the best and most benefits to the people the problem is when Capitalism is allowed to run with no safety rails
Your point is based on an idealistic and wishful "uncorruot government". You cannot have an uncorrupt government. What's needed is a different form of political decision making, one where the common folk participates in the political questions, not just some answers, where accountability is protected and a priority.
I don't know the exact blueprint for this, maybe it is as unattainable as an "uncorrupted government". What I know is that nobody really tried it yet, while so called "liberal democracy" has proven its failings to all and the fascist have been taking advantage of those failings since the start. The only way yo avoid this is to change our questions, not to all agree on the answers
Who could ever want anything else?
sami">\alert(document.cookie)\
The problem there is the same as that of idealised communism, you're relying on humans to do what they typically don't do. Humans will take for themselves at the cost of communities if they feel they can get away with it, including the ones in government.
sami">\loda\
sami
except of course no government can regulate a Freed market.
If we truly Freed the market of government controls the workers could ownership of the fruits of their labor and the laws of supply and demand would regulate the market naturally
The SEC ??
sami'>\loda\
This is the only place i see where auth left is represented and i love it
Almost 1000 likes says is not such an heavy bias i would say.
it's not left it's middle
That's just what happens when you actually ban pedo-nazis and racists instead of passively protect them like reddit does.
It will be a while before weird gringo ideologies become less prevalent.
With very few exceptions this entire thread is pure amateur hour bullshit.
In This Thread: politically illiterate takes
You are all just closeted leftists if you understood a bit more political theory. Go out and be the non-annoying, non-smug leftist that you dream of.
the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.
Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It's not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.
So in any economy where there won't be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt's job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it's essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.
Finally, a capitalist on Lemmy! I’ve been looking for you. I need another like-minded Lemmy user.
Implying the other half agrees with you, right?
Sounds about like every other wedge issue we're divided (lol auto correct decided that should be"focused"and 8 don't know that I disagree) with.
Got bombarded with hate when I said a solution to Nazis isnt to kill Nazis lol the left are just as unhinged as the right. Most Americans are mentally ill because they can't afford to see a therapist.
I'm an anarchist and I agree with this. The main reason I am an anarchist is because I don't believe it's actually possible for a government to be uncorruptible, so I'd rather not have one.
It's like saying "the world would be better if it was a utopia." No shit. But how likely is it to happen?
*Small bias? Just try mentioning Trump in a positive light and see.