Hmm. So I've been thinking. We all talk about destroying Capitalism, right? But it might be more useful to aim at destroying Corporatism first. This is a much smaller target, and a much better trade-off in terms of effort vs pay-off... :/
@ENG_Jole Are they, though? I guess it depends on how you define capitalism and corporatism. Theough that gets back to one of my old gripes - How capitalism can mean anything from "A very specific kind of market economy seen in Britain 1870-1920" to "all market economies everywhere ever." :/
@Angle @ENG_Jole you're overthinking it -- any attempts to get capitalism off the ground for the better (or at least, ones that are less shitty than corporatism), either lead to corporatism or raise significant problems of their own (frequently both).
corporatism = red herring turned into a libertarian/paleoconserative/tea party talking point to deflect off of problems inherent to capitalism
@ENG_Jole @Angle I agree with both of you.
Corporations exist because they can concentrate wealth and power more reliably than family. Before corporations, a robber baron could amass a fortune and leave it to their children, only to have their grandchildren piss it all away.
Corporations are not bound by the limits of flesh, and are driven solely by the imperative to amass wealth.
To kill capitalism we must end the tyranny of corporations.
@Angle Personally, I see corporatism as the problem, not capitalism. (Corporatism happening when capitalism scales up beyond morals.)
Personally, my ideal economic system would use socialism and capitalism in harmony - socialism providing for people's base needs, and acting as a regulating force on capitalism (with a threat of nationalization of abusive companies), but capitalism providing opportunity to better one's life beyond a baseline minimum.
@Angle Without corporatism and with a social safety net (including socialized production/ownership of the requirements for base needs), wage slavery goes away, and capitalism can be confined to where it works well.
@bhtooefr Mmm, I'd kinda like something like that, but with lots of other bits thrown in as options - public options, cooperatives, maybe the odd commune or two. XD
@Angle I don’t think it’s productive to focus on “isms”, as they are all deeply flawed, and all subject to people having dogmatic beliefs about them.
That said, I do think one of the first and best steps we can pragmatically take is to end the corporate charter (“corporations are people”). After that we can look for the next practical step.
@Angle Capitalism is subject to the Red Queen problem. Doing something destructively or ruthlessly is almost always superior. There is no possibility for a 'moral' capitalism, because it is necessarily subverted by 'better' (all-devouring) capital.
Better to start with a system that may use capital as incentive, but that uses collective power to prevent exploitation and subjugation.
@Angle capitalism and corporatism are inherently tied together