|
Top-level
 What will replace capitalism doesn't exist yet, so doesn't have a name, so you can't hear of it. Replace capitalism with what? First, you must be clear of what a system should provide for *everyone* (like material comfort, education, safety, breathable air, a future...). Then you look at the system we have, capitalism, and tweak it. And tweak it. And tweak it until your goal is met. At this stage, it won't be capitalism anymore. 20 comments
What will replace capitalism already exists and has a name: socialism. Also, the method you suggested is the classical reformist (idealistic and utopian) method of changing the system from the inside. "Don't revolt against your oppressors! Work with they who exploit you," might as well be the credo of reformism. Capitalists aren't going to stand by and let workers slowly change the system into socialism. 1/2 We'll work slowly, and they'll react swiftly and immediately through manipulation, trickery, and force. Capitalism has to be taken out swiftly, made so that the capitalists don't have the opportunity or ability to prevent its collapse, have all the power taken away from the capitalists the moment the working class has the ability to take it, not leaving them with a single ounce of power. Revolution, not reformism, is the course of action that needs to be taken. 2/2 Anyone paying attention will soon realise that. But I think it is good to go through the reasoning and set clearly the end game, if only to take more people on board. Let's make clear socialism is not an end by itself. The endgame is to create a society where everyone without exception have the two or three bottom layers of Maslow's pyramid covered. And then people need to think about what is needed to get there, and why it's not happening, issue by issue. 1/2 We need to encourage people to think in a systemic way. Let's take one issue: the environment. We need stricter regulations and people who breach them hold to account -> why it's not happening -> lack of political will -> why politicians do nothing -> because of political donations -> who gives to politicians -> the very rich -> so what needs to be done -> capping wealth -> how do we do that -> that'll be hard, but a mass movement is the start. 2/2 Let's not demand Socialism. Demand affordable housing, demand free healthcare, demand affordable quality food, demand meaningful leasure time, demand safe work, demand time to spend with your kids, demand ease of transport, demand nice clothes, a few gadgets, some treats, demand better mental health, demand access to lifelong education, demand breathable air and drinkable water, demand a future. And demand it for *everyone*. When you get that, that's Socialism. That isn't socialism. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Having free housing, healthcare, education, etc, while living in a system where you don't own the means of production that you have to use to make the products of society and produce wealth that another person keeps the majority of while your "allowed" a small fraction of it isn't socialism. That's capitalism. That's giving your slaves golden chains and Fridays off. 1/2 How about we do demand #socialism? It's people like you who are part of the reason we don't have socialism now. By convincing workers not to advocate for socialism for whatever reason you aren't helping anyone but the ruling class by convincing workers to not advocate for their liberation, but instead to beg the ruling class to throw them a few scraps and make their oppression a bit less inconvenient. 2/2 You're talking about regulation on people and corporations when the source of the problem isn't the people or corporations committing environmental crimes. It's the system that allows and incentivizes them to commit these crimes: capitalism. Capitalism, the system that prioritizes profit over everything, is the source and needs to be gotten rid of and replaced with a system that prioritizes people and their environment over profit: socialism. Let's be clear, we agree. We just choose to word it different ways. The reason I do it is because for most people "capitalism" and "socialism" means nothing. For many, it doesn't mean what they think it means. And expert don't agree what the words mean. So I don't blame "capitalism". I blame people who have so much money they can buy the political system. I don't demand "socialism", I demand a system where everyone is comfortable. Get me? Peter Fisher here might not get how "capitalism" is destroying the planet and why "capitalism" is bad. But Peter Fisher can certainly see how very very rich people influence politics so decisions advantage them, and goes against everyone else's interests, if he bothers to read the news. We do not agree. Don't tell me I agree with you when we're here having a debate over our disagreement over politics. From my analysis of your beliefs, you don't call it "capitalism" because you have little to no understanding of capitalism, and the same goes for socialism as well. 1/2 Someone earlier recommended you read "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg, and I also recommend you read the book to understand the flaws of reformism and develop a better understanding of capitalism and socialism. No one seems to agree on what is "capitalism"! Lol. (I have my own definition, which is not really useful when it comes to communication. So I don't use it...) But if you want to get a point across, talking about a system that allow super rich people buying entire government and let normal folks in the shit, *everyone* will get that! And the problem with socialism is similar. No one knows what it means! ... Plenty of people agree on what capitalism is, and if they don't know what it is, it's very, very simple to explain: it's the private ownership of the means of production. If they don't know what means of production are, again, it's very, very easy to explain: resources and tools used to make goods and services. If they don't know what socialism is, again, very, very easy to explain: the collective ownership of the means of production. 1/2 There, I just explained both capitalism and socialism in three short sentences, which were leagues more descriptive than your description of capitalism, "a system that allow super rich people buying entire government and let normal folks in the shit," and your description of socialism which was equally as inane. 2/2 @Radical_EgoCom @Lily_and_frog @FisherPeter whether it's socialism or anything else, the wealthy will never let us engineer a system where it removed their advantages over the rest of us. I abhor physical violence and I would like to believe that it is possible to adopt a new system without it, but that would involve a massive amount of agreement that is impossible in a world where excessive wealth can purchase cooperation. Hopefully I'm wrong but at the moment I no longer believe that. @Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter Getting to socialism from capitalism is what I mean. I can't imagine the wealthy will allow that transition if it can be prevented using the kind of force or "persuasion" that money can accomplish. You are correct. The bourgeois ruling class, the ones who currently use their power over politicians and the media to restrict leftists and maintain their power, obviously would do the same to revolutionaries seeking to abolish capitalism. |
Gregory's Server
@FisherPeter @Radical_EgoCom
So let's start with the problems of pollution and global warming. The solution is very strict regulations that are enforced. Why it's not done? Limited liability is one reason.
If you abolish or severely constrain limited liability, then that's a massive cornerstone of capitalism gone!
And so on and so on, issue by issue.
Look at a problem, replace it with something better. Go to the next problem.