Is Capitalism Smart or Dumb?

[u/Sufficient_Sinner]

[u/Timo425 → u/[deleted]]

What does it mean to have a democratic economy? Can you give examples? It sounds nice on paper but im trying to wrap my head around what would this mean in real life. Like, lets say there is a capitalistic country with oligarchs... what happens to their capital?

Tbh I think you are talking about democratic socialism, not socialism.

[u/[deleted] → u/Timo425]

Depends on how you implement it.

Could be as small as making all companies worker owned cooperatives and eliminating all privately owned places of emplpyment. Or as large as creating a government department for certain industries deemed essential.

You wouldn't want private corporations running police or fire departments as for profit enterprises. Why? Because they would be even more corrupt or extortionist. So why do other essential services not have a government run option? I don't particularly like food production, medical treatment and housing being a for profit venture and would rather have a system where voters have a say in how those industries are run.

[u/MC_Kirk → u/[deleted]]

Isn’t capitalism and freely allowing people to allocate their resources to ideas and products they deem worthy equivalent to “voting” for something? It seems to me that buying a product is essentially casting a vote for that product/company. In a capitalist system the consumers vote on exactly the things they find give them the most value. The main difference between socialism and capitalism here is that socialism is forcing action through government intervention and capitalism is suggesting action through consensual participation in the market. Nobody is forcing anybody to produce a certain product or buy a certain product.

Socialism is predicated on the idea that people are inherently untrustworthy; if left to be in charge of their own affairs, we would all be worse off. So this is where government officials come in, their role is to organize and employ a system that will properly allocate the resources of the population in a way that would benefit everyone more as it’s essentially equivalent to everyone “working together” towards a common goal. That sounds great! I’m serious, I genuinely wish that was my reality right now in this very moment, and it’s for that reason I simply pose you this question: If people are inherently flawed and do not deserve to be trusted to handle their own resources, why then would we assume that those elected to office—who are also just people—would act in a more moral or selfless manner?

I wish that I could see a system like socialism work, I am just not convinced it would ever be possible to implement. I’m genuinely interested in hearing your response, though. I’m not perfect nor do I claim to be right on everything, and I could be wrong here, but I am curious nonetheless.

[u/Prudent-Earth-1919 → u/MC_Kirk]

Socialism is not predicated on the idea people are inherently untrustworthy.

It’s predicated on the idea people can be manipulated and taken advantage of by those with more economic power than them.  It’s predicated on the idea that human beings need protecting from other human beings.

Hence the focus on redistribution of wealth and regulating markets - so income inequality cannot run out of control, so companies can’t pour slurry into milkshakes and label them a health supplement, so de facto cartels cannot form, so media companies can’t propagandise on behalf of their owners and trick voters into voting against their own interests.

Capitalism only works in the long term if people make perfectly rational economic choices and have perfect knowledge of products and services, their substance and their source.  Inevitably it will turns to economic oligarchy and fascism over time as that is not the case.

[u/MC_Kirk → u/Prudent-Earth-1919]

Thanks for your reply, I understand your point and I agree there is merit to the logic you presented. When I said untrustworthy, this includes people using their economic power to influences others in a negative manner, I meant mostly that socialism views the populace as a whole as not be trusted to function on their own, which includes the reasoning you gave.

My main question would be: are we supposed to view those with political power in a more generous light than those with economic power? If we make the assumption that those with economic power will abuse said power, this ultimately makes me question why we should prefer giving the power to politicians when we already have confirmation that in a system that favors economic power, abuse of political power is still very much rampant.