How about making something new! Abolish the billionaire class (they enter a new phase where they’re now fudiciaries for the public), and the excess holds HEMS trust for baby citizens till 25 - it shuts off for capitalism - turns on at 75 for retirement. HEMS is housing, education, medical and base support. This is what every HNW individual sets up for their kids. Taxes are nominal and charity is niche. THE END, Koombaya and plays about how alcohoism destroys families but marijuana cures arthritis. (curtsy). lol
hey, im curious about what would happen if someone decides not to contribute to a socialist society. of course that person will still deserve basic resources to ensure that they live, since that is the moral basis of socialism. however, this will be unfair to fellow members of that society since they all agree to be responsible for each other (thus collective ownership), yet this one person who chooses to opt out of that moral system still reaps its benefits. what then might be an ethical consequence that a socialist society might carry out on those who opt out?
What happens to the lazy under Socialism is a great question! Some Marxists might answer by quoting Lenin's statement that ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ (paraphrasing Paul in Bible). However, I am not a Marxist or Leninist, and my own view is that food should not be a commodity, we shouldn’t produce it for profit, and as long as we have enough people to produce enough of it we should share it according to people’s need.
Since producing this food only requires about 1% of the population then I don’t see this being a problem unless over 99% of people suddenly ‘opt out’ of society. Since humanity largely met their food needs for 99% of its existence before money or prisons or police existed, I don’t think we need any of those things to threaten people into helping or punish them for not doing it. We can produce most of our comforts too with about 20% of the workforce if we had to (by eliminating excess, duplication and artificial scarcity and obsolescence).
Having said this there will of course be social pressures and social incentives. Most children grow up wanting to do something - especially if given a chance to do something meaningful, there would be opportunities for apprenticeships, mentorships, group work, making things of use, and seeing how fulfilling such work is and how much it is appreciated by those who benefit from it. Most people want to associate with other people and working alongside them is a way to do this, most people get bored with laziness, or they eventually feel guilty or awkward being around those they feel they are taking from without contributing. So there would be consequences, but the kind that come from excluding yourself from a major part of community life and behaviour the community looks down on. (Although in the sort term I imagine most people would just think you are sick or have a mental health issue or just need some time to yourself).
I’m personally more concerned with situation in which someone might not get enough food and be hungry, than with one in which someone might get free food and be lazy. I guess I’m more worried about suffering than fairness, especially if the cost of ensuring ‘fairness’ means potentially hurting someone to uphold the power and / or economic structure of a system.
Thanks for this concise and respectful response to one of the "Myths" of American Capitalism. I would also suggest the relentless specter of materialism that is imposed on our society to buy more and more causing so many to fall down a rabbit hole of debt only to then be exploited by another business model for profit. And yes, groups of caring people can band together to grow, produce, and manufacture things for the good of the community efficiently with minimum risk. No one in an enlightened society needs to be rich, we are witnessing now the fallacy and madness of the "American Dream" with the current president!
Alright, let's think about this rationally. You've posed a question about whether human beings have a fundamental right to food, water, shelter, and medicine or if they should be dependent upon an ability to pay—and I appreciate your well-thought-out argument. Still, I believe they should be dependent upon an ability to pay. Bear with me, and I'll give my reasoning, which happens to be hard to find fault with.
Resources aren't endless. Food requires farmers, water requires infrastructure, shelter requires builders, and healthcare requires educated professionals and supplies. Those don't appear—those exist through work and innovation. If we're proposing anyone should be entitled to them apart from contribution, we have a practical problem: who provides? Someone has to plant the food, purify the water, build the houses, and produce the medicines. Linking access to paying keeps the process running because it connects what you get with what's being made. Detach that, and production ceases—history attests to that. Central systems such as the Soviet Union tried to ensure everything and wound up with shortages and not abundance. With all its faults, the market keeps everything flowing through paying labor.
Now, you might say that this system excludes some, and that's a genuine concern. But here's the reality: no system can offer infinite resources to everyone. Even in your utopia where essentials are a right, somebody's still paying. If it's not the individual paying, it's the collective—through taxes or labor. The difference in capitalism is that a system of payments makes implicit costs explicit. It never promises the impossible. Charity or collective aid can fill in where individuals can't pay, and generally, they do so, but to demand a universal "right" assumes coordination and abundance never sustained long-term. Examine any collectivist experiment—Cuba's a good one. Healthcare is offered as a right, but the crumbling infrastructure and physicians going to higher-paying opportunities elsewhere cause it to fail.
You present payment in terms that sound threatening, even coercive, but I think it is an exchange. Labor has always been necessary to survive in life—hunting and gathering and farming—before there were markets. Payment for necessities is merely our present substitution in place of that. It's not slavery; it's exchange. I exchange what I can for what I need, and so do you. The alternative—breaking that connection—risks drowning the producers in labor. If I'm a farmer and crops are claimed as a "right," why farm at all when I can simply take my own portion? Production only occurs when there's an incentive to rise and do so. Markets create that incentive.
You do argue that the wealth stacks up in the system and so it does. Your solution—spreading it around by decree—builds up another thing: power. I'd be better off living in a system where I can work or think better than a rich man than where a government decides what I get to keep. The rights over human life aren't absolute, and yet they work. If I build a house, I have a stake in it—that's why I go ahead and create another one. Take that away and why bother? The facts don't prevaricate: countries with strong markets and property rights—such as South Korea—humbled themselves from poverty to riches faster than those without—such as North Korea. It's not dogma; it's results.
Your argument that workers create value is valid, but not your other part of the argument. Owners and planners assume risks—time and capital—that the workers do not assume. If I start a business and fail, I lose everything; if I succeed wildly, I have earned what's due to me. Workers receive theirs in either case, and that's fair as well. Reducing that exchange to exploitation overlooks how intertwined the roles are with each other. We need both.
It can be that someone slips through the cracks—sickness, tragedy, bad luck befall them. But paying after they get in doesn't mean leaving them to dry. It is creating a system in which they can manage themselves to a large degree with targeted aid—family, charities, even government welfare safety nets—when they can't. Contrast that with a universal guarantee: it is lovely until the shelves run bare because incentives to stock them vanish. Look at Venezuela—oil wealth, grandiose promises, and now they can't even find toilet paper on the shelves. Markets collapse and recover better than decrees do.
So I land on "ability to pay," not because I'm so keen on dollars taking precedence over human lives but because it's the only way to have a society without going through the motions about scarcity not existing. It's not about punishing the weak; it's about having something to offer in the first place. How would you get production to equal demand in a system where no one's accountable to the cost? That's the gap I don't see a bridge to.
No-one claims that resources are endless, or that they don’t require a interdependent infrastructure. The question is - could these needs be supplied more simply without profit needing to be made at every stage of this process? Yes, I believe they could.
You ask ‘who provides?’, but why not the workers who are providing now? I’m not talking about the owners who profit from the current system, but the workers who actually carry out this work and actually produce what is needed. It is in the interest for farmers to grow food because they need to eat and they need others to eat in order that others can produce different things they need too.
No-one disputes that ‘someone has to produce’ these necessities, the question is whether these necessities should be commodified and access restricted based on ability to pay.
Most of us work for owners because we need to eat and the owners have put our access to food behind their paywalls, so they can coerce us into working so they can get rich from our exploitation.
You say - ‘Linking access to paying keeps the process running because it connects what you get with what's being made. Detach that, and production ceases—history attests to that.’
But the connection between production and needs doesn't require monetary exchange. Production could be organised collectively, voluntarily, and directly by workers themselves. History actually attests that this works: pre-monarchal civilisations, indigenous communities, mutual aid networks, and countless cooperative ventures have demonstrated that humans readily produce and share resources without market coercion.
The profit motive doesn't enable production, it distorts and restricts it to what's profitable rather than what's necessary, and creates a huge amount of waste and pollution in the process (to the point that this may yet destroy the planet, or at least the human life on it).
This is not a choice between market capitalism and Soviet / Chinese ‘state capitalism’, but between capitalism and co-operation, which is the way humanity operated for most of its existence. Your examples of ‘failed’ socialist experiments conveniently ignore the relentless economic warfare, sanctions, and sabotage these societies faced from capitalist powers.
Markets don't ‘keep everything flowing’, they direct resources to those who can pay the most, not to those with the greatest need. That's why we have luxury dog spas while homeless people freeze to death.
You said - ‘no system can offer infinite resources to everyone’.
But again no-one is claiming any system can or should. But what we have is a surplus of food with millions still hungry and a surplus of homes with millions still homeless. You also seem to suggest that I’m claiming that we don’t need labour at all. We certainly don’t need anywhere as much of it if profit was taken out of the equation, but people worked - as you pointed out - before markets, before there was a monetary incentive. People also worked to feed and help eachother before there was exchange or barter - as anthropologists will tell you it is also a relatively new phenomenon in human history. (Adam Smith presumed people traded before money without any evidence, and now we have a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
It seems strange to me that you’d criticise healthcare as a right and use Cuba as an example when 32 of the 33 ‘developed’ countries have healthcare as a right. America is the outlier here and has worse healthcare and health outcomes than most of Europe.
You celebrate ‘choice’ whilst ignoring the coercion inherent in capitalism: work or starve. That's not freedom, it's economic blackmail. True freedom requires that basic needs are met unconditionally. Unless you are free from starvation you are not free to make genuine choices, to refuse exploitative conditions, or to exercise any meaningful autonomy. The threat of destitution hanging over every worker's head ensures compliance with a system that fundamentally serves the owning class, not the vast majority who must sell their labour to survive.
The appeal to ‘incentives’ ignores that capitalism incentivises the wrong things: planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, and exploitation. A society organised around meeting human needs would prioritise sustainability, durability, and wellbeing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that people are naturally selfish and only work when threatened with starvation (unless they are rich and make poor people work for them so they can become richer), that markets magically distribute resources fairly despite evidence to the contrary, that today's wealth distribution which is based on centuries of theft and exploitation is somehow just, that we can't possibly produce enough for everyone (despite destroying millions of tonnes of food), that taking financial ‘risks’ with inherited wealth somehow entitles capitalists to pocket the value created by actual workers, and that somehow this is the most ‘practical’ and ‘rational’ economic arrangement possible.
You end with the question - ‘How would you get production to equal demand in a system where no one's accountable to the cost?’
Simply stop production needing to be ‘accountable to cost’ and instead make it accountable to the community's actual needs. The resources exist, there is a surplus, the workers exist, and they are already working far more than they need to.
We already have sophisticated logistics systems that track supply and demand, we simply need to repurpose them to serve human needs rather than profit. The difference is that decisions would be made by communities, not by distant executives seeking to maximise returns for shareholders.
People would remain accountable, not to abstract market forces, but directly to their communities and fellow workers. This social accountability is far more meaningful than the false accountability of markets, which regularly fail to provide necessities to those without money while producing luxury goods for the wealthy.
We can have a better world without capitalism, morally, practically and successfully - especially if we define success as peoples needs being met and morality as not letting people go hungry and be homeless unnecessarily.
You're not incorrect—resources take work and dependence upon one another, no question about that. You argue that we can provide the basics 'more easily' without profit. That’s a step I don’t understand. Profit’s not just a reward for the avaricious person; it’s the spark that doubles production. Workers—farmers and doctors and builders—do the hard work, sure enough, but owners put capital to work, take the gamble, and bring effort into systems that feed billions and not dozens. You claim farmers plant crops because they have to eat—true enough, but why plant surplus to feed millions without a market to justify it? Pre-monarchic civilizations and indigenous communities you cite fed thousands; markets set us loose in abundance—world food production’s shot through the roof since 1800. Voluntary associations don't construct dams and tractors without something propelling them to do so.
You suggest workers might run production 'collectively and voluntarily' with no capital needed. History gives us glimpses—mutual aid and aboriginal networks—but they're footnotes, not templates. If you scale them up, they fall apart from internal coercion. The Soviet collectives promised us utopia; they delivered forced labor and rationing. You cite capitalist subversion—justifiable, Cuba and Venezuela were battered—but internal weakness (rigidity and incentives) took down those, too. Markets are flawed, but they adapt. The U.S. has dog daycares and nourishes 40 million with food stamps—flawed but not inhumane. Resources trail money, not need, you tell us—correct, but need without production gives nothing, market or otherwise.
Profit destroys, and withers away, you think? There is no dispute here—capitalism overproduces, and that’s wastage. But that surplus comes with the markets and not because of them. Pre-capitalist societies didn’t waste because they had nothing to waste with. Jettisoning markets might very well mean jettisoning the surplus, too. Pollution’s a problem—capitalism’s to blame—but Soviet production ruined ecosystems worse. Profits are financing solar and electric vehicles now; ideology didn’t have to.
Now, medicine—let’s get that straight too. You cite Cuba as a 'right' and the U.S. as an outlier. Reality: 32 of 33 affluent countries have universal coverage without 'free'—taxing ability from pockets to the state. All have better access than the U.S., no question—America’s a failure in healthcare outcomes with 28 million without insurance and costs through the roof. However, they all use market wealth to fund themselves: Germany, Japan, and Switzerland combine private innovation with public financing and not direct mandates based on 'rights.’ Cuba’s much-vaunted system? Doctors emigrate to earn better outside, hospitals crumble, and shortages take a toll—‘healthcare a right’ doesn’t sound so appealing when you need medicine that’s not to be had. Markets produce breakthroughs—mRNA vaccines came from profit-making firms, not state planners. Ability-to-pay is not ideal, but it powers the innovation and wealth tax-funded systems free-ride on. Cutaway and you’ll be relying on goodwill to bring the next cure.
‘Work or starve’ is not freedom, you maintain—it’s blackmail. All systems carry a cost-benefit–like pre-market was ‘hunt or starve,’ collectives were ‘conform or starve.’ Markets make that precise–work to get paid, and you eat. Your ‘unconditional needs’ hypothesis relies upon infinite givers—where’s the data that work happens in scale? Capitalism engenders rubbish—obsolescence, surplus—true enough, but so does penicillin, the refrigerator, the internet. A needs-based system’s attractiveness—sustainability, well-being—where’s the dictator who decides ‘needs’? Communities? It sounds amazing until provisions get used up or everything’s not equal priority-wise. Markets don’t distribute ‘fairly’—never made that case. Markets distribute economically, and wealth accumulates. Your strategy–production in terms of ‘needs in the community’–substitutes bureaucrats with CEOs. Prices without logistics? Guessing—Venezuela tried, I'm not blind—wealth is uneven, founded on antique thievery too. Risk doesn't equal inherited wealth; it equals work and collapse. Workers produce value; owners monetize it. Cut that out, and you end up with a bare existence, not excess. A better world without capitalism? On moral grounds, I understand you. On practical grounds, demonstrate to me a sophisticated society sustaining billions without markets or coercion. 'Ability to pay' does not equal utopia—it equals the least worst method to balance effort and reality.
When there are a lot of points to cover like this I fear not giving any of them the attention they deserve. Nevertheless, I had a few thoughts that came to mind:
You said - ‘Profit’s not just a reward for the avaricious person; it’s the spark that doubles production.’
When we have twice as much production as we need in many areas, and it is going directly into waste and pollution and destroying the earth, then you’ve given a great argument against capitalism.
You said - ‘Voluntary associations don't construct dams and tractors without something propelling them to do so.’
I agree that something does compel people to work together, I don’t dispute that it isn’t association alone, even when major co-operative projects are accomplished they have their own set of incentives, it is just a different kind than the fear of homelessness that drives people under capitalism.
Having said this some of the most complex projects the world has ever known were created and are maintained without any profit motive - the World Wide Web is one such example as well as the Operating System it runs on - Linux - which is a million times more complex than a dam or even a tractor.
You said - All systems carry a cost-benefit–like pre-market was ‘hunt or starve,’ collectives were ‘conform or starve.’ Markets make that precise–work to get paid, and you eat.
I’m not denying the role of social group influences and incentives for bad and even for good. I’m not disputing that some costs will outweigh the human benefits in a non-profit driven system, and this might potentially lead to some advances and comforts being a lower priority over meeting human needs. I just believe it is a cost worth paying.
Enforced collectives within the Soviet Union might have been ‘conform or starve’ but voluntarily organised ones throughout history have not been. We know from archeological evidence that those who were unable to work were usually cared for and cared for well. I would encourage you to read ‘Humankind’ by Bregman on this subject.
Note: I’m not going to go into Soviet examples that much because I don’t and wouldn’t have supported them or ever recognised them as relevant, as I attribute their failures to their departures from socialism and their embracing of ‘state capitalism’, once again showing capitalism is the problem.
You said - ‘mRNA vaccines came from profit-making firms’
The foundational work on mRNA technology began in the late 1980s and early 1990s with researchers like Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman at the University of Pennsylvania, who were funded primarily through government grants. For many years, their work was considered too risky or unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies to invest in substantially. This is usually the case for most scientific and medical breakthrough - capitalism is good at profiting from them though. This is also a good example of how we take for granted the truth of the propaganda produced by corporations.
You said - ‘demonstrate to me a sophisticated society sustaining billions without markets or coercion’
This is like asking prior to the 17th century - ’Show me a sophisticated system without a monarchy (emperor, tzar etc.) sustaining the world without crowns and thrones’.
To do so we could look at pre-monarchal societies, some societies outside of Western Europe, or tribal ones. If we do that we can find civilisations of up to millions of people that existed in some cases over a thousand years - substantially longer than Capitalism has been around. There are many successful examples of non-coerced non-commodity-market societies. I would encourage you to read ‘The Dawn Of Everything’ by Graeber and Wengrow which is full of examples.
The other problem with this argument is it is a might vs right argument - its not based on what is better, or what is possible, but who was able to conquer and kill more. Maybe capitalism will ‘win’ but what will it have won when there are no people left to be coerced and exploited under it.
What is the end result of capitalism - oligarchy? neo-feudalism? extinction of humanity? In response to that it seems rational to me to do everything possible to build a different kind of system while we can, otherwise ‘ability to pay’ will end up leading to the end of the world.
Note: There was a lot to cover, and I felt I didn’t give any aspect enough attention, so if you want to continue to discuss these issues from here on out it might be best for us to pick one issue to focus on at a time.
All this is find and dandy, but wealthy people aren’t the only ones to blame. Most people aren’t factory owners or landlords. And those people can choose to orient their lives in such a way that there are no homeless, starving, ill-clothed, etc. The dominant economic mode of our society could very well be capitalist, while our interpersonal relationships were deeply socialist. No one is forcing us to live in single family homes, not carpool, etc., etc. The productive energy harnessed by capitalism may very well plant us among the stars. I, for one, think that’s a good thing. We get to choose how we live. That’s always the case. Capitalism isn’t the problem. A lack of will is.
You really shouldn’t be that surprised by now. This system has been going on for many, many generations. The super minority of the super wealthy just don’t have some magical hold over the 99%. Trust me, there is buy-in at every level, in every class.
The system persists because it is working for enough people even with the struggle. People aren’t apolitical, and they aren’t stupid.
Fuck a revolution. Represent a people, organize a party, win elections, shape policy. Any revolution worth having should be able to win votes, right? Take hold of the government, which has the greatest means to do the most good.
Mutual aid groups are great, but not like universal healthcare, free Pre-k and college tuition, guaranteed union jobs, and wages that actually cover the cost of living. The possibilities are endless.
Revolutions can be democratic. Have a better plan, have a better vision, and get people to vote. Poor people can still do that.
It is true that some in the rapidly shrinking middle class in the 'developed' world have enjoyed relatively good comforts and privileges for a few decades. This of course ignores the fact that these benefits have not been evenly distributed among all workers, races and genders even in those countries, that a great amount of exploitation has happened throughout the world to make this possible, and that this is a disappearing sub-class that many of the rising generation won't be part of. But it is unsurprising that while things are okay, while wages cover bills and people have roofs over their heads that this is what they'll stick with, rather than risk losing it.
There was a time when it seemed that political processes were a reason able way to influence government policy, and that governments responded to citizens concerns. (I'm not convinced this was the broad truth of the situation, but it was tolerable enough for people to think it might a good idea to support it - albeit after consuming an incredible amount of propaganda convincing them to do so).
Now governments are quickly turning into plutocracies & oligarchies, focused on doing the most good for the billionaires that pay for their political parties and election campaigns. If this continues it won't be long before elections will just be even more of a pretence and even less effective than they are now.
But it doesn't take a government to organise. The example you give of universal healthcare actually started as mutual aid in many countries - Spain and the UK are two such examples. There isn't anything that well organised groups of people can't do without politicians getting in the way. I've detailed many successful examples of this in several of my articles, but this one is specifically on health care - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/organising-without-rulers
The unions you mention were once radical enough to have plans to supplant corporations and governments, and to take over their workplaces. In Spain and some other places they did successfully for a while until forced to stop by fascists.
I'm talking about people sharing power, not ruling over others, like politicians now do. That's hierarchy, not the power of the people. If voting changed anything governments would make it illegal (and may yet).
Most of the major social progress over the last couple hundred years came through direct action - often including groups like unions organising strikes. Governments may have legalised reforms later, but they almost always started off as unwanted and illegal, and if people had just waited on politicians we probably would have never made any of that progress. I don't believe in poor people pleading to politicians with their begging bowls, 'please sir, can we have some more [rights]'.
I agree with you that our interpersonal relationships are deeply socialist. Among those we are close to and care about we don't put fulfilling their needs behind a paywall.
I'm not saying that the wealthy are to blame for everything, certainly not every choice anyone else makes. But do you really believe that the wealthy and the poor have equal choices and power over their lives?
Do the wealthy and poor have the same influence and power over other peoples lives and choices? Which group owns almost everything, sets prices including wages, and funds political parties and lobbies politicians?
How many choices do poorer people have when wages aren't rising as quick as costs? How does a poorer person 'choose' to escape rent when nearly all housing is privately owned and priced for profit? (In some countries poverty affects access to healthcare and higher education too thus potentially limiting even more fundamental choices)
The rich have the choice whether to work or not, whether to hire or fire, they can afford the best education and healthcare, and this is true whether they originally got their money through inventing something or inheriting it. Is it really a choice for the poor to work when the result for not working is homelessness and hunger?
What good is the 'productive energy harnessed by capitalism' when it leads to planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, and luxury goods for the few, whilst basic needs go unmet for the many? What good is going to space when capitalism will leave the earth uninhabitable if it is allowed to continue?
This idea that people can just use their will to change their circumstances overlooks the circumstances they are already placed in. It lets off the hook those who created (or contributed disproportionately to) those circumstances, who rely on their poorly paid labour, who are able to exploit them because of the inequalities of ownership and power under capitalism, and keeps them in their place by cruelty convincing them that their suffering is a personal failing rather than a an necessary part of a corrupt system which profits from it.
I think the first bit of your comment says it all, we only need to expand our sphere of compassion. Perhaps it’s true that the wealthy and the poor don’t have “equal choices and power of their lives.” If that’s true, then which group is better positioned to address the struggles of the poor? It should be the poor, or non-wealthy, themselves because they can empathize. They are united in the struggle. This is an advantage. This is the foundation of influence. It need only be realized.
While one group may own almost everything, who buys so much food that billions of pounds of it are discarded every year? Who buys a new wardrobe every season? That’s not only the wealthy. There’s enough to share, if only we cared.
We could use our currency to energize a revolutionary movement, and not fund companies that are harming our planet. We can will our way into a different society. The capitalists are the heirs of a people who did so long ago. They are not special. And they are apparently outnumbered.
We let the People off the hook when we suggest that the CEOs and politicians are pulling all the strings and we’re helpless against them. As if we only let people be deprived of food, shelter, education, security, and wellbeing because the “powers that be” make us this way.
No. Now we see who we are, both wealthy and poor. Believe me, they both pass by the hungry on the street, and neither loses a bit of sleep over it.
That’s the truth. And that’s not a product of the so called Agricultural Revolution. A better society needs to reject the myth of the “noble working class.” It should protect us against those tendencies to we have to rule over one another. The poor rule over one another where they can, whether it be at home, church, school, or the workplace. Our problem with abusing power appears indiscriminately, no matter the class.
I wholeheartedly agree with expanding our compassion - although compassion can only go so far in a world where the needs of others are locked behind doors that only a few of the wealthy have the keys to.
I completely agree that the wealthy aren’t likely to address the struggles of the poor and that the poor have usually been the ones to help the poor - although their ability to do this is undermined by the fact that most of their money goes towards subsidising the rich.
I totally back the idea of them using their advantage of numbers and realising their power - not by being more selective consumers, by overthrowing the system that favours and empowers the rich and impoverishes the poor.
However, the idea of poor people being poor because they are discarding food and changing their clothes with the seasons only applies to a small section of the ‘middle’ class if that. Few in the world have that kind of luxury. It is very effective however as a propaganda tactic by the rich to undermine worker solidarity and compassion.
Yes there is enough to share - if some (especially the rich) didn’t hoard. If we focus on a few wasteful people we miss out on those that do the majority of the wasting - those who run the companies that destroy far more food at the point of processing, storing, selling, and because it not selling, all to maintain prices and profits (this is true for clothing too and many other items too).
Yes, we should have a revolutionary movement, but not through currency, which the workers don’t control, but through using our power to remove the companies that do harm. I’m not talking about letting the CEOs and politicians off the hook, I’m talking about getting rid of them. That is the best way to hold them responsible. We don’t take back our power by voting with our wallets between two bad companies to pick the slightly less bad one, but by taking them over - so they are owned and ran by the maker and builders not the takers.
As for the morality of the rich and the poor this is well documented - the poor give five times more relative to their income than the rich on average (and this doesn’t include how their spending is more likely to help others). The rich (at least 4/5ths of them) do have a different morality, thats often how they got rich. So the poor aren’t all noble, they are just much better than the rich on average. What often drives them when they do badly is financial insecurity and anxiety. They are captives imprisoned in an injustice system and strike out how and when they can. I’m only surprised they aren’t more extreme, but history shows when inequality rises high enough they tend to see who the source of their problems are.
I realise that some state socialists consider state-owned capital to be compatible with socialism, although even they don't think that is socialism itself, because socialism requires worker ownership and management of the production and production to be for need not profit, neither of which exist in the state economies of most countries I'm aware of.
Public services may be wasteful, ineffective, or a subsidy for private interests, yet by definition they are incompatible with capitalism.
People who insist that China's mixed economy is socialist, or that America's mixed economy is capitalist, are not being objective in their analysis. They are apologists for the status quo.
There are three camps: apologists, ideologues and pragmatists.
Ideologues see the world as black and white, pragmatists view it as shades of grey, and apologists pretend that what is grey is black & white.
I take your point that a government as a structure isn't inherently capitalist, nor is it socialist. Yet nearly all these governments do provide the infrastructure for capitalism, favour it in their economic policies, their political parties are funded by it, and it is the dominant economic model for most of its citizens.
Maybe you feel it could be even more capitalist, but that's where those pragmatic shades of grey you talk about come in. However, something doesn't just become socialist because you don't consider it capitalist enough. (If I water down my orange juice it doesn't suddenly start tasting like apple juice, it just starts tasting more like water)
As you say, pragmatists sees shades of grey, so I guess I'm a pragmatist, because I see shades of capitalism within most governments. If socialism is at the light end of the spectrum - I see very little of it, only capitalism in all its darker grey shades, but then it does take light to differentiate between degrees of darkness.
I'll admit that some government welfare programmes were inspired by socialists (just as many workers rights were), but they were concessions to the challenges of 'raw' capitalism, not socialism itself (even if some hoped they might become stepping stones towards it).
We agree on one thing - I don't see China's economy as socialist either. Even China doesn't - they call it 'state capitalism', just like the Soviet Union. called theirs (although they claim to hope to establish socialism and even communism one day).
Maybe this is where I am an idealist - I apply a litmus test to definitions to see if they apply, because if they don't meet even the basic fundamental definition then I don't consider them accurate enough to use the word in that way.
This remind me of the time I bought a cheap mixed cheese sandwich then looked at the ingredients: white cheddar & orange (coloured) cheddar. Technically that was a mix of cheeses, two different dairy products were used, but it was still one kind of cheese and only one flavour: cheese.
If I wasn't worried about definitions I'd be inclined to call a bowl of different kinds of oranges a bowl of mixed fruit, and it could be argued that this is true because orange is a fruit and there are different kinds of oranges, but it is still only one kind of fruit, with not an apple in sight.
To be clear, I'm not inclined to call public services or the social safety net 'socialist'. That label is used as a pejorative.
When capitalism is defined as private capital formation, there are countries with little to no public services. They may be more capitalist, or too impoverished to support capital formation among small businesses. Citizens of those countries are forced to become more entrepreneurial as a matter of survival. Perhaps they can be labeled as more free market.
Somalia is sometimes posited as a right-libertarian paradise. Most people regard it as dysfunctional.
Argentina is in the process of applying right-libertarian ideology to their economy. I suspect that if taken to its logical conclusion, Argentina will bear some resemblance to North Korea.
The world is dominated by shades of grey since the black & white extremes do not work. There is always a mix of the public and private. In times of crisis, non-market approaches are utilized, such as rationing. This is viewed as the correct and moral thing to do. Social Darwinism is rejected.
If commodity production is the metric, then the world is 100% capitalist and 0% communist. But that leaves out much of economic reality, and our lived experiences coping with that reality. It also excludes the informal economy, which supports 1-2 billion people (the true number is unknown).
'Mixed' is my definition as I'm tired of dealing with the contradictory pronouncements of ideologues and apologists.
p.s. Goldilocks capitalism is a proposed definition to end the 'flavours of capitalism' debate.
p.p.s. Upon 2nd thought, Substack is an example of a communistic gift economy. Some content creators are able to quit their day job and survive on this model. What they create is more a gift than a commodity.
This is an important piece of writing! I love how the argument was laid out, being open to different perspectives but firm in what you think is morally right.
Great question for us to ponder and discuss w those that are still subjecting themselves to the Western propaganda about Socialism.
I really like your terminology "People/Life Centered Economics". It would be difficult, IMHO, for the vast majority of us not to relate to that concept and putting it in those terms should invoke the inate compassion we as humans should all have.
I find solace and strength in biology when confronted with this moral conflict. I hope, as humans, we can realize that we are not the greatest force in the universe. Call it god, spirit, life or biology - we emerged from and operate within an ecology far greater than ourselves. I look to that for signs of who we are and from that, how we act.
The meta- structure which supports life emerges from cooperation. It also requires biological respect. Clean air and water, rest, social freedom, healthy food. This is engrained in our biology - we have to respect and surrender to it. If not, we play god and lose every time.
From every perspective, exploitation, control, gatekeeping and extract oppose biology. Life is within connection and the above sever it.
I think state- socialism can be disrespectful to biology too. Part of our natural development throughout the lifespan involves learning how to meet our needs and if they’re rigidly met without our freedom of exploration, a part of us is denied maturity.
Of course if we can’t meet them because the means to meeting them is controlled, we also can’t live freely
I've been a stay at home mom off and on for many years as well as having friends who care for elderly and disabled family members. I don't find that capitalism convincingly supports care takers because it's so hard to monetize what we do.
The way I see it - Peaceful revolution is entirely possible. It is also unlikely to happen, but I hope it does. Anyone can be a person of peace - seeking peaceful solutions, resolutions and even revolutions.
However, such peace comes under threat when those evil people seeking to take away other's freedoms meet otherwise peaceful people unwilling to give up their freedoms who are willing to defend themselves (and each other).
Those on the defensive side are labelled violent by those trying to maintain their illegitimate power by force, because they won't just submit to having their freedom taken away without a fight.
Yet, peace is the goal of the revolution, it is carried out by peaceful people, who will use peaceful means whoever they work, although use defensive means when they are necessary.
If those rulers and slave owners who force, steal, abuse, and harm others want to avoid violence they can easily do so by ceasing to uphold their power through violent means, by disbanding their enforcers, and by ceasing to hoard power, land, resources, housing and people.
I'd love to see there be enough solidarity among the oppressed and exploited that the rulers of state and capital will just step aside, or enough cooperation that their power will be useless and their economic systems will become useless.
Maybe if we're lucky it'll happen that way, but I think it's more likely the despots won't go away quietly. My guess is that no matter how peaceful the revolutionaries would like to be that those opposing their freedom will still use violence, and when this happens I consider those defending themselves and their rights in such situations to be entirely moral and just.
I’ve been reading and watching Civil War documentaries and now American Revolution as we get ready for the 250th anniversary of 1776. What’s been interesting in comparing these two wars and what they were fighting for and then comparing that to where we are as a country now. Have we moved That Far or are we regressing back to some pre-confederate era ideals that were not solved by the American Revolution? I’m not sure.
The American Revolution was about the people who had money not wanting to give part of it to Britain. It wasn’t about freedom for everyone. It wasn’t about equality for everyone. It was about the wealthy landowners wanting to be free from Britain, to be equals among themselves with no one above them. Just because they said “we the people” does not mean they meant all humans. Women, indigenous and black people were not seen as people to them.
And there is self interest in setting up society to meet basic needs: less crime, being surrounded by educated healthy people who are able to exercise their talents in music, art, crafts, cooking, comedy, gardening. Do you want to be the one person who can read a book within 20 miles? Only marry within a narrow clan? Yuck
Yet another outstanding thought piece by you that ideally should and would be read by every thoughtful, decent person in the world. Being compelled by the society in which one lives to pay for basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing is truly to live in a deeply cruel, uncaring, uncivilized world, for it is the persistent experience of many that finding any type of JOB (Just Over Broke) can prove extremely challenging no matter one’s level of formal education, knowledge and skills because there are far too many people competing for relatively few “work” (enslavement) opportunities.
Subsequently, a socialist state would tend to be beneficial to the most people, whereas capitalism tends to benefit a select few.
I hated capitalism my whole life even before going to work, when I came across any bank I feel like I walk besides slaughter house and I was supposedly a teen this system is exploitation at core that's why it uses illusions,lies and propaganda to keep us distracted from even searching for the truth
How about making something new! Abolish the billionaire class (they enter a new phase where they’re now fudiciaries for the public), and the excess holds HEMS trust for baby citizens till 25 - it shuts off for capitalism - turns on at 75 for retirement. HEMS is housing, education, medical and base support. This is what every HNW individual sets up for their kids. Taxes are nominal and charity is niche. THE END, Koombaya and plays about how alcohoism destroys families but marijuana cures arthritis. (curtsy). lol
hey, im curious about what would happen if someone decides not to contribute to a socialist society. of course that person will still deserve basic resources to ensure that they live, since that is the moral basis of socialism. however, this will be unfair to fellow members of that society since they all agree to be responsible for each other (thus collective ownership), yet this one person who chooses to opt out of that moral system still reaps its benefits. what then might be an ethical consequence that a socialist society might carry out on those who opt out?
What happens to the lazy under Socialism is a great question! Some Marxists might answer by quoting Lenin's statement that ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ (paraphrasing Paul in Bible). However, I am not a Marxist or Leninist, and my own view is that food should not be a commodity, we shouldn’t produce it for profit, and as long as we have enough people to produce enough of it we should share it according to people’s need.
Since producing this food only requires about 1% of the population then I don’t see this being a problem unless over 99% of people suddenly ‘opt out’ of society. Since humanity largely met their food needs for 99% of its existence before money or prisons or police existed, I don’t think we need any of those things to threaten people into helping or punish them for not doing it. We can produce most of our comforts too with about 20% of the workforce if we had to (by eliminating excess, duplication and artificial scarcity and obsolescence).
Having said this there will of course be social pressures and social incentives. Most children grow up wanting to do something - especially if given a chance to do something meaningful, there would be opportunities for apprenticeships, mentorships, group work, making things of use, and seeing how fulfilling such work is and how much it is appreciated by those who benefit from it. Most people want to associate with other people and working alongside them is a way to do this, most people get bored with laziness, or they eventually feel guilty or awkward being around those they feel they are taking from without contributing. So there would be consequences, but the kind that come from excluding yourself from a major part of community life and behaviour the community looks down on. (Although in the sort term I imagine most people would just think you are sick or have a mental health issue or just need some time to yourself).
I’m personally more concerned with situation in which someone might not get enough food and be hungry, than with one in which someone might get free food and be lazy. I guess I’m more worried about suffering than fairness, especially if the cost of ensuring ‘fairness’ means potentially hurting someone to uphold the power and / or economic structure of a system.
Note: I covered some of this in my little story Antillia's Utopia - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/antillias-utopia
that's really insightful!!! thanku 4 replying
The central difference is that one pulls toward special interests and the other toward common interests.
Capitalism is privatizing gains while publicizing losses, aka profit, aka externalities.
Socialism is caring for the good of all; keeping separate what is deserved l from what is "earned".
Thanks for this concise and respectful response to one of the "Myths" of American Capitalism. I would also suggest the relentless specter of materialism that is imposed on our society to buy more and more causing so many to fall down a rabbit hole of debt only to then be exploited by another business model for profit. And yes, groups of caring people can band together to grow, produce, and manufacture things for the good of the community efficiently with minimum risk. No one in an enlightened society needs to be rich, we are witnessing now the fallacy and madness of the "American Dream" with the current president!
Alright, let's think about this rationally. You've posed a question about whether human beings have a fundamental right to food, water, shelter, and medicine or if they should be dependent upon an ability to pay—and I appreciate your well-thought-out argument. Still, I believe they should be dependent upon an ability to pay. Bear with me, and I'll give my reasoning, which happens to be hard to find fault with.
Resources aren't endless. Food requires farmers, water requires infrastructure, shelter requires builders, and healthcare requires educated professionals and supplies. Those don't appear—those exist through work and innovation. If we're proposing anyone should be entitled to them apart from contribution, we have a practical problem: who provides? Someone has to plant the food, purify the water, build the houses, and produce the medicines. Linking access to paying keeps the process running because it connects what you get with what's being made. Detach that, and production ceases—history attests to that. Central systems such as the Soviet Union tried to ensure everything and wound up with shortages and not abundance. With all its faults, the market keeps everything flowing through paying labor.
Now, you might say that this system excludes some, and that's a genuine concern. But here's the reality: no system can offer infinite resources to everyone. Even in your utopia where essentials are a right, somebody's still paying. If it's not the individual paying, it's the collective—through taxes or labor. The difference in capitalism is that a system of payments makes implicit costs explicit. It never promises the impossible. Charity or collective aid can fill in where individuals can't pay, and generally, they do so, but to demand a universal "right" assumes coordination and abundance never sustained long-term. Examine any collectivist experiment—Cuba's a good one. Healthcare is offered as a right, but the crumbling infrastructure and physicians going to higher-paying opportunities elsewhere cause it to fail.
You present payment in terms that sound threatening, even coercive, but I think it is an exchange. Labor has always been necessary to survive in life—hunting and gathering and farming—before there were markets. Payment for necessities is merely our present substitution in place of that. It's not slavery; it's exchange. I exchange what I can for what I need, and so do you. The alternative—breaking that connection—risks drowning the producers in labor. If I'm a farmer and crops are claimed as a "right," why farm at all when I can simply take my own portion? Production only occurs when there's an incentive to rise and do so. Markets create that incentive.
You do argue that the wealth stacks up in the system and so it does. Your solution—spreading it around by decree—builds up another thing: power. I'd be better off living in a system where I can work or think better than a rich man than where a government decides what I get to keep. The rights over human life aren't absolute, and yet they work. If I build a house, I have a stake in it—that's why I go ahead and create another one. Take that away and why bother? The facts don't prevaricate: countries with strong markets and property rights—such as South Korea—humbled themselves from poverty to riches faster than those without—such as North Korea. It's not dogma; it's results.
Your argument that workers create value is valid, but not your other part of the argument. Owners and planners assume risks—time and capital—that the workers do not assume. If I start a business and fail, I lose everything; if I succeed wildly, I have earned what's due to me. Workers receive theirs in either case, and that's fair as well. Reducing that exchange to exploitation overlooks how intertwined the roles are with each other. We need both.
It can be that someone slips through the cracks—sickness, tragedy, bad luck befall them. But paying after they get in doesn't mean leaving them to dry. It is creating a system in which they can manage themselves to a large degree with targeted aid—family, charities, even government welfare safety nets—when they can't. Contrast that with a universal guarantee: it is lovely until the shelves run bare because incentives to stock them vanish. Look at Venezuela—oil wealth, grandiose promises, and now they can't even find toilet paper on the shelves. Markets collapse and recover better than decrees do.
So I land on "ability to pay," not because I'm so keen on dollars taking precedence over human lives but because it's the only way to have a society without going through the motions about scarcity not existing. It's not about punishing the weak; it's about having something to offer in the first place. How would you get production to equal demand in a system where no one's accountable to the cost? That's the gap I don't see a bridge to.
No-one claims that resources are endless, or that they don’t require a interdependent infrastructure. The question is - could these needs be supplied more simply without profit needing to be made at every stage of this process? Yes, I believe they could.
You ask ‘who provides?’, but why not the workers who are providing now? I’m not talking about the owners who profit from the current system, but the workers who actually carry out this work and actually produce what is needed. It is in the interest for farmers to grow food because they need to eat and they need others to eat in order that others can produce different things they need too.
No-one disputes that ‘someone has to produce’ these necessities, the question is whether these necessities should be commodified and access restricted based on ability to pay.
Most of us work for owners because we need to eat and the owners have put our access to food behind their paywalls, so they can coerce us into working so they can get rich from our exploitation.
You say - ‘Linking access to paying keeps the process running because it connects what you get with what's being made. Detach that, and production ceases—history attests to that.’
But the connection between production and needs doesn't require monetary exchange. Production could be organised collectively, voluntarily, and directly by workers themselves. History actually attests that this works: pre-monarchal civilisations, indigenous communities, mutual aid networks, and countless cooperative ventures have demonstrated that humans readily produce and share resources without market coercion.
The profit motive doesn't enable production, it distorts and restricts it to what's profitable rather than what's necessary, and creates a huge amount of waste and pollution in the process (to the point that this may yet destroy the planet, or at least the human life on it).
This is not a choice between market capitalism and Soviet / Chinese ‘state capitalism’, but between capitalism and co-operation, which is the way humanity operated for most of its existence. Your examples of ‘failed’ socialist experiments conveniently ignore the relentless economic warfare, sanctions, and sabotage these societies faced from capitalist powers.
Markets don't ‘keep everything flowing’, they direct resources to those who can pay the most, not to those with the greatest need. That's why we have luxury dog spas while homeless people freeze to death.
You said - ‘no system can offer infinite resources to everyone’.
But again no-one is claiming any system can or should. But what we have is a surplus of food with millions still hungry and a surplus of homes with millions still homeless. You also seem to suggest that I’m claiming that we don’t need labour at all. We certainly don’t need anywhere as much of it if profit was taken out of the equation, but people worked - as you pointed out - before markets, before there was a monetary incentive. People also worked to feed and help eachother before there was exchange or barter - as anthropologists will tell you it is also a relatively new phenomenon in human history. (Adam Smith presumed people traded before money without any evidence, and now we have a great deal of evidence to the contrary).
It seems strange to me that you’d criticise healthcare as a right and use Cuba as an example when 32 of the 33 ‘developed’ countries have healthcare as a right. America is the outlier here and has worse healthcare and health outcomes than most of Europe.
You celebrate ‘choice’ whilst ignoring the coercion inherent in capitalism: work or starve. That's not freedom, it's economic blackmail. True freedom requires that basic needs are met unconditionally. Unless you are free from starvation you are not free to make genuine choices, to refuse exploitative conditions, or to exercise any meaningful autonomy. The threat of destitution hanging over every worker's head ensures compliance with a system that fundamentally serves the owning class, not the vast majority who must sell their labour to survive.
The appeal to ‘incentives’ ignores that capitalism incentivises the wrong things: planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, and exploitation. A society organised around meeting human needs would prioritise sustainability, durability, and wellbeing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that people are naturally selfish and only work when threatened with starvation (unless they are rich and make poor people work for them so they can become richer), that markets magically distribute resources fairly despite evidence to the contrary, that today's wealth distribution which is based on centuries of theft and exploitation is somehow just, that we can't possibly produce enough for everyone (despite destroying millions of tonnes of food), that taking financial ‘risks’ with inherited wealth somehow entitles capitalists to pocket the value created by actual workers, and that somehow this is the most ‘practical’ and ‘rational’ economic arrangement possible.
You end with the question - ‘How would you get production to equal demand in a system where no one's accountable to the cost?’
Simply stop production needing to be ‘accountable to cost’ and instead make it accountable to the community's actual needs. The resources exist, there is a surplus, the workers exist, and they are already working far more than they need to.
We already have sophisticated logistics systems that track supply and demand, we simply need to repurpose them to serve human needs rather than profit. The difference is that decisions would be made by communities, not by distant executives seeking to maximise returns for shareholders.
People would remain accountable, not to abstract market forces, but directly to their communities and fellow workers. This social accountability is far more meaningful than the false accountability of markets, which regularly fail to provide necessities to those without money while producing luxury goods for the wealthy.
We can have a better world without capitalism, morally, practically and successfully - especially if we define success as peoples needs being met and morality as not letting people go hungry and be homeless unnecessarily.
A better world is possible -
https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/a-better-world-is-possible
It can be organised without rulers -
https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/organising-without-rulers
& complex production can be carried out without commodity markets and profits -
https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/i-pencil-the-true-story
This is EXACTLY the message I was asking for.
Let's chat this week.
J.
You're not incorrect—resources take work and dependence upon one another, no question about that. You argue that we can provide the basics 'more easily' without profit. That’s a step I don’t understand. Profit’s not just a reward for the avaricious person; it’s the spark that doubles production. Workers—farmers and doctors and builders—do the hard work, sure enough, but owners put capital to work, take the gamble, and bring effort into systems that feed billions and not dozens. You claim farmers plant crops because they have to eat—true enough, but why plant surplus to feed millions without a market to justify it? Pre-monarchic civilizations and indigenous communities you cite fed thousands; markets set us loose in abundance—world food production’s shot through the roof since 1800. Voluntary associations don't construct dams and tractors without something propelling them to do so.
You suggest workers might run production 'collectively and voluntarily' with no capital needed. History gives us glimpses—mutual aid and aboriginal networks—but they're footnotes, not templates. If you scale them up, they fall apart from internal coercion. The Soviet collectives promised us utopia; they delivered forced labor and rationing. You cite capitalist subversion—justifiable, Cuba and Venezuela were battered—but internal weakness (rigidity and incentives) took down those, too. Markets are flawed, but they adapt. The U.S. has dog daycares and nourishes 40 million with food stamps—flawed but not inhumane. Resources trail money, not need, you tell us—correct, but need without production gives nothing, market or otherwise.
Profit destroys, and withers away, you think? There is no dispute here—capitalism overproduces, and that’s wastage. But that surplus comes with the markets and not because of them. Pre-capitalist societies didn’t waste because they had nothing to waste with. Jettisoning markets might very well mean jettisoning the surplus, too. Pollution’s a problem—capitalism’s to blame—but Soviet production ruined ecosystems worse. Profits are financing solar and electric vehicles now; ideology didn’t have to.
Now, medicine—let’s get that straight too. You cite Cuba as a 'right' and the U.S. as an outlier. Reality: 32 of 33 affluent countries have universal coverage without 'free'—taxing ability from pockets to the state. All have better access than the U.S., no question—America’s a failure in healthcare outcomes with 28 million without insurance and costs through the roof. However, they all use market wealth to fund themselves: Germany, Japan, and Switzerland combine private innovation with public financing and not direct mandates based on 'rights.’ Cuba’s much-vaunted system? Doctors emigrate to earn better outside, hospitals crumble, and shortages take a toll—‘healthcare a right’ doesn’t sound so appealing when you need medicine that’s not to be had. Markets produce breakthroughs—mRNA vaccines came from profit-making firms, not state planners. Ability-to-pay is not ideal, but it powers the innovation and wealth tax-funded systems free-ride on. Cutaway and you’ll be relying on goodwill to bring the next cure.
‘Work or starve’ is not freedom, you maintain—it’s blackmail. All systems carry a cost-benefit–like pre-market was ‘hunt or starve,’ collectives were ‘conform or starve.’ Markets make that precise–work to get paid, and you eat. Your ‘unconditional needs’ hypothesis relies upon infinite givers—where’s the data that work happens in scale? Capitalism engenders rubbish—obsolescence, surplus—true enough, but so does penicillin, the refrigerator, the internet. A needs-based system’s attractiveness—sustainability, well-being—where’s the dictator who decides ‘needs’? Communities? It sounds amazing until provisions get used up or everything’s not equal priority-wise. Markets don’t distribute ‘fairly’—never made that case. Markets distribute economically, and wealth accumulates. Your strategy–production in terms of ‘needs in the community’–substitutes bureaucrats with CEOs. Prices without logistics? Guessing—Venezuela tried, I'm not blind—wealth is uneven, founded on antique thievery too. Risk doesn't equal inherited wealth; it equals work and collapse. Workers produce value; owners monetize it. Cut that out, and you end up with a bare existence, not excess. A better world without capitalism? On moral grounds, I understand you. On practical grounds, demonstrate to me a sophisticated society sustaining billions without markets or coercion. 'Ability to pay' does not equal utopia—it equals the least worst method to balance effort and reality.
When there are a lot of points to cover like this I fear not giving any of them the attention they deserve. Nevertheless, I had a few thoughts that came to mind:
You said - ‘Profit’s not just a reward for the avaricious person; it’s the spark that doubles production.’
When we have twice as much production as we need in many areas, and it is going directly into waste and pollution and destroying the earth, then you’ve given a great argument against capitalism.
You said - ‘Voluntary associations don't construct dams and tractors without something propelling them to do so.’
I agree that something does compel people to work together, I don’t dispute that it isn’t association alone, even when major co-operative projects are accomplished they have their own set of incentives, it is just a different kind than the fear of homelessness that drives people under capitalism.
Having said this some of the most complex projects the world has ever known were created and are maintained without any profit motive - the World Wide Web is one such example as well as the Operating System it runs on - Linux - which is a million times more complex than a dam or even a tractor.
You said - All systems carry a cost-benefit–like pre-market was ‘hunt or starve,’ collectives were ‘conform or starve.’ Markets make that precise–work to get paid, and you eat.
I’m not denying the role of social group influences and incentives for bad and even for good. I’m not disputing that some costs will outweigh the human benefits in a non-profit driven system, and this might potentially lead to some advances and comforts being a lower priority over meeting human needs. I just believe it is a cost worth paying.
Enforced collectives within the Soviet Union might have been ‘conform or starve’ but voluntarily organised ones throughout history have not been. We know from archeological evidence that those who were unable to work were usually cared for and cared for well. I would encourage you to read ‘Humankind’ by Bregman on this subject.
Note: I’m not going to go into Soviet examples that much because I don’t and wouldn’t have supported them or ever recognised them as relevant, as I attribute their failures to their departures from socialism and their embracing of ‘state capitalism’, once again showing capitalism is the problem.
You said - ‘mRNA vaccines came from profit-making firms’
The foundational work on mRNA technology began in the late 1980s and early 1990s with researchers like Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman at the University of Pennsylvania, who were funded primarily through government grants. For many years, their work was considered too risky or unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies to invest in substantially. This is usually the case for most scientific and medical breakthrough - capitalism is good at profiting from them though. This is also a good example of how we take for granted the truth of the propaganda produced by corporations.
You said - ‘demonstrate to me a sophisticated society sustaining billions without markets or coercion’
This is like asking prior to the 17th century - ’Show me a sophisticated system without a monarchy (emperor, tzar etc.) sustaining the world without crowns and thrones’.
To do so we could look at pre-monarchal societies, some societies outside of Western Europe, or tribal ones. If we do that we can find civilisations of up to millions of people that existed in some cases over a thousand years - substantially longer than Capitalism has been around. There are many successful examples of non-coerced non-commodity-market societies. I would encourage you to read ‘The Dawn Of Everything’ by Graeber and Wengrow which is full of examples.
The other problem with this argument is it is a might vs right argument - its not based on what is better, or what is possible, but who was able to conquer and kill more. Maybe capitalism will ‘win’ but what will it have won when there are no people left to be coerced and exploited under it.
What is the end result of capitalism - oligarchy? neo-feudalism? extinction of humanity? In response to that it seems rational to me to do everything possible to build a different kind of system while we can, otherwise ‘ability to pay’ will end up leading to the end of the world.
Note: There was a lot to cover, and I felt I didn’t give any aspect enough attention, so if you want to continue to discuss these issues from here on out it might be best for us to pick one issue to focus on at a time.
All this is find and dandy, but wealthy people aren’t the only ones to blame. Most people aren’t factory owners or landlords. And those people can choose to orient their lives in such a way that there are no homeless, starving, ill-clothed, etc. The dominant economic mode of our society could very well be capitalist, while our interpersonal relationships were deeply socialist. No one is forcing us to live in single family homes, not carpool, etc., etc. The productive energy harnessed by capitalism may very well plant us among the stars. I, for one, think that’s a good thing. We get to choose how we live. That’s always the case. Capitalism isn’t the problem. A lack of will is.
You really shouldn’t be that surprised by now. This system has been going on for many, many generations. The super minority of the super wealthy just don’t have some magical hold over the 99%. Trust me, there is buy-in at every level, in every class.
The system persists because it is working for enough people even with the struggle. People aren’t apolitical, and they aren’t stupid.
Fuck a revolution. Represent a people, organize a party, win elections, shape policy. Any revolution worth having should be able to win votes, right? Take hold of the government, which has the greatest means to do the most good.
Mutual aid groups are great, but not like universal healthcare, free Pre-k and college tuition, guaranteed union jobs, and wages that actually cover the cost of living. The possibilities are endless.
Revolutions can be democratic. Have a better plan, have a better vision, and get people to vote. Poor people can still do that.
It is true that some in the rapidly shrinking middle class in the 'developed' world have enjoyed relatively good comforts and privileges for a few decades. This of course ignores the fact that these benefits have not been evenly distributed among all workers, races and genders even in those countries, that a great amount of exploitation has happened throughout the world to make this possible, and that this is a disappearing sub-class that many of the rising generation won't be part of. But it is unsurprising that while things are okay, while wages cover bills and people have roofs over their heads that this is what they'll stick with, rather than risk losing it.
There was a time when it seemed that political processes were a reason able way to influence government policy, and that governments responded to citizens concerns. (I'm not convinced this was the broad truth of the situation, but it was tolerable enough for people to think it might a good idea to support it - albeit after consuming an incredible amount of propaganda convincing them to do so).
Now governments are quickly turning into plutocracies & oligarchies, focused on doing the most good for the billionaires that pay for their political parties and election campaigns. If this continues it won't be long before elections will just be even more of a pretence and even less effective than they are now.
But it doesn't take a government to organise. The example you give of universal healthcare actually started as mutual aid in many countries - Spain and the UK are two such examples. There isn't anything that well organised groups of people can't do without politicians getting in the way. I've detailed many successful examples of this in several of my articles, but this one is specifically on health care - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/organising-without-rulers
The unions you mention were once radical enough to have plans to supplant corporations and governments, and to take over their workplaces. In Spain and some other places they did successfully for a while until forced to stop by fascists.
I'm talking about people sharing power, not ruling over others, like politicians now do. That's hierarchy, not the power of the people. If voting changed anything governments would make it illegal (and may yet).
Most of the major social progress over the last couple hundred years came through direct action - often including groups like unions organising strikes. Governments may have legalised reforms later, but they almost always started off as unwanted and illegal, and if people had just waited on politicians we probably would have never made any of that progress. I don't believe in poor people pleading to politicians with their begging bowls, 'please sir, can we have some more [rights]'.
I agree with you that our interpersonal relationships are deeply socialist. Among those we are close to and care about we don't put fulfilling their needs behind a paywall.
I'm not saying that the wealthy are to blame for everything, certainly not every choice anyone else makes. But do you really believe that the wealthy and the poor have equal choices and power over their lives?
Do the wealthy and poor have the same influence and power over other peoples lives and choices? Which group owns almost everything, sets prices including wages, and funds political parties and lobbies politicians?
How many choices do poorer people have when wages aren't rising as quick as costs? How does a poorer person 'choose' to escape rent when nearly all housing is privately owned and priced for profit? (In some countries poverty affects access to healthcare and higher education too thus potentially limiting even more fundamental choices)
The rich have the choice whether to work or not, whether to hire or fire, they can afford the best education and healthcare, and this is true whether they originally got their money through inventing something or inheriting it. Is it really a choice for the poor to work when the result for not working is homelessness and hunger?
What good is the 'productive energy harnessed by capitalism' when it leads to planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, and luxury goods for the few, whilst basic needs go unmet for the many? What good is going to space when capitalism will leave the earth uninhabitable if it is allowed to continue?
This idea that people can just use their will to change their circumstances overlooks the circumstances they are already placed in. It lets off the hook those who created (or contributed disproportionately to) those circumstances, who rely on their poorly paid labour, who are able to exploit them because of the inequalities of ownership and power under capitalism, and keeps them in their place by cruelty convincing them that their suffering is a personal failing rather than a an necessary part of a corrupt system which profits from it.
I think the first bit of your comment says it all, we only need to expand our sphere of compassion. Perhaps it’s true that the wealthy and the poor don’t have “equal choices and power of their lives.” If that’s true, then which group is better positioned to address the struggles of the poor? It should be the poor, or non-wealthy, themselves because they can empathize. They are united in the struggle. This is an advantage. This is the foundation of influence. It need only be realized.
While one group may own almost everything, who buys so much food that billions of pounds of it are discarded every year? Who buys a new wardrobe every season? That’s not only the wealthy. There’s enough to share, if only we cared.
We could use our currency to energize a revolutionary movement, and not fund companies that are harming our planet. We can will our way into a different society. The capitalists are the heirs of a people who did so long ago. They are not special. And they are apparently outnumbered.
We let the People off the hook when we suggest that the CEOs and politicians are pulling all the strings and we’re helpless against them. As if we only let people be deprived of food, shelter, education, security, and wellbeing because the “powers that be” make us this way.
No. Now we see who we are, both wealthy and poor. Believe me, they both pass by the hungry on the street, and neither loses a bit of sleep over it.
That’s the truth. And that’s not a product of the so called Agricultural Revolution. A better society needs to reject the myth of the “noble working class.” It should protect us against those tendencies to we have to rule over one another. The poor rule over one another where they can, whether it be at home, church, school, or the workplace. Our problem with abusing power appears indiscriminately, no matter the class.
I wholeheartedly agree with expanding our compassion - although compassion can only go so far in a world where the needs of others are locked behind doors that only a few of the wealthy have the keys to.
I completely agree that the wealthy aren’t likely to address the struggles of the poor and that the poor have usually been the ones to help the poor - although their ability to do this is undermined by the fact that most of their money goes towards subsidising the rich.
I totally back the idea of them using their advantage of numbers and realising their power - not by being more selective consumers, by overthrowing the system that favours and empowers the rich and impoverishes the poor.
However, the idea of poor people being poor because they are discarding food and changing their clothes with the seasons only applies to a small section of the ‘middle’ class if that. Few in the world have that kind of luxury. It is very effective however as a propaganda tactic by the rich to undermine worker solidarity and compassion.
Yes there is enough to share - if some (especially the rich) didn’t hoard. If we focus on a few wasteful people we miss out on those that do the majority of the wasting - those who run the companies that destroy far more food at the point of processing, storing, selling, and because it not selling, all to maintain prices and profits (this is true for clothing too and many other items too).
Yes, we should have a revolutionary movement, but not through currency, which the workers don’t control, but through using our power to remove the companies that do harm. I’m not talking about letting the CEOs and politicians off the hook, I’m talking about getting rid of them. That is the best way to hold them responsible. We don’t take back our power by voting with our wallets between two bad companies to pick the slightly less bad one, but by taking them over - so they are owned and ran by the maker and builders not the takers.
As for the morality of the rich and the poor this is well documented - the poor give five times more relative to their income than the rich on average (and this doesn’t include how their spending is more likely to help others). The rich (at least 4/5ths of them) do have a different morality, thats often how they got rich. So the poor aren’t all noble, they are just much better than the rich on average. What often drives them when they do badly is financial insecurity and anxiety. They are captives imprisoned in an injustice system and strike out how and when they can. I’m only surprised they aren’t more extreme, but history shows when inequality rises high enough they tend to see who the source of their problems are.
So here we are, with a mixed economy.
Mixed with what?
A mixture of public and private, of capitalism and socialism.
I realise that some state socialists consider state-owned capital to be compatible with socialism, although even they don't think that is socialism itself, because socialism requires worker ownership and management of the production and production to be for need not profit, neither of which exist in the state economies of most countries I'm aware of.
Public services may be wasteful, ineffective, or a subsidy for private interests, yet by definition they are incompatible with capitalism.
People who insist that China's mixed economy is socialist, or that America's mixed economy is capitalist, are not being objective in their analysis. They are apologists for the status quo.
There are three camps: apologists, ideologues and pragmatists.
Ideologues see the world as black and white, pragmatists view it as shades of grey, and apologists pretend that what is grey is black & white.
Purity, reality, and pretend purity.
I take your point that a government as a structure isn't inherently capitalist, nor is it socialist. Yet nearly all these governments do provide the infrastructure for capitalism, favour it in their economic policies, their political parties are funded by it, and it is the dominant economic model for most of its citizens.
Maybe you feel it could be even more capitalist, but that's where those pragmatic shades of grey you talk about come in. However, something doesn't just become socialist because you don't consider it capitalist enough. (If I water down my orange juice it doesn't suddenly start tasting like apple juice, it just starts tasting more like water)
As you say, pragmatists sees shades of grey, so I guess I'm a pragmatist, because I see shades of capitalism within most governments. If socialism is at the light end of the spectrum - I see very little of it, only capitalism in all its darker grey shades, but then it does take light to differentiate between degrees of darkness.
I'll admit that some government welfare programmes were inspired by socialists (just as many workers rights were), but they were concessions to the challenges of 'raw' capitalism, not socialism itself (even if some hoped they might become stepping stones towards it).
We agree on one thing - I don't see China's economy as socialist either. Even China doesn't - they call it 'state capitalism', just like the Soviet Union. called theirs (although they claim to hope to establish socialism and even communism one day).
Maybe this is where I am an idealist - I apply a litmus test to definitions to see if they apply, because if they don't meet even the basic fundamental definition then I don't consider them accurate enough to use the word in that way.
This remind me of the time I bought a cheap mixed cheese sandwich then looked at the ingredients: white cheddar & orange (coloured) cheddar. Technically that was a mix of cheeses, two different dairy products were used, but it was still one kind of cheese and only one flavour: cheese.
If I wasn't worried about definitions I'd be inclined to call a bowl of different kinds of oranges a bowl of mixed fruit, and it could be argued that this is true because orange is a fruit and there are different kinds of oranges, but it is still only one kind of fruit, with not an apple in sight.
To be clear, I'm not inclined to call public services or the social safety net 'socialist'. That label is used as a pejorative.
When capitalism is defined as private capital formation, there are countries with little to no public services. They may be more capitalist, or too impoverished to support capital formation among small businesses. Citizens of those countries are forced to become more entrepreneurial as a matter of survival. Perhaps they can be labeled as more free market.
Somalia is sometimes posited as a right-libertarian paradise. Most people regard it as dysfunctional.
Argentina is in the process of applying right-libertarian ideology to their economy. I suspect that if taken to its logical conclusion, Argentina will bear some resemblance to North Korea.
The world is dominated by shades of grey since the black & white extremes do not work. There is always a mix of the public and private. In times of crisis, non-market approaches are utilized, such as rationing. This is viewed as the correct and moral thing to do. Social Darwinism is rejected.
If commodity production is the metric, then the world is 100% capitalist and 0% communist. But that leaves out much of economic reality, and our lived experiences coping with that reality. It also excludes the informal economy, which supports 1-2 billion people (the true number is unknown).
'Mixed' is my definition as I'm tired of dealing with the contradictory pronouncements of ideologues and apologists.
p.s. Goldilocks capitalism is a proposed definition to end the 'flavours of capitalism' debate.
p.p.s. Upon 2nd thought, Substack is an example of a communistic gift economy. Some content creators are able to quit their day job and survive on this model. What they create is more a gift than a commodity.
This is an important piece of writing! I love how the argument was laid out, being open to different perspectives but firm in what you think is morally right.
I have shared this with friends.
Great question for us to ponder and discuss w those that are still subjecting themselves to the Western propaganda about Socialism.
I really like your terminology "People/Life Centered Economics". It would be difficult, IMHO, for the vast majority of us not to relate to that concept and putting it in those terms should invoke the inate compassion we as humans should all have.
I find solace and strength in biology when confronted with this moral conflict. I hope, as humans, we can realize that we are not the greatest force in the universe. Call it god, spirit, life or biology - we emerged from and operate within an ecology far greater than ourselves. I look to that for signs of who we are and from that, how we act.
The meta- structure which supports life emerges from cooperation. It also requires biological respect. Clean air and water, rest, social freedom, healthy food. This is engrained in our biology - we have to respect and surrender to it. If not, we play god and lose every time.
From every perspective, exploitation, control, gatekeeping and extract oppose biology. Life is within connection and the above sever it.
I think state- socialism can be disrespectful to biology too. Part of our natural development throughout the lifespan involves learning how to meet our needs and if they’re rigidly met without our freedom of exploration, a part of us is denied maturity.
Of course if we can’t meet them because the means to meeting them is controlled, we also can’t live freely
I've been a stay at home mom off and on for many years as well as having friends who care for elderly and disabled family members. I don't find that capitalism convincingly supports care takers because it's so hard to monetize what we do.
I’m told that there’s no such thing as a peaceful revolutionary, but I’m not at all sure that that’s correct. Help me argue.
The way I see it - Peaceful revolution is entirely possible. It is also unlikely to happen, but I hope it does. Anyone can be a person of peace - seeking peaceful solutions, resolutions and even revolutions.
However, such peace comes under threat when those evil people seeking to take away other's freedoms meet otherwise peaceful people unwilling to give up their freedoms who are willing to defend themselves (and each other).
Those on the defensive side are labelled violent by those trying to maintain their illegitimate power by force, because they won't just submit to having their freedom taken away without a fight.
Yet, peace is the goal of the revolution, it is carried out by peaceful people, who will use peaceful means whoever they work, although use defensive means when they are necessary.
If those rulers and slave owners who force, steal, abuse, and harm others want to avoid violence they can easily do so by ceasing to uphold their power through violent means, by disbanding their enforcers, and by ceasing to hoard power, land, resources, housing and people.
I'd love to see there be enough solidarity among the oppressed and exploited that the rulers of state and capital will just step aside, or enough cooperation that their power will be useless and their economic systems will become useless.
Maybe if we're lucky it'll happen that way, but I think it's more likely the despots won't go away quietly. My guess is that no matter how peaceful the revolutionaries would like to be that those opposing their freedom will still use violence, and when this happens I consider those defending themselves and their rights in such situations to be entirely moral and just.
“My way will be peaceful as long as no one opposes me.” Trump paraphrased.
I’ve been reading and watching Civil War documentaries and now American Revolution as we get ready for the 250th anniversary of 1776. What’s been interesting in comparing these two wars and what they were fighting for and then comparing that to where we are as a country now. Have we moved That Far or are we regressing back to some pre-confederate era ideals that were not solved by the American Revolution? I’m not sure.
The American Revolution was about the people who had money not wanting to give part of it to Britain. It wasn’t about freedom for everyone. It wasn’t about equality for everyone. It was about the wealthy landowners wanting to be free from Britain, to be equals among themselves with no one above them. Just because they said “we the people” does not mean they meant all humans. Women, indigenous and black people were not seen as people to them.
hard agree.
And there is self interest in setting up society to meet basic needs: less crime, being surrounded by educated healthy people who are able to exercise their talents in music, art, crafts, cooking, comedy, gardening. Do you want to be the one person who can read a book within 20 miles? Only marry within a narrow clan? Yuck
Free-range obsolescence
Yet another outstanding thought piece by you that ideally should and would be read by every thoughtful, decent person in the world. Being compelled by the society in which one lives to pay for basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing is truly to live in a deeply cruel, uncaring, uncivilized world, for it is the persistent experience of many that finding any type of JOB (Just Over Broke) can prove extremely challenging no matter one’s level of formal education, knowledge and skills because there are far too many people competing for relatively few “work” (enslavement) opportunities.
Subsequently, a socialist state would tend to be beneficial to the most people, whereas capitalism tends to benefit a select few.
Amazing article
I hated capitalism my whole life even before going to work, when I came across any bank I feel like I walk besides slaughter house and I was supposedly a teen this system is exploitation at core that's why it uses illusions,lies and propaganda to keep us distracted from even searching for the truth