Comment by WalterBright
2 years ago
The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take.
Better to have a system based on creating things.
2 years ago
The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take.
Better to have a system based on creating things.
Well actually socialism has been historically concerned with maximizing human creativity. Fourier’s utopian vision was “libidinal” work that aligns passions with labor. Marcuse has a similar view in Eros and Civilization. Chomsky views creativity as axiomatic for humans, and syndicalism the appropriate system for harnessing it.
[flagged]
> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
Not really. Socialism (the project of the labor movement) is concerned with workers being in control of their own work, not vessels for capitalist exploitation. Syndicalism is a form of socialism that emphasizes decentralization and federation, as opposed to command control. How resources are allocated under conditions of such federated governance is up for debate.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Socialism is older than Marxism and shouldn't be conflated with it.
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
The USSR was a state capitalist/authoritarian regime, nothing like socialism.
6 replies →
> Where are all the creative products the Soviets made?
Didn't they make Sputnik
4 replies →
> Socialists are always concerned with distributing production equally.
This doesn't reflect the most well-known socialist axiom on the distribution of production...
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
...which you appear to be aware of. The entire point of idealizing "to each according to his need" is that different people have different needs.
That’s why cooperatism is superior to socialism and capitalism. It’s a free market of worker-owned companies, creating things by running their businesses together.
It's not a free market if you do not allow capitalism to exist.
Note that capitalism does not exclude worker-owned companies at all. You're free to start one.
The free market is a set of principles between companies, not a principle for how companies need to be organized internally. Capitalism is based on single-owned companies. Cooperatism is based on worker-owned companies. Cooperatism is a better free market based economy. It’s capitalism 2.0.
> The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take.
Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.
What was America like before capitalists? and after? Where did all that wealth come from, comrade?
Did you know there used to be people who lived on that land
10 replies →
Better for the natives and enslaved Africans, that's for sure.