Comment by nine_k
6 months ago
It's the statist idea. Socialism in practice usually involves regulating the market heavily, or into oblivion altogether, and giving the State a huge redistribution power. See my comment nearby on why such a setup fails to work.
A socialism where the only way to work is to own a part of an enterprise (so no "exploitation"is possible) would likely work much better, and not even require a huge state. It would be rather inflexible though, or mutate back into capitalism as some workers would accumulate larger shares of enterprises.
Having some kind of default steward for market developments that get so competitive and fundamental that they reach full market saturation is helpful. Under a market system, at that scale, the need for growth starts to motivate companies to cut corners or squeeze their customer base to keep the numbers going up. You either end up pricing everyone out (fixed supply case) or the profit margins get so slim that only a massive conglomerate can break even (insatiable demand case). This is why making fundamental needs and infrastructure into market commodities doesn't work either.
The problem with social democracy is that it still gives capitalists a seat at the table and doesn't address the fundamental issues of empowering market radicalism. Some balance would be nice, but I don't really see that happening.
Across the OECD average government spending is 46% of GDP.
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/public-finance-...
How is that 'market radicalism' ?
How is government spending ~25 trillion USD a year somehow not considered?
"market radicalism" as in, the notion that ~all aspects of life should be subject to market forces. I think markets are good for a lot of things, but competing for basic necessities like food and shelter puts people in a really unhealthy headspace. The green revolution made a lot of our concepts about food scarcity obsolete.
A good example of market radicalism at play in the US is the healthcare system. "Everyone knows" that the market is better at allocating resources, but we actually have terrible outcomes and there is no political will to change an obviously broken system. Despite having real-world examples of single-payer (and hybrid) healthcare systems out there that are more cost effective and have better outcomes.
1 reply →
Sounds like distributism.
It depends. Socialism is one of the better alternatives for areas where markets function poorly, like healthcare.