- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmit.online
The idea that we are entering an era of techno-feudalism that will be worse than capitalism is chilling and controversial. We asked former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to elucidate this idea, explain how we got here, and map out some alternatives.
This is always the goal of capitalism, no need to give it some alternative name on order to white wash the brand.
The answer is Democratic socialism. It’s our stuff they’re stealing, we can take it back.
Capitalism isn’t a form of government the way democratic socialism is? But to your point, even Adam Smith realized the problems with a legal and governmental system that is controlled by corporations to be a terrible idea. He was well aware that profit motives without limit leads to mistreatment of individuals.
Yes, I’m not implying capitalism is a form of government. I’m saying the form of government best suited to containing the excesses of capitalism is Democratic socialism.
I’d like to think most democracies would enact some socialist policies if there was less money involved in politics… but I’m not sure what the best way to prevent that is.
You can craft laws but the legal system is also profit driven. And you’d need some way to either prevent corruption or get the motivations to line up correctly. But I can’t think of any practical solutions that also align with freedoms.
My perspective is that the larger the organization is, the more likely it’ll get a carve-out in the law. The more complex the law, the more carve-outs special interests get.
So making more laws isn’t the solution here, we should be striving to make simpler laws. For example, instead of a complex system of carbon emissions standards for vehicles based on type, just charge a carbon tax that approximates the cost of removing that carbon. The former gave us massive SUVs because they’re regulated as light trucks instead of passenger cars (so they have lighter regulations), the latter would encourage higher efficiency without a slew of regulations.
That’s the preferred solution imo.
A lot of leftists look at government as the hammer to solve problems. Sometimes that’s the right approach, but often it’s not.
What seems to work consistently is to make bad things expensive/criminal. If people die due to negligence (e.g. irresponsible cost cutting), put anyone involved in jail. If the payoff is higher than the penalty for bad behavior, increase the penalty.
Yeah it would be nice if we could simplify instead of add a bunch of special cases.
However it’s easier said than done. In your example for carbon tax, how do you determine the cost of removing carbon? Does creating a new solar/wind power plant count? Does increasing efficiency in an existing home count? What’s the difference between that and just paying for carbon capture? This is what the carbon offset economy was supposed to be about but it’s ultimately difficult to implement correctly and inherently full of complexities. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but it’s really hard to simplify some things.
I think there’s evidence to show that even though punishments may be heavy, if the chance of getting caught is low people will still do it. So that means you’d need to increase surveillance and enforcement which comes with it’s own issues.
Estimate. Start with a low estimate for the social cost of carbon and see how the market reacts. At the same time, we can provide grants for carbon sequestration projects, but no subsidies for categories of solutions.
No, solar/wind would also pay a carbon tax based on their manufacturing processes, though that would be a lot less than fossil fuel generation.
I’m not a fan of subsidies since those encourage “creative accounting,” and instead prefer simple, quantitative penalties.
No, the carbon offset economy was supposed to be a way to allow creative accounting to limit responsibility.
If an org wants to install renewables to offset some of their energy use, then they need to actually use the energy to offset their energy use, not just tally it up. I don’t care about generation numbers, I care about tons of CO2 and other emissions.
Right, so increase the chance that cheaters will get caught. Set default emissions numbers to a high (but reasonable) number based on worst case estimates, and require orgs to prove they’re emitting less. Do it for all imports and domestic industries alike so it’s fair.
Then randomly audit after approval. If companies get caught, fine and revert to the high estimate until they prove they’ve fixed their accounting (perhaps after some number of years of correct reports). This should be highly automatable, and I’m guessing most domestic orgs already have high quality numbers.
That’s a really simple solution since there’s no complex adjustments based on local offsets, just number of tons emitted. The only tricky business is sequestration, and orgs would need to prove it’s actually sequestered.
Democratic socialism is run by capitalism. Sweden is actually more capitalist than America.
Social democracy is a system that is completely different from democratic socialism. SocDems are capitalists, DemSocs are absolutely not.
Also the Netherlands is still very much capitalistic while having much more protections for their citizens.
This isn’t a blanket “capitalism bad”, it’s the fact we allowed our country to be bought out by capitalism.
Hell I am a Republican and I think we have given corporations too much power. I am not opposed to wealthy people or billionaires or whatever. What I am against is the companies running the show and having undue influence over the government. People like Zuckerberg have way to much power over the government and that isn’t good.
I used to be against heavy regulations but we have gone to the other extreme of too little regulations. Things like outsourcing jobs to other countries, building all our crap in China, union smashing, etc all should be stopped. A strong middle class is important to the success of the country. Most of these companies are built on a house of cards and need more regulation to keep the economy safe. I hate the term too big to fail because we shouldn’t let any company get that large. I am tired of all the mergers that lead to layoffs, higher prices, and less choice.
I am tired of my insurance being tied to my employer. I am tired of forced arbitration agreements. While I have never been laid off, I am tired of the mass layoffs. Companies should be forced to pay 1 year of severance to anyone laid off. I am tired of executives of companies milking the company for their benefit. Boards are not held accountable.
The problem isn’t capitalism but human nature. We see it in every type of government or economic system. People get greedy and jack crap up. I want companies to make a profit, that is how to fund our retirement systems but I don’t want it done in a way that destroys the company long term or causes thousands to lose their jobs.
While I have many benefits from my job, as a nation, we don’t even have mandatory vacation, sick days, etc.
Anyone who self-identifies as a Republican at this point in time is either delusional or psychotic. Full stop.
Thanks for making an off topic comment. Anyone who voted democrat us delusional or psychotic as well
To a lesser extent? Quite possibly. Ignorance though is heavily prevelent in both groups. All groups really. We’re all ignorant about some things. It’s impossible not to be. However Republicans do stand out however. Purposefully embracing and championing ignorance.
Attacking trans people and burning books like the Nazis did is a bold move. We’ll see eventually if it works out differently this time.
You do realize both sides ban books?
No. Which ones have Democrats banned? Also, it’s wrong whoever does it.
It’s the same picture.
If you’re against people like Zuckerberg. You’re against billionaires etc. If you’re not against billionaires you’re not against people like Zuckerberg. You just want one you agree with. Musk maybe?
If only we knew who pushed for, and funded this. I mean it absolutely was not the wealthy or chad billionaires. They’re just good honest bros. They wouldn’t use that vast wealth to manipulate and lie to us.
Guess who. Guess who. Those things are in the vested interest of the wealthy and especially billionaires. Though they would never leave themselves subject to them.
Oof, cognitive dissonance wins again. Capitalism that isn’t so tightly regulated that it struggles to exist. Only reinforces and encourages the worst of human behavior. They’re both a problem. Together they’re a perfect storm. Literally every one of your complaints can be directly attributed to your voting habits. (If you are truly Republican) You’ve enabled it all. (So have Democrats to a much lesser extent) And still stick with identifying as the problem. Note, I’m not saying Democrats are the solution. Slightly better problem perhaps. But certainly not a solution as they currently exist. But friend, you really need to work through the cognitive dissonance and indoctrination issues. In the end you will thank yourself if you do. And that’s what matters right?
Not at all. Have you ever been to a communist country? You see the same thing but on a worse scale. Lots of poverty and the small wealthy group. Capitalism isn’t the issue. Had you left your moms basement you’d know that.
No. Communist countries don’t exist. There are ML countries. And yes, they’re as problematic as the unregulated capitalism countries.
Capitalism is an issue. Has been for over 100 years. As has Lenin’s malformed ideologies for almost the last 100.
You should stop digging for antiques in your mom’s basement. Before projecting on to others.
I was sincere in advising you to address your cognitive dissonance.
I bet you say all this unironically in your head while wearing a Che shirt.
I don’t have any cognitive dissonance. Thank you very much.
Lenin, look how great that turned out.
Careful, that’s another antique. And no. I don’t wear my politics in any way. And would definitely not wear anything with Guevara as I have rather strong ideological differences with him.
At this point I’m inclined to agree. You seem insincere and more concerned with poor attempts at unsuccessful trolling.
I agree. You can even check my post history as I’ve effectively said the exact same thing elsewhere. Today even. I just have actually valid, non hypothetical criticism to offer regarding it.
Ever heard of libertarian socialism? It’s the OG kind of libertarianism and is great for those who aren’t all that into cognitive dissonance.
The real problem is that consequences for bad behavior just aren’t crippling enough to deter bad behavior. Regulations often just place a price on bad behavior, and companies optimize for costs, so usually violating a regulation is just a cost of doing business.
Regulations don’t necessarily improve behavior, they just fix a cost to it. So we should increase corporate liability so execs face criminal charges far more often (can’t pass that on to customers) and charge for negative externalities (like carbon taxes) so they have a consistent cost to factor into their balance sheets.
Why? We have low unemployment, so we should be outsourcing our low value work so our workers can have the higher paying jobs. Making stuff here just makes it cost more, and reduces our labor pool.
The reason they’re too big to fail is because of cronyism. They use government to protect themselves from failure.
I agree, we shouldn’t let companies get that big, but the solution isn’t forceful break-up, but removal of those protections that they’ve built up over the years. So things like cable companies throwing obstacles (read: regulations) in the way of competitors.
We need to remove bad regulations and probably create some good new ones. But it all starts by removing protections so market forces can work.
Do you know why that is? Wage and price controls during wartime forced companies to find ways to entice workers other than increasing wages, so we got the comprehensive benefits situation we have now. That worked its way into government, so things like the ACA take workplace benefits into account when determining what benefits you can have.
So we should start by removing incentives for businesses to offer healthcare. Some ideas:
In short, make W-2 employment look a lot more like self-employment so switching jobs doesn’t leave employees with a not of confusing decisions, they just pick based on pay and work environment.
Preach!
In my opinion, the role of government is to police that human behavior, as in, ensure everyone is playing by the rules. Large organizations get a seat at the table that most of us don’t, and that needs to change.
But as you said, the problem here isn’t “capitalism,” it’s special interests, and those exist regardless of economic system. The goal should be to make the system as transparent as possible so us plebs (read: journalists and independent auditing groups) can see and help fix problems. Thinking about the issue as “more” vs “less” regulation misses the point, the goal should be in simplifying government so it’s easier to catch those who cheat.
I’m a progressive and think conservatism is a totally valid political viewpoint - to continue doing what worked. And that is the social systems that worked so well for many decades. Unfortunately the GOP has become more and more reactionary for decades now (“paleo conservative”). So social democrats should be seen as conservatives really. And capitalists have accumulated so much money and power that it isn’t working any more.
I’d say the problem is that we don’t account for human nature in systems. We’ve elevated infinite greed as a totally valid and natural viewpoint, when it’s just not. In an environment with the right rules and basic fairness and decency you can absolutely tell most people to do something not for their own benefit because it’s for the public good, for your country, for your patients, and most people will be quite happy doing that.
That gives cover to the few percent of people who are eternally greedy, see nothing but materialism, the “sociopaths” and narcissists and narrow minded ideologues. That really requires a kind of reconstruction.
We need to specifically start thinking and talking about politics and business as systems that must be safeguarded against excess, and actively prevent people who care about nothing but money or power from advancing.
And specifically because of climate change we need to start thinking about a plan. Because it’s an emergency similar to a war “all or nothing” economy we need to create a “limited planned economy” for certain sectors and allow for eminent domain to transfer sectors into public hands - at least for sectors that you can’t reasonably assume they can be induced with market regulations and things like carbon taxes. Because capitalists will always game the system and maximize profit. That has to be understood and CEOs put in charge that understand that besides profit, they are not to oppose regulations or rules of the game set by society.
I’d be very curious if you think conservatives in the GOP could be convinced by any of this?
The main problem I have with my party is they are not for things as much as they are against what the other side wants to do. That to me is annoying as hell. It’s not longer both sides submitting ideas and working towards a middle, it is Democrats throwing out items and the Republicans just trying to block it. I want compromise. There are many things I side with the progressive on but honestly, they shouldn’t be “progressive ideas”. They should idea that both parties should support to varying degrees but as you said the paleo conservatives which I can’t argue against really. A good example is a national healthcare program and abortion. As a conservative, historically freedom of how to live your life was a core value. That should mean the Republican party should support abortion to some degree which they don’t. National Health care Republicans care just want to veto rather than work for a compromise.
The younger generation is much inline with that but the older generation, no. I think as they age out you will see a very different party. Right now we are the “MAGA” party many of them have nothing in common with the Republican party and oddly seem to be religious conservatives. I would like to see a purge of the religious conservatives from the party as part of our healing process. Get back to the true roots of conservatism and not this overly religious, idiotic version we have now.
It is frustrating when you have the average person claiming the climate isn’t changing. It is something we can watch in our own lifetime. The first step is to get them admit something is different which has been next to impossible to do. I honestly am not sure if it’s a cycle or do to man-made activity and I don’t think the debate is important when we can’t even get people to accept, the climate has changed. I look forward to a less polluted planet. I don’t care if it’s a cycle or man made, I think less pollution is good either way. You see that attitude in younger republicans but the older ones will drive ICE Trucks just because the Democrats want them to go electric. That in a nutshell the problem with the party. It isn’t about being for something as it is against something.
Yeah sure… it worked great for Chile. Unless there is a wave of democratic socialism all over the western world, specially the US, all at the same time, it’ll just be squashed by fascism backed by the US and friends.
The only real solution that has worked before is a communist revolution. Like it or not.
You have an interesting concept of something “working”.
The actual solution that worked before is trust busting and Keynesian economic policy.
What is your definition of working? I’d say communist revolutions have indeed worked. I base that on data, facts and the material conditions of places that had a revolution compared to countries in similar economic and geopolitical situations.
Cuba is doing much better than most Latin American countries. In most areas it’s doing MUCH better.
China is doing infinitely better than any other comparable country, like India. It’s not even a comparison.
The USSR was also doing much better than any country in a comparable situation when it did exist.
How did these revolutions “not work”?
I was just in Cuba last year. A doctor makes $35 per month. The cab to the airport cost almost that much. A cab drive makes more than a doctor’s monthly salary from two fares. Their money is ridiculously screwed up. The official exchange rate is something around 24 CUP to the dollar. But at the airport it’s like 1/3 that value. And in the black market it’s 1/6 that value. People live in poverty while the government buildings are immaculate marvels. The people I talked with there know how messed up the country is.
You mean the country where capitalism is thriving and labour unions are illegal? Where billionaires dominate the ruling party? China is communist in name only.
It was doing great… until it collapsed? Great success story!
Sorry but whatever you’re reading isn’t very accurate.
deleted by creator