you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All of these labels come with an ideology and a history associated with it which taints discussion. I personally look at it without the baggage of any label. In my opinion, it is best to learn from the full scope of history and culture. In my opinion, regardless of what label you put on it, people should have a proportional equity over the ownership of the means of production depending on their contribution. State capitalism is a failure, that is basically what "communism" means and I'm not in favor of giving people handouts or stealing from them (i.e. taxes). Ideally, it would be nice if you owned a portion of the company you worked for depending on your contribution instead of going to work for a monopoly so you can pay taxes for your safety net. In the latter, your labor is always devalued. If you're paid $15/hr, someone makes at least more than that. In the former, you take responsibility for the success or failure of the company and you can consequently form safety nets within a community of your choice. I don't know if that is socialism or capitalism but that is what I think would be right. If I had a company, that is how I would run it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that would fall under "contributionism". It's a little talked-about system, but it gave us things such as Linux, which is better than both Windows and MacOS, to name only those. And I agree, it's the best system, because it combines the best of capitalism and socialism. The main problem with it is, our economies force greed upon us, and developing main economic activities (i.e. "earning a living") based on such a system is fraught with difficulties.

You'd have to start a civilization from a blank slate to achieve it. Ultimately, degenerates show up and try to steal other people's earnings.