What is the sustainable alternative to capitalism? What is the alternative to the system as a whole?

Some sort of general social fallback/security safety net in a similar system to what we have now, a free market, would work. Thats just a general concept though. Tbh idk anything specifically.

This.
If people were quite literally not "people," then the idea of planned economy would work. However we are humans and because of that, it shall never.

National Socialism
Originallio

Capitalism=/= exchanging stuff

Capitalism=private ownership of means of production/natural recources

Markets=exchanging stuff

Market socialism=exchanging stuff w/o having a monopoly on natural recources/means of production.
(Eg. Mutualism, georgism)

Market capitalism=exchanging stuff but privately owning natural recources/means of production
(Eg. Anarcho capitalism, neoliberalism, progressivism)

>What is the sustainable alternative to capitalism?

Use capitalism for non-essential stuff.

Use a state-run monopoly for essential stuff.

You need to set the bar reasonably high for something to be considered "essential". For example, a dishwashing machine is not "essential" because you can just wash dishes by hand. A cell phone is not "essential" because plenty of people get by just fine without one. Etc.

Things that are essential are: water and power service, garbage pickup, well-maintained roads, medical treatment, education, insurance, a basic checking account, and an old-age pension. When capitalism tries to provide those things, they always suck a huge amount of money out of the system to pay the executives and investors, making the system less efficient. Take social security, for example -- there is no possible way a for-profit company could run that system as efficiently as the government does -- because social security doesn't pay any massive kickbacks to executives and investors as required by capitalism. (And, yes, making a small number of people very rich is *always* the goal of capitalism, no exceptions.)

youtube.com/watch?v=A5xNGPtk7no

We need the singularity to happen. We need to be uploaded to virtual worlds.

Please.

The Roosevelt administration's economic planning was a driving force in the recovery from the Great Depression. It's part of why the U.S. standard of living rose so greatly in the 1940's to the 1980's.

Capitalism didnt exist until the 1840s. Let's go back to whatever we had before that.

Nothing. Welcome to hell.

Before that there was mercantilism.
We should go forward, not back.

Most jobs should be government. The problem with the economy is you can be fired easily. I want the government should give us middle class jobs without HR bullshit

Most of the time you can't productively discuss stuff like this. People are too committed to their ideologies to even consider anything outside those spheres or to examine times when other approaches to things worked out okay. They don't want to hear it. They don't want to even think about possible flaws in their ideologies, or possible gaps in understanding of matters.

When you can, it's actually a kind of neat exercise. You can bring up stuff like history, philosophy, etc. into it. But most of the time it doesn't last long before it devolves into hysteria or petty insults.

I often see the argument "every attempt at communism has failed". Never, though, do I see anything trying to explain why. Why does communism fail?

Also, considering the destruction currently happening to our environment due to capitalism, you could definitely make the argument that it's failing. There's still some time before the repercussions really start to kick in, but they will.

>Why does communism fail?
unironically read the gulag archipelago

Thanks for the rec added it to my list

It's failing because people get fired and food and shelter and jobs aren't guranteed. I want the government to own most jobs

"Communism" is a term is used so loosely with so many different meanings that it's bordering on meaninglessness unless used with a very specific context.

Some people use "communism" to mean a society that operates without a monetary system, in which the workers control the means of production, and a state distinct from the populace it governs doesn't exist. Some use the term to describe the way the economy and society are managed in the PRC. Some use the term to refer to Bolshevism. Some simply consider having a public bus and train to be communism. Some consider labor laws, laws against child abuse, and so on to be communism.

It's just such an absurdly poorly defined term that people arguing about it aren't even talking about the same thing, or aren't even that aware about what they're talking about at all.

But on this note, an example of economic planning that did not "fail" would be the New Deal. Is that something worth calling "communism"? I wouldn't say so. But economic planning? Yes.

New Deal programs were overall successful in raising the standard of living for Americans. Living standards for the common person in the U.S. in 1950 were considerably higher than in the earlier part of the century, partly thanks to FDR.

Was FDR like Obama of the era? I remember yes we can.

They have some similarities. Both are distantly related to previous presidents (Obama is related to Harry Truman, who took office right after FDR. FDR was a distant cousin of Theodore Roosevelt). Both took office in the midst of severe economic crises. Both were seen as bringers of hope and change. People were desperate in 1932 and 2008. For many people, the standard of living had taken a nose dive. Unemployment was high, prices on goods and services were out of reach. Also, both were wartime presidents (WWII and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars). And both instituted new social programs, though to massively different extents.

Overall they're different in some important ways. FDR's New Deal was a major sweeping change in the way the American economy functioned. He got millions of impoverished young men employed with the Civilian Conservation Corps. Granted, the wages they earned in that program were very low looking at it from a 21st century perspective. It was something like just under a dollar a day, although of course that bought more back then but it wasn't a lot. But it was much better than nothing. Obama didn't do anything on this scale regarding government employment. FDR also instituted resettlement programs for people living in remote areas, to help them move to places where they could find jobs. Obama didn't do anything at all like this.

Also, people think of Obama as being very socially liberal, but he wasn't that much. You can think of alcohol prohibition in the 20's and 30's as being similar in some important ways to marijuana prohibition in the 2000's. Prohibition was causing a ton of problems for society, and FDR supported legalizing and regulating the alcohol market. Obama on the other hand was no friend of marijuana legalization at all. This is not a direct equation as obviously alcohol and marijuana aren't identical, but they're similar enough that I think this compare-contrast observation is worth mentioning.

FDR actually ensured the ideas were put into practice, whereas recovery under Obama was stifled by the neoHooverites in congress.

But FDR did some bad stuff too, such as agricultural commodity price regulation.

Anprim my freund

Yes, that's a good point too.

>what is the sustainable alternative to exchanging money, goods or services with others

Having an economy doesn't entail capitalism by necessity.

There is no sustainable alternative. Proletarian ownership of the means of production fails when the proles (perhaps with exception to the market socialists and their LaborBux) don't know how to manage economies. Monarchism and the nobility aren't coming back anytime soon either due to the sense of """""""freedom"""""""" that democratic societies have to worship the state and the Greater Good(tm) instead of the king himself.

Attached: pzkpfw-iii-panzer-3-ausf-m-513-3d-model-obj-3ds-fbx-c4d-lwo-lw-lws-mtl.jpg (1500x1125, 195K)

The question is rather poorly framed, as capitalism is a loosely defined collection of desirable and undesirable features (as is socialism).

The most undesirable feature is keeping capital scare so that a large proportion of the benefit flows to the financiers rather than those who actually do the productive work (this doesn't mean the financiers are unproductive; merely that their productivity tends to be very low relative to the money they get).

The second most undesirable feature is that standard of living is highly proportional to wealth.

Neither of these features is essential to a modern economy, but whether they're essential to capitalism depends on what definition you use.

Nothing. Humans will eventually ruin anything you can think of.

>What is the sustainable alternative to capitalism? What is the alternative to the system as a whole?
All of them are alternatives, because they all have someone who more or less, sooner or later, has more power than you unless you are that person (fun fact: you will never be that person because that person has already secured his shit and made it near impossible to rise above them, in any situation or system, because they had a better headstart).

Attached: pink raging wojak glowing eyes.jpg (250x249, 6K)

>posting a Jow Forums screenshot as fact
Holy shit

Capitalism is the best form. It's just a matter of what type of capitalism. Clearly stuff like anarcho-capitalism doesn't work or you'd just be okay with people spending money on creating fraudulent money. Counterfeiting.

ok. under capitalism 70% of my family members who have died have died due to not being able to afford healthcare.

Technocracy is envitable if globalism continues in its current direction. This isn't entirely a bad thing if you read up on the ideology.

Market socialism

>keeps market mechanism in place, which has a solid track record when it comes to retail goods and services
>worker-owned, democratically-operated workplaces means companies won't outsource/automate their jobs or give themselves unreasonably low wages/benefits; protects workers without the need for state intervention
>at the same time, encourages every worker to provide the best products and services possible via the profit-sharing mechanism

Attached: Proudhon.jpg (357x397, 13K)

Technocracy wouldn't work under it's current form. I agree we need technocrats but in it's current guise that means people in charge of managers, and not the actual technocrats that work out details handling things.

I find myself drawn to this idea a lot.

>company goes bad one month
>no salaries
>fuck capitalism reeeee
There's no way is either capitalism as it is now or socialism where you don't have anything.
Also groups make the worst decisions, everyone that has already done it in school knows.

>company goes bad one month
>no salaries

The idea isn't for profits to replace salaries, it's to supplement them. Salaries would be part of the general operating costs, same as they are under the current system. But everyone being entitled to a cut of the profits gives them more of an incentive to make the business succeed because they have a personal stake in it.

As for your point about groups making poor decisions, I'd counter:

1) the risks associated with groups making decisions are no worse than the risk of putting someone incompetent or indifferent in charge of a company, which happens frequently already.
2) There's no one-size-fits-all model for worker co-ops that every business would need to be forced into; if they felt it'd be more efficient, employees could choose to elect managers to make certain decisions on their behalf.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from participating in an ESOP or worker cooperative right now.

>Well no we need all other types of companies to go away first!

I see.

National Socialism.
Preferrably a nasserist or ba'athist system

I don't think you can draw a firm conceptual distinction between the concept of private property and the concept of exchange.

I think Marx's notion that capitalism is
>private ownership of the means of production
is a bit of dialectical rhetoric to force the thought of an ideology in opposition to marxism, rather than a sincere attempt to provide an *informative* description of the capitalist behavior of his day.

Capitalism is roughly the idea of market behavior involving the construct of private property exchanged via money. Marx interpeted this as meaning that a handful of capitalists would control the means of production. But what about potential negative impacts of socialism?

Socialism is really just a vehicle to control people at a more basic, degrading level than capitalist control of property could ever achieve. The contradiction of communal ownership of the means of production is that even democratic, union based leadership will consolidate power in the hands of a few over time. Instead of amassing wealth to show their power, the comrade elite will flaunt their status as the political ruling class. Socialism just creates new class divisions.

Many robots have unintentionally hit on this problem with socialism: will the government give me a gf?
Will it?
Or will the robots watch, like so often happened in 60s communes, the commune's leader bang ever chick in sight. And will they then violently rebel?
Marxist socialism doesn't resolve the alienation and class divides it pretends to resolve, and social market capitalism seems to have better outcomes than true communes. Marxism is just a bad idea.

Exchange can exist without private property.
You can produce something in your personal property and exchange it for something else
You can produce something im a co-op amd exchange it for something else