1150
Capitalism cant provide
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
1150 points (100.0% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
2254 readers
4 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's interesting but you did not answer the issue. What do you do when someone refuses to do the work assigned to them. Do you coerce them (so same as capitalism) or do you just let them off and encourage more people to refuse as well, because why should they do it if others don't.
You reward those willing to do the hard jobs. Coercion's ethical cousin is called "incentive".
Capitalism also calls salary incentive.
Calling a Nazi a socialist doesn't make it one. Calling me a duck doesn't make me one.
They'd be hurting their family, friends, and community, and risk becoming ostracized. That should keep most people on the shared vision. Everybody having a say from voting or some shared consensus gives people ownership over decisions and should increase cooperation. There would likely still be some people who wouldn't cooperate, in which case they can leave or be voted out of the community and try to join another, which I suppose is coercion. I suppose there could also be lighter consequences for not doing what the community agreed upon (sanitation duty or peeling onions or whatever) that the person could choose to do if they wanted to stay.
I should say that in these hypotheticals I'm envisioning an anarcho-syndicalist or perhaps market-socialist type of society made up of a network or federation of smaller communities. I don't think this would work very well if it was one nation-sized "community," because people likely wouldn't care as much about the plights of people on the other side of the country.
So an even stronger type of coercion. Since in capitalism, you can earn money in any way you like and are able to. Here it is what you are assigned or banishment. It's nice you throw in words like community, but this is a very authoritarian regime at it's core.
You get banished from your employer under capitalism, and don't have a vote on anything the employer does. I don't typically think of truly democratic systems as authoritarian; everyone comes to a consensus to what work everyone is "assigned" to do.
There are 10s of thousands of employers and you can often be self employed as well. There isn't a one employer that can banish you. But yes, in many cases, employers do have some amount of power over you. However, what you describe already exists. It's called working for the government. How well is the democracy working out for government employees?