Humans are motivated by reward. That’s just how it works. Sure, people will be creative, I’ve written novels, I’ve written music, I’ve even tried my hand at visual arts. I’ve done all that for free, it was fun and rewarding.
Getting up at 6AM, working your ass off at something, whether or not you enjoy it, and not getting home until 9PM for a couple years, that’s not the sort of thing that people are going to do without a hope of reward.
They shouldn’t need you to give them a job in the first place, like you are some kind of benevolent benefactor, when you exploit people by not giving them the full value of their labor.
You chose to take on that risk in a capitalist system where failure has real and disastrous consequences, and as such you feel entitled to more than the workers under your employ. And that’s what it is, entitlement.
This is pretty much where I stand, too. Capitalism brings choice for consumers, jobs for workers and wealth for successful entrepreneurs.
But it needs to be reasonably regulated to protect those most in need of protection. I think a fair tradeoff is to tax the living crap out of the highest earning businesses in return for relieving them of the burden of providing health care to their employees (which could also be seen as exploitative). We might see some real growth in entrepreneurism with that deal. Not everyone thinks they’re gonna be Bill Gates but plenty of people might start businesses and make jobs if they didn’t have to fuck around with a benefit that their bigger competitors can afford far easier.
The far left and the far right have one crucial trait in common: they’ve constructed worldviews that depend on ignoring human psychology.
And that’s why no government based on either far-left ideas or on far-right ideas has ever succeeded. Pretending that human beings think and act in some way that they never do, some way that they “should” think and act—but do not—is a recipe for failure.
^ This.
^ And this.
I wanted to .just mention the late-stage capitalism side of this - I think if captialism really is in it’s terminal decline, it picked a really bad time to do it because of the reality of climate change.
I personally don’t see how we match the threat posed by climate change without a massive project that involves planning for what a post-fossil fuel society looks like, building infrastructure to make that possible for people worldwide, and then making fossil fuels either impossible or very hard to use for most of the things we use them for now. I don’t see how we do this if the power is truly in the hands of autonomous groups of workers and/or local communities. I realize capitalism and hyperpowerful central governments have completely dropped the ball on this too, but in a model with some kind of libertarian socialism I don’t even know how to start thinking about this type of massive coordinated action that we need if thousands or millions of autonomous communities all need to agree. At least the existing social order seems to have some mechanism that could get us through this crisis even if it’s failing now.
A point I always make since the threat of global climate change is one of my most important issues is that we need radical action to be done with building these massive projects and infrastructure, but nothing like that WILL be done while the profit motive is still part of the equation. We need the Green New Deal.
Look at what the so-called “leftist” Biden is doing right now, going back on what little concessions he promised us on the actual left (which was still far short of what we need to do to really combat this) and focusing on “free-market” solutions to climate change, which means nothing substantial will be done.
My model of libertarian socialism (that term actually refers to anarcho-socialists, I prefer libertarian Marxist personally) would still have economic activity directed through workers councils and through the state. It’s not like I’m talking communism or anarchism here, the state would still exist. Just it would be in conjunction with the councils so that the workers have equal power in the decision making, and not a centralized state where the workers are just slaves of the state (like how people usually think of socialism/communism).
Moderating
Note
Let’s be careful about personalizing arguments in this forum.
Ah OK I guess I don’t entirely understand all of the different leftist ideologies (I was trying to use libertarian socialism as an umbrella term but it might not apply to your ideology). I generally think a lot of ideologies that want to radically transform our society have a problem where it’s hard to balance how much power sort of naturally falls into the hands of the state and/or the faction bringing about the radical changes versus the normal people that you’re trying to empower with the change. It seems like if it falls too far one one side of the scale the consequences will be much worse than trying to reform capitalism - either because you wind up with an authoritarian state or because you decentralize power too much in a world where we have challenges that need centralization to overcome. Honestly as much as I hate to say it, where the world currently is right now we almost need to err on the side of more state control and risk authoritarianism under socialism or capitalism. I’d also really worry about the fact that we’ve basically run out of second chances with the threat of climate change so imminent.
I think democratic socialism similar to MAS’s ideology in Bolivia is something I would feel a lot safer about dealing with a massive challenge like climate change (and also has a better chance of happening in the near-term).
Well, plenty of people actually do put in that kind of voluntary creative or caring labor when they don’t expect a financial benefit from it.
I’m not disagreeing with you that financial benefits are a very powerful and widespread form of incentive, or that the capitalist aspects of a mixed economy often perform a useful role in harnessing those incentives to drive development and innovation. I just think you’re unnecessarily painting yourself into a corner if you try to claim that only financial benefits constitute an adequate motive for anybody to throw themselves into long periods of all-consuming devotion to work.
Yes, this ^
There is such a thing as ‘human nature’ - whether we like it or not, and whether we believe it or not.
We can’t change human beings by imposing an abstract ideology, any more than we can make cats act like dogs because we think dogs are better. But we can make a lot of unhappy cats by trying.
However, we can create societies that channel human nature in a better direction or a worse direction. This happens mainly by trial and error, hard experience, and small steps.
@Boudicca90, you can see the kind of pushback you’ve been getting on this board, which is mostly leftish, and with far above average education and intelligence. What kind of pushback will you get in the broader society, even in social democratic countries?
What will you do about people who disagree with you and don’t like your system? Re-education camps?
If you’re going to persuade people to accept your ideas, you’re going to have to do a much better job.
First, you’re going to have to find an example - in any human society, in any culture, and at any time - where this kind of system has worked. And worked for more than a tiny self-chosen group for a short period of time.
If you can’t find an example of cats living like dogs, maybe there’s a reason for it.
This is the problem with the Chicago school of economics, another failed ideology that ignores human nature, and is still mostly dominant today, unfortunately.
They imagine that people are only motivated by profit, and always act rationally in making financial decisions.
There are commonalities among humans, but there is no such thing as ‘human nature’. Each individual’s brain creates and prunes synaptic pathways over their lifetimes based partly on their biology but also based on their interactions with society. It’s a feedback loop that helps create the people we will eventually become.
The reason you think capitalism is the only way is because you were raised in a capitalist society and therefore feel you personally need wealth to drive your motivations, I don’t. “Human nature” tends to be whatever the person saying it wants it to be. It’s also a concept that has been used to subjugate many people throughout history, such as “Black people are naturally violent, Jews are naturally greedy, and so forth.” (Not my views, just illustrating a point)
Human nature is a dangerous myth.
Re-education camps? Really?
I know it’s a hard sell, that’s why when I’m speaking more on behalf of the DSA and trying to sell our issues, I don’t bring up any of this. We tend to be more focused on what is more achievable right now, such as Green New Deal and Medicaid For All. When it comes to socialism or communism, that is something that has to be built over time through a gradual buildup of worker rights, power, and education.
We point out that no matter how equitable capitalism becomes in a country due to liberal or social democratic policies, the capitalists in charge are still exploiting the workers and the planet. I thought capitalism could be reformed for a long time, but the inherent problems with capitalism have just become worse and worse to the point where I honestly think revolution is necessary. It’s not something I want to happen, since I tend to be more of a pacifist, which is why I’m trying to solve some of the problems of capitalism through working though our broken electoral system (to the chagrin of other leftists who believe revolution now is actually possible, lol).
But I see socialism as ultimately inevitable, since capitalism as it exists today is unsustainable.
Wow! I didn’t say or imply anything even remotely like that. 
Please don’t wrongly attribute opinions to me. That’s dishonest, and known as a straw man argument.
a) I do not personally feel that I ‘need wealth to drive my motivations’. Quite the contrary.
b) I remain agnostic about the ‘best’ system, and even whether there is any single ‘best’ system. Nor do I think that the only two possibilities that can exist are rapacious capitalism or communal ownership.
I would say that main problem with capitalism today is simply lack of regulation, due to the excessive influence of money on politics.
The idea that socialism (in the form in which you happen to believe in it) is ‘inevitable’ is pure faith-based ideology, without any factual basis
On the nature vs. nurture debate, I don’t think you’ll find many scientists today who agree with you on the ‘blank slate’ hypothesis.
As both “nature” and “nurture” factors were found to contribute substantially, often in an inextricable manner, such views [100% one or the other] were seen as naive or outdated by most scholars of human development by the 2000s.
The problems have indeed become worse, but that is due to a lack of equitable policies rather than the policies not working. Tax giveaways to the rich and implementing a “money = speech” policy is hardly society trying to implement a more equitable policy. So while this doesn’t disprove that reform is impossible – there might not be enough political will to implement it – it also doesn’t show that reform will not work if implemented earnestly, because it hasn’t been in the past 40 something years.
Modhat: This thread is no longer about what the Op wrote.
I think it is time to shut it down.
Those interesting in arguing Socialism vs. Capitalisms and the hybrids in between are welcomed and even encouraged to start a new thread.