By your definition, perhaps. Others use “socialism” in different ways.
Without the incentive to invent and innovate, there will be very little invention and innovation. In human history, innovation and invention exploded once it was possible to become rich due to invention and innovation. If we don’t have that, we probably won’t even be able to get a great taco down the street (why make great tacos if you won’t make any more money than making mediocre tacos?), much less come up with new cures and vaccines and technology.
So we need a mix. If you’re not offering a way for individuals to make their lives vastly better by inventing something amazing, then amazing things aren’t going to be invented. And to counteract the excesses and exploitation that capitalism can motivate, ensure robust worker protections, socialist systems for the most vital needs like health care, and a solid safety net.
What is the assumption that only capitalism can result in invention and innovation coming from? You seem to think it’s necessary for the people who have these ideas to absolutely have to get rich off of the exploitation of others to have the motivation to do so.
That’s a very cynical way of looking at the world.
This would invite all sorts of fraud. I could ask the government for a $300,000 taxpayer loan to start up a Ukrainian restaurant, deliberately pocket as much as I can and let the venture go bankrupt, and let the taxpayers pick up the tab.
But it wouldn’t be you as an individual trying to start up that restaurant, it would belong to the people as a whole. So the resources and capital would be provided by the worker’s council and wouldn’t go towards any one person or group of people. The most he can do is fail to make a profit and the restaurant goes under. Which then the resources and capital are reappropriated towards another venture down the line.
A single person wouldn’t get a $300,000 loan from the government in my proposed system at all. I’m talking about the abolishment of private property, and this would be antithetical to that.
My reading of human history and my personal experience. Innovation and invention exploded in the last couple of centuries. And not coincidentally, this was the first time in history that innovation and invention meant a great chance to become wealthy – not just for the rich, but for anyone.
Maybe there’s a non-capitalist way to motivate people to consistently innovate and invent, but so far, we haven’t seen it. It appears that nothing motivates like the prospect of personal wealth.
I didn’t say anything about exploitation, except that it’s an aspect of capitalism that must be fought.
As a foody, I want the most talented chefs to be able to start their own restaurants, and have the incentives to make the food as good as possible. As a beer lover, I want the most talented brewers to be able to start their own breweries and have the incentives to make the tastiest beer possible. As a movie lover, book lover, TV watcher, etc…
That’s the interesting thing, Marx agreed with you. He said much of the same about the successes of capitalism compared to the feudalism that preceded it. But we are seeing all the problems with end-stage capitalism as he also predicted would happen. And yes, personal wealth is a great motivator, but it shouldn’t have to be. And certainly not at the expense of all the ruined lives in it’s wake.
Capitalism is exploitation. It is not an “aspect” or capitalism, it is what drives the whole thing. It always requires a permanent underclass to exploit to keep itself profitable and solvent. It used to be colonizing and exploiting other countries resources, then bringing slaves over and exploiting them instead. Now it’s exploiting minorities and undocumented immigrants.
As do I. This would not change under socialism. In fact, people will have more freedom to pursue their interests as they don’t have to worry about possible failure ruining them.
There needs to be some sort of reward for putting in the effort to create something new.
I put a hell of a lot of work into my business. The first couple years were 100 hour weeks, I still work 80+ hours. I am here at least a half hour before my employees, and am here for an hour after they leave.
I believe in rewarding them for their efforts, and I do compensate them very well for their time. But if I was not looking at the possibility of being rewarded myself for my efforts, then I would not have been nearly as motivated to do what I have done.
I believe that capitalism is the best way to distribute resources to meet the unlimited wants of individuals, and to increase the productivity and quality of goods and services that are available to the consumer.
That said, I recognize that capitalism fails to meet the needs of everyone, and the best system is one which recognizes that, and creates as a public good the distribution of those necessities along with the basic wants that society recognizes as necessary to live a dignified life.
Hogwash. Capitalism has been exploitive in the past, and that’s why we regulate it. But you might just as well forbid having a fireplace in your living room, because “fire is destructive; it is not an aspect of fire, it is what drives the whole thing.” Trouble is, no, that’s wrong. The bad aspects of capitalism can be regulated, while the good can bring us a high standard of living.
(And, yes, “regulation” is a kind of socialism. We need both. Ask the ancient Romans about “private fire departments.”)
And yet some countries have pretty low poverty and exploitation. We can and should do better. AFAICT, discarding capitalism always leads to even greater poverty and even worse exploitation. I disagree with your vision because I think it would make almost everyone’s lives worse, except for those who claw their way into the manipulator positions that have always ruled communist societies.
Of course you do, because you are a capitalist and you personally wouldn’t be motivated unless you can steal the surplus value of your workers. I get it.
Funny how that seems to align with the “hockey stick” graph. The real-world impacts of unchecked invention and innovation may well be much more problematic than we realize, but, unfortunately, our current form of capitalism lack brakes.
Frankie the pope noted that capitalism’s inability to cope with the pandemic shows its untenable fragility. The system seems to run so smoothly, until it hits a pothole. All that invention and innovation is just wonderful as long as we ignore how much it really costs.
Why wasn’t any of the anti-progressive propaganda used there? If it was, why wasn’t it effective in scuttling such efforts? IOW, why can’t we have Nice Things here?
But if they don’t have the possibility of great success, why work so hard to make the best tacos in the city? Why work so hard to make the tastiest beer in the country? It takes work to make a decent taco. It takes a ton of work to make the very best taco.
Right, and that’s why I work harder and longer than they do, and I get less compensation than they do.
If I wasn’t “stealing” their surplus value, they wouldn’t have a job at all.
What would motivate you to pay for the privilege of working 100 hours a week for 2 years? What would motivate you to continue to work 80+ hours a week for around 5 dollars an hour for the next 6?
What would motivate you to risk everything that you’ve worked for your entire life, to risk your time and your skills, to risk failure and ruin, on the off chance that your risk and hard work would create a successful enterprise?
These arguments are just getting silly. You seem to attribute all of human motivation to capitalism and not to humanity’s creative and innovative spirit. It would actually lead to more innovation as people don’t have to just work to live, they can work because they feel they have something to contribute to society.
I attribute human motivation to incentives. One of the iron rules of human behavior is that people respond to incentives. If you can’t offer a better incentive for something, you aren’t going to get better human behavior.