But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.

Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic "food stamps" system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury "fun bucks" that you don't lose out on if you don't have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.

Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I've been mulling over, I'm sure there's a million holes in it.

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it was limited to what it’s good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.

The thing is that capitalism isn't "good" at anything; all value is produced by workers. Fast fashion is an environmental nightmare, development of tech is in the interest of capital (automation shouldn't be a threat to workers), most entertainment is constrained by the diktats of massive corporations, the vast majority of snacks are either unhealthy or extremely overpriced, and workers (particularly in the Global South) are being abused in all four cases

[–] couragethebravedog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Capitalism is definitely good at some things. Specifically generating wealth. If you're a developing country you want to use capitalism because it will grow your economy as fast as possible. I think once a county has built enough wealth, they should switch to a blended system.

[–] jhulten@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago

Capital doesn't generate wealth. Labor generates wealth. Capital takes an oversized percentage of that wealth because the kind of financing that Capital provides requires Capital to be in charge.

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, if you're a developing country, you want a planned economy. The only reason to allow private capital would be to gain access to foreign technology and to stave off imperialism until you're capable of self-defense

[–] glockenspiel@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

The only reason a developing country would want capitalism to generate wealth is because the established capitalist order will blockade or otherwise decimate any country which tries to step out of line. We've seen it time and again throughout modern history. Planned economies work for developing countries. They work so well that capitalist countries will band together in order to isolate those economies from the world out of fear of contagion. This was, for example, a key reason capitalist countries tried to contain and isolate the USSR and China, before both started embracing liberalization policies.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is that capitalism isn't "good" at anything; all value is produced by workers

Why's that bad? Value has to be produced somehow, either by people or machines.

automation shouldn't be a threat to workers

Depends on the automation. Automation can unlock workers to perform more meaningful tasks. Throughout history machines have taken over people's jobs to increase productivity, but said machines have spawned jobs.

[–] redempt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

capitalism doesn't make us any better at producing anything. in many ways it makes us worse. under capitalism, automation means people will lose their jobs.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you're thinking of markets, but those aren't exclusive to capitalism. For example, you could have a private sector economy delivering nice to have goods that's organized using cooperative ownership. The cooperatives can compete with each other the same way capitalist companies do without the problems associated with capital concentration. Meanwhile, I completely agree with you that anything that's essential should be provided by the public sector and profit should not be a consideration there.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is probably my desired system.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Isn't that basically what Yugoslavia was shooting for?

[–] glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

...capitalism wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to what it's good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.

I feel like we see the worst outcomes of those areas under capitalism. If you are poor you often can afford only unhealthy food, fashion is an ecological nightmare and tech produces unbelivable amounts of e-waste. And entertainment is basically only there to serve you ads and stimulate consumption.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Capitalism may be good with fashion but actually seeing that art into production is fucking horrible and filled with rampant human rights and environmental abuse.

That's not to say it can't work decently. We just need a level playing field in the form of international regulation.

[–] Dentzy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I mostly agree; personally I see it more as a minimums covered than specific sectors, so, capitalism is acceptable -and might be a better environment for personal growth than most- as long as everyone has the basics covered, so a roof over their head, basic food, basic clothing, minimal energy to cover AC/Heating and other minimal usage (that would need to be set by specialists, but you get the idea, X KW/h free per person/month), good public transportation, full healthcare and communication access. And then, depending on your situation you can improve over it, by paying the extras, like, example, I think everyone should have access to a 5Mb Internet access for free (Maybe a 5Gb data cap to prevent abuse, but, after the 5GB it slows down, so, you never actually lose the access). That is good for basic browsing, messaging and Social Media applications, with that, people are never locked out of the online world, allowing for job hunting, for appointment taking and other similar necessities, communication with friends and family, but also, public organisms and private companies. This access is either managed by the government via Public Companies, or mandated to Private Companies as a necessary requirement to be allowed to work in the Country (like, you need to have a $0 plan available or you are not granted the bandwidth usage). Then, if you are interested, you can buy higher packages, those would be "controlled" by the Private Companies in a "capitalistic" way.

Why I like this approach? I think that the current "deification" of work is wrong -pushed actually by wealthy capitalists-, people should be allowed to simply exist, even if they do not work (they can be lazy, yes -and I do not see anything wrong with it-, but also, they can be deeply depressed, heavily disabled -or taking care of someone that is- or simply focusing on art, sports or other activities that not necessarily grant income), my approach would allow for it, but then you can also work if you want/can -for as long as you want/can- to have more (bigger house, better Internet access, designer clothes). I am privileged, I worked hard to get where I am, but I am in a good position, I would not stop working if only my basics would be covered, for me, the work I get paid for is an acceptable trade off for getting a bit more, but even then, I would be way more relaxed and enjoying life, if I knew that losing my job would mean losing my "small luxuries" but not condemning myself to poverty.

That's why I don't fully agree with your division by sectors, because some can be very clear -snacks-, but others are more complicated -like tech, having the latest smartphone very year is a luxury, having a simple working smartphone is a necessity in today's world-, or it can even vary -Like Internet was a luxury 20 years ago, but it is a necessity today-.

I hope you get the idea, sorry for the wall of text.