that’s a fair question. it seems like corruption is universal to all systems of organization and therefore not a good measure of the validity of any given system

Arrrrg I wrote out a big reply, was about to post, then realised I’d accidentally downvoted you. When I changed that downvote to an upvote my reply was reset. #lemmybugs.

Here’s take 2.

My impression is that all systems fail long term and need to break down and be renewed after crisis. Once it becomes entrenched, I think odds are heavily against being able to try social systems.

I’d agree with this, genreally. It feeds into the point in my last paragraph: we need a changing system to destabilise incumbant powers, such that they cannot abuse the system as effectively. These changes must be driven by objective improvemnents, democratically decided. Furthermore, I would say that total democracy is a win.

People will point to Brexit as an example of the hazards of giving people a vote. However, the truth is Brexit was a disinformation campaign - such a campaign cannot be maintained indefinitely, it can only be focused onto key events - particularly when it was driven by targeted lies (primarily on Facebook) immediately before a vote. You can say whatever you want if only the people who won’t question it see it, and by the time anyone else does it will be too late. If people had subsequent opporunities to decide how Brexit would be done, along with votes on whether or not to proceed down any particular route, things wouldn’t have been anywhere near as bad.

I believe in a strong social safety net. The bare basics of human needs should be provided for any citizen: food, clothing, and shelter. Without these needs, people get desperate, and they turn feral. They resort to crime - which then easily becomes a habit. This is worse for everyone overall; by preventing this we help maintain a stable and productive society.

The basics should be provided. If people want nice things, they should have to work for it. If you want a nice house, you need to work and earn enough. If you want nice designer clothes, you need to work. If you want a PS5/Sexbox/1337 PC you need to work for it and earn it. If you just want to rest on your laurels with the bare minimum, that should be an option, too.

However lazing about doing nothing is incredibly fucking boring and unfulfilling. No one wants to live their life that way. The lifetime benefit scrounger is pretty much a myth - maybe there’s one or two who game the system, but it never lasts forever. People want to improve their position in life, they want to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”, they just need the opportunity.

I know this full well. I’ve had the luxury of not doing anything, I’ve skirted poverty but never quite truly fell into it. And it’s not anywhere anyone wants to be. However, even in my position success is limited - debtors and financiers prey upon anyone who falls below a certain line. If you pay off your credit cards every month, they’ll feed you more credit, then when you start building up debt they’ll rack up your interest rates such that your instinct is to dig in deeper in some vein hope of finding your way out.

Meanwhile, the past is littered with famous artists, many musicians, who have spent some time living off the state. These stories have become fewer and fewer over the past couple decades - no one can live off the dole anymore. This begs the question: how much social development has the human race missed out on, given that young people have been stretched to their limit, such that they barely even want to contribute anything because their prospects are now so bleak?

People shouldn’t be exploited to their limits. Particularly, citizens of any country shouldn’t be left to rot. Any great country that calls itself wealthy should be able to care for its people, such that these people can find their feet and positively contribute to the collective good. And that collective good must belong to everyone, not just those who sit at the top and do very little to contribute themselves.

Capitalism is exceptionally good at short term efficiency, because it’s profits driven and and as long there’s someone else to compete for profits there’s technological advancement. But capitalism is also all consuming and once it’s killed off all its competitors and profits are guaranteed the efficiency of technological advancements stops. Xerox is a great example, they invented a lot of modern things we use today like the foundation of the personal computer, GUI, computer mouse and desktop computing. But they invented those things at the height of their success and because of it did almost nothing with it. They just didn’t need to because they were already making loads of money. Those ideas were instead taken by Microsoft and Apple and they found immense success in it. Had Xerox also killed all the competition then the world we know today wouldn’t exist because there wouldn’t be any need for tech to advance here. The efficiency capitalism gives comes from a purely external source, it’s to beat the competition for profits. Once competition dies out so does the efficiency. Long term capitalism is not more efficient than any other economic system where the efficiency is derived from an internal source, such as the desire to do less work.

And while we’re on the topic of efficiency, the efficiency of capitalism is not necessarily a good thing. Do you know what is efficient? Working from the moment you wake up until the moment you have to sleep. That is what capitalism, at its core, wants. But I doubt it’s something you want. In fact we collectively have decided it’s not what we want because we have laws that exist solely to limit capitalism. The fact that you have time to comment here is inherently anti-capitalist, because capitalism wants that time spent on making a profit.

You do realize that we have roughly 3-4 millenias of technological advancements, before we even invented early capitalist theory? The vast majority of human history contradicts your statement.

The problem is not the food price. The problem is the unfair distribution of wealth. The solution is to ensure every person can afford a decent standard of living.

Making food cheaper just shifts the problem: More food imported (=>traffic, noise, co2), less incentive to produce food (=>scarcity), worse conditions for workers and livestock (=>unequality, animal abuse), higher reliance on preservatives, pest control and drugged livestock (=>potential negative side effects), more food waste (=>inefficiency).

Yes, exactly. The problem is to get local produce cheaper than importing global crap. Distribution is a huge part of it. It shouldn’t be cheaper to transport crap food globally than for a domestic producer to deliver quality food, but it is.

Of course, but maybe destroying the modern economy is a good thing. Things like serving essential needs causing hyperinflation showcases that modern economy is purposefully built to make people lose. No matter what you try to do to help society, something (or rather, someone) counterplays you.

IMO the real solution is that things that are essential, like food and health, should not depend on money exchange to be provided, period. Sure, producers of food and providers of health should be paid for their work, but that payment should not have a codependence with the fact that the hungry or unhealthy person get the attention they need.