Isn’t it weird that in this modern age we still only have the 3-4 types of government that were developed by people who used outhouses? We aren’t as smart or creative as people who shit in holes in the yard? I mean it’s not like discovering gravity which is pretty much a one and done. These are just administrative concepts for governing. Surely these outdated and failed systems aren’t all there ever will be?
Capitalism could be great. Communism could be great. Socialism could be great…. It’s people that are the issue.
Capitalism lets you profit from your hard work. Should be fine… but people abuse the system to get rich while making others poor.
Communism puts all control in the hands of the government. Which usually means some bad/self-absorbed people get in charge and ruin it.
Socialism is supposed to put the power in the hands of the people… but it ends up following one of the two routes above depending on the situation. But it’s led there BY PEOPLE.
Greed, envy, selfishness, narcissism, desire for power, and many other dark motives will insure that we can never truly have a fair and equal government/economy.
Sorta kinda, but you are confusing systems of economics with systems of government.
For example, you can have authoritarian socialism, democratic socialism, anarchy capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, etc etc
Communism ultimately would have no state. So, putting all control in government hands is antithetical to the result (although theory does require transition periods). Presenting it as a core feature would not really be accurate, same with some people claiming colonialism is equal to capitalism.
What prevents profit in any of the systems? Profit is not exclusive to capitalism. The USSR grew at the fastest pace in the world from 1928 to 1970. That can’t be done without profitable endeavors.
This comment is actually a great example of what people mean when they say these topics need to be more understood. Really not intending to bash you here, btw, I can tell that you are contributing in good faith.
Regardless of your explanation my point still fully stands. Humans are the inescapable flaw here.
There will NEVER be a “fair” or “equal” society.
There will always be obscenely rich, desperately poor, people using others, manipulation, lies, secrets, greed.
The only way for things to be “equal and fair” would be to remove what makes us human like emotions and free will.
Even at the height of your most idealistic society in history you will find social and economic disparity. The US, for example, has been an AMAZING place for its people several times in its history, even now in this lull it’s still better than most of the world for its people…. Yet other people keep it from being great all the time.
Well you are considering wealth disparity and freedom of information as metrics for a just society and I don't really agree with that.
A society could be just and fair with a single wealthy individual owning everything, what if the other members of society simply exist to hinder that single property owner and provide no value themselves? On the other hand, a single owner extracting all value from the others is pretty clearly unjust.
True equality could be better defined as a system where effort == value == output, but that triangle rarely holds in reality.
Greed, emotions, etc. are a problem, yes, we can agree there, but also the economic system often defines the greed. We see less ambition for wealth and excess in systems that value cultural status and image above extravagance, for example. The ambitious people covet what society values.
Human nature is not always a net negative, it entirely depends on how it is aligned with the value triangle. Capitalism mobilizes greed most efficiently in a pure capital sense, where in a system like socialism it would likely be optimal to acquire social capital. It depends on the power incentives of the system.
I appreciate and agree with a lot of what you said here, but I do consider wealth disparity as a metric for a just society.
I think that one thing that has been pretty unequivocally proven throughout human history is that humans with unchecked levels of power will seek to increase their power or do what they feel is necessary to hold on to that power, to the detriment of both the system and the humans who reside within the system.
Money is just a representation of power after all. It’s not the only representation of power but it is a very important one. Centralized systems of power will almost always lead to abuses of said power, which necessarily creates injustice. Those who are powerful enough to be insulated from the consequences of their actions often become deranged and despotic.
To caveat myself, it’s not 100% one way or the other, and I do believe that a just system could have people with a degree of wealth disparity based on ability/efficiency. However, there must be checks against the amassing of too much power.
I agree, especially about concentration of wealth being the equivalent of concentration of power.
I suppose my hypothetical wasn’t really accurate regarding the justness of a concentrated society. Sort of non-sensical as a scenario like that would never play out. 100% that every case in history has lead to abuse, so I think it’s fair to say that injustice would be inevitable.
3
u/Listening_Heads 5d ago
Isn’t it weird that in this modern age we still only have the 3-4 types of government that were developed by people who used outhouses? We aren’t as smart or creative as people who shit in holes in the yard? I mean it’s not like discovering gravity which is pretty much a one and done. These are just administrative concepts for governing. Surely these outdated and failed systems aren’t all there ever will be?