@yogthos

"The elephant in the room is #capitalism, but mentioning it is a taboo."

Since when? People have been promoting and criticising it openly for at least a hundred years; really, much longer.

@AlexanderKingsbury there is very little serious criticism of capitalism in western mainstream, and there's certainly no serious discussion about abandoning capitalism, or how that could be practically accomplished.

If you mean that screaming into the void while not being able to affect any tangible change is allowed, then sure.

@yogthos

There's plenty of serious discussion about it. Whether or not that discussion is "mainstream" is a vague question, but even if it's not, that hardly makes the topic "taboo"; just uncommon.

If you feel like you're screaming into the void, well, perhaps what you're screaming simply does not resonate with most of the people you're screaming at.

@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
Want serious discussion, discuss this without blythely dismissing it. Here's where you can find an alternative to traditional capitalism:

#CommonsCapitalism

#COMMONSCAPITALISMPRIMER

This describes an economic system that can outcompete traditional capitalism in a market economy in virtually any industry. It will play by all the same rules and laws used by traditional capitalists. Once it is in place, it will gradually replace traditional capitalism.

@Cirdan @yogthos

https://mastodon.social/@Cirdan@awscommunity.social/112230974912232475

@Cirdan @yogthos

You can claim my discussion is not serious all you want; I'm not the one responding with "okay" and nothing else. I don't claim you're promoting communism because A. I understand the general meaning of that term and B. I'm not generally in the habit of claiming things I don't think are true.

@Cirdan @yogthos

And you're more than free to respond with "okay", That does nothing to move the discussion forward. It is not a meaningful response or answer.

@Cirdan @yogthos

And that demonstrates to me that you are either unable or unwilling to provide a meaningful counterpoint.

@Cirdan @yogthos

Well, at that point in the conversation, the specific thing being discussed was whether or not capitalism is ethical. You seemed confused about whether is is, itself, a system of ethics, or whether a separate system of ethics can be used to measure it.

@Cirdan @yogthos

"But capitalism itself has no code of ethics short of the federal and state penal codes."

@Cirdan @yogthos

Seems an odd way to phrase it, then. You could just say "Capitalism has no ethics". Not "it has no ethics short of these other things".

If I said "this meal has no gluten in it short of the amaranth meal", that at least suggests that amaranth meal has gluten in it.

@Cirdan @yogthos

I agree. There is a clear delineation. Neither, however, is part of capitalism. Capitalism is not a legal system, it is an economic one. The only legal ideas you could draw out of it are that its tenets should be protected, but that's hardly it being a legal system. It just demonstrates that a legal system is necessary to protect it.

@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
I don't want to get buried in the semantics but the laws are probably part of the political aspect of capitalism.

My point is that capitalism is proscribed by regulations and penal statutes. For some in capitalism, those are their only bounds.

@Cirdan @yogthos

You can dismiss it as "semantics" all you want. For better or for worse, words mean things, and it's important to have a common understanding of those meanings when trying to have an actual discussion.

@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
The only reason I discuss ethics is that some posters will make some claim about capitalism as if it should act ethically. A lot of people have misunderstandings about capitalism. Sometimes I try to address those.

But, I'm interested in sincere criticism about Commons Capitalism.

@Cirdan @yogthos

"Sincerity" from other is a goal you can have in such conversations, but I submit to you that it's not particularly productive. If someone presents a valid criticism but they do so without any sincerity, is the criticism therefore less valid? I approach these conversations honestly and sincerely, but of course I can't prove that to you in any meaningful way. You can dismiss me as "insincere" at any time and no one can disprove your assertion.

@Cirdan @yogthos

I think that the idea of "The means of production and net profits are held for the benefit of the workers as a commons" amounts to socialism. If the means of production are held as a common...well, that's socialism. Well, it's ONE form of socialism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Which, if you want socialism, fine. That's a conversation reasonable people can have. But I don't think coming up with new names for things is particularly helpful.

@Cirdan @yogthos

Many people choose to twist words around for political purposes; that's most of what many politicians do. I prefer honesty to political expediency. If I cannot convince people of an idea without deceiving them, I don't deserve to convince them at all.

@Cirdan @yogthos

That's a question without a meaningful yes or no answer. You're asking about a scenario and specifying the purpose for which the means of production are held, not who holds them.

@AlexanderKingsbury @yogthos
Here's what I write about the distinction between commons capitalism and socialism:

Commons Capitalism may cause some results that are convergent with the goals of socialism, i.e., spreading wealth within a community and reducing the concentration of wealth in individuals; however, socialism is characterized by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5] (continued)

@Cirdan @yogthos

"the means of production would not be socially owned, but privately owned by each CCE."

Suppose I don't want to be part of a CCE. Suppose I wish to own my own means of production.

"No CCE would be owned directly or indirectly by the public, community, collective, cooperative, or employees"

Then who would own it?