@yogthos it's important to understand that "system" here actually means "people". Normal, well-meaning people around and including us rewarding aggressive behavior for "winning". We like winners.

@yogthos I'm… not sure it has anything to do with capitalism itself. Sounds more like human nature to me. Feudal societies were quite rich in psychopathic lords and rulers as far as I know.

Regardless, fostering social institutions is the only way to fight that. As in, societies where psycho- and sociopaths are being limited should theoretically win in the long wrong. But it should be a conscious effort to maintain this, it won't happen by itself.

@isagalaev @yogthos

1) Capitalism doesn't have to be the first system to select for antisocial behavior in order to be a system that selects for antisocial behavior.
2) Just because something has been done for ages, and some people might call it "natural" and give it a shine of cosmic justice, doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved.

But you agree with point (2) already. The question is, what kind of system *can* we design that rewards pro-social behavior and scaled to billions of people one way or another? We've tried a couple that didn't work out so well.
@isagalaev @yogthos It's just soft capitalism and we've tried it for a century. We still select for jerks.
Follow

@clacke @isagalaev I think social democracy can work when we have democracy in the workplace. If businesses are run as cooperatives where all the employees have a voice regarding how the business is run, then we can have a reasonable democracy.

I think another big aspect is having limits on the gap between the highest and lowest earners. For example, Mondragon cooperative has a rule that the highest income cannot be more than 8x the lowest income.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 2

@yogthos @clacke "all the employees have a voice regarding how the business is run, then we can have a reasonable democracy." — that unfortunately tends to happen at the expense of efficiency. People on lower levels of responsibility tend to think they know what the company should do, but in reality they usually simply lack information for making those decisions. That's why hierarchies actually work.

(Unless I completely misunderstand what you're saying, in which case, fuck the medium :-) )

@yogthos @clacke no, I certainly didn't imply totalitarian regimes are efficient :-)

Sacrificing *some* efficiency in the workplace is totally fine, but I do believe it's better achieved by setting legal limits on what businesses can do, instead of trying actual democracy. Because that would not just reduce efficiency, but completely kill any ability to achieve results.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!