Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[rotting bones]

In my proposal, the allocation of resources to co-ops is done by a publicly verifiable voting mechanism. That could still become state capitalism in the sense that anything can happen.

[Ares Land]

Still, that leaves some questions open:

- Shouldn't people be allowed to invest their savings? I don't think saying 'that could lead to capitalism" really sells it.
- shouldn't co-ops be able to invest too? How about, say, a co op insurance company, which requires huge capital but only uses it at intervals? Or are these to be handled by the state? But then how come insurance workers aren't allowed to own their means of production?

- For that matter, generally the people who know best about an industry are its producers and customers. An external party just doesn't have the same amount of info. A democratic vite doesn't really solve the problem either: the average voter knows nothing of bûche markets unless he happens to be interested in these.

(Note that planned economies generally didn't do as well as expected and were good at theoretical works and huge projects, but djsa0pointing at smaller scales. A good look at Silicon Valley might be interesting too, in that academia and state investment did very well at establishing the theoretical basis, training competent people and figuring out network infrastructure, but private investment did best at figuring out innovative uses. Real life models do suggest a mixed model of private/public investment might do best.)

[Travis B.]

Still, that leaves some questions open:

- Shouldn't people be allowed to invest their savings? I don't think saying 'that could lead to capitalism" really sells it.

I am not picturing in terms of whether people would be allowed to invest their savings, as, after all, for small scale projects I would think people should be able to invest their savings. It is more a matter of whether people could invest enough out of their own savings to start a new good-sized enterprise, since I picture the disparity in wealth between the least and the most wealthy as being considerably less than in present-day capitalist societies.

- shouldn't co-ops be able to invest too? How about, say, a co op insurance company, which requires huge capital but only uses it at intervals? Or are these to be handled by the state? But then how come insurance workers aren't allowed to own their means of production?

I would not against insurance companies existing, as long as they were owned and managed by their workers, with input from other stakeholders

- For that matter, generally the people who know best about an industry are its producers and customers. An external party just doesn't have the same amount of info. A democratic vite doesn't really solve the problem either: the average voter knows nothing of bûche markets unless he happens to be interested in these.

This kind of things are where stakeholder models are well-suited. For instance, a software company that develops software for other enterprises could have their customers as stakeholders (something that in many ways is already the case at the company I work for right now which develops software for very large-scale enterprises, even though it itself is a capitalist enterprise).

(Note that planned economies generally didn't do as well as expected and were good at theoretical works and huge projects, but djsa0pointing at smaller scales. A good look at Silicon Valley might be interesting too, in that academia and state investment did very well at establishing the theoretical basis, training competent people and figuring out network infrastructure, but private investment did best at figuring out innovative uses. Real life models do suggest a mixed model of private/public investment might do best.)

I can picture an economy where both a democratic government and worker-owned-and-managed enterprises do investment working well myself. Note that the kind of democratic government I am for, though, is not a top-down-organized one typical of most present-day democratic governments, but rather a bottom-up-organized one similar to workers' councils, which may be more responsive to the needs of the population than one based on parties in a parliament or like.

[rotting bones]

Ares Land: By market logic, I'm assuming consumers will outnumber other kinds of voters:

If there is a scarcity of some article, I will ask for more of it. If there is a glut of something else, I will subtract from its votes to add to the former. This goes on until supply and demand reach an equilibrium.

Non-government private corporations and co-ops can make any investment they want. However, all raw materials and tools in essential industries will be government property. It will be doled out to government co-ops by popular vote. Within a government co-op, your vote will direct the enterprise, but its resources don't belong to you. It's just a government job. This is a bad thing in some ways, and a good thing in others. Eg. As long as your consumers support you, no market forces can put you out of business. This is a good thing for people who love the job itself more than the potential of the business to make them rich.

As for having info, I've said several times that demand is not a kind of knowledge. I know that my proposal will keep many enterprises alive that won't make it in a free market economy. I just don't understand why economists think I should care. I want some financially inefficient enterprises to thrive when there is popular demand for them. Eg. When environmental regulations make capitalist businesses unprofitable, when the people want to support traditional craftsmen who can't compete against robots, etc.

[Travis B.]

Non-government private corporations and co-ops can make any investment they want. However, all raw materials and tools in essential industries will be government property. It will be doled out to government co-ops by popular vote. Within a government co-op, your vote will direct the enterprise, but its resources don't belong to you. It's just a government job. This is a bad thing in some ways, and a good thing in others. Eg. As long as your consumers support you, no market forces can put you out of business. This is a good thing for people who love the job itself more than the potential of the business to make them rich.

This seems to me to be too close to state capitalism for comfort. What I prefer is co-ops acting as independent entities, aside from forming groupings with other co-ops, being governed from the ground up by their workers and by other stakeholders such as consumers. The government would serve just to direct the economy in a more hands-off fashion by providing public investment and to provide regulation, lest co-ops misbehave like capitalist enterprises often do.

[rotting bones]

This seems to me to be too close to state capitalism for comfort. What I prefer is co-ops acting as independent entities, aside from forming groupings with other co-ops, being governed from the ground up by their workers and by other stakeholders such as consumers. The government would serve just to direct the economy in a more hands-off fashion by providing public investment and to provide regulation, lest co-ops misbehave like capitalist enterprises often do.

The workers don't own the resources because their job depends on popular vote, they don't own the products because unsold merchandise is donated to charity and the government doesn't turn a profit because the products are exchanged by average man hours. I wouldn't call it state capitalism because the people can vote for old or new enterprises as they please, and the whole system is not for profit.

Can you be more specific as to what you find objectionable in this arrangement? Eg. If you don't like people losing their jobs by vote, if their job stays, then we'll be saddled with low-demand products. Jobs will be plentiful since their creation is decoupled from profitability, and they can apply for a new one under an existing or new government co-op, or become an entrepreneur as they please. By contrast, state capitalist systems are highly rigid and driven by international competition. My proposal isn't motivated by competitiveness at all.

[Travis B.]

This seems to me to be too close to state capitalism for comfort. What I prefer is co-ops acting as independent entities, aside from forming groupings with other co-ops, being governed from the ground up by their workers and by other stakeholders such as consumers. The government would serve just to direct the economy in a more hands-off fashion by providing public investment and to provide regulation, lest co-ops misbehave like capitalist enterprises often do.

The workers don't own the resources because their job depends on popular vote, they don't own the products because unsold merchandise is donated to charity and the government doesn't turn a profit because the products are exchanged by average man hours. I wouldn't call it state capitalism because the people can vote for old or new enterprises as they please, and the whole system is not for profit.

Can you be more specific as to what you find objectionable in this arrangement? Eg. If you don't like people losing their jobs by vote, if their job stays, then we'll be saddled with low-demand products. Jobs will be plentiful since it is decoupled from profitability, and they can apply for a new one under an existing or new government co-op, or become an entrepreneur as they please. By contrast, state capitalist systems are highly rigid and driven by international competition. My proposal isn't motivated by competitiveness at all.

What I find objectionable is production being done as part of the state, where the state closely directs what is produced, even if at some level it is voters voting for what is to be produced. What you propose may not involve the state profiting, but does involve a heavy degree of state control, even if it is in the form of people voting for products.

(Note that one issue I have with voting for products is that there are a lot of products out there that are very necessary but are not aimed at consumers and which consumers would not understand the need for. For instance, at the company I work at right now our main products are software packages aimed at very large-scale aerospace and industrial companies which the average person simply would not comprehend. If it was up to the average person to vote for products our product would be voted into nonexistence.)

I would prefer something more indirect, such as government funding of activities seen as desirable, whether as simply investing in them or as actual directly supporting them, in the case of activities that are needed but are unprofitable, while the government does not own capital and does not own what is produced with it (but is funded via taxes on profits generated by enterprises); capital would be owned solely by the workers who use it, and workers would own the fruits of their labor for them to sell or use as they see fit.

In the case of where there is insufficient demand and insufficient funding, the solution I am for is for co-ops to form networks where workers can be shifted from co-ops with less demand to co-ops with more demand, so workers change their jobs without jobs being lost. There can also be government-sponsored job training programs and like, to improve workers' ability to change from one job to another, in case whole industries are affected negatively by the market.

[rotting bones]

What I find objectionable is production being done as part of the state, where the state closely directs what is produced, even if at some level it is voters voting for what is to be produced. What you propose may not involve the state profiting, but does involve a heavy degree of state control, even if it is in the form of people voting for products.

If the state is not in control, then I can't guarantee anything. Good things may happen, but bad things could happen too. This is the problem with capitalism. Ideally, capitalism is capable of great things. In reality, bad behavior is almost always good business.

(Note that one issue I have with voting for products is that there are a lot of products out there that are very necessary but are not aimed at consumers and which consumers would not understand the need for. For instance, at the company I work right now our main products are software packages aimed at very large-scale aerospace and industrial companies which the average person simply would not comprehend. If it was up to the average person to vote for products our product would be voted into nonexistence.)

Right, I saw this somewhere and forgot to answer it. To support products like these, the industries delivering to consumers must be massive enough to support subsidiaries. In that happens, certain workers in those industries will be directed to collaborate on intermediate products. I would hope the absence of a profit motive would ameliorate conflicts of interest.

I would prefer something more indirect, such as government funding of activities seen as desirable, whether as simply investing in them or as actual directly supporting them, in the case of activities that are needed but are unprofitable, while the government does not own capital and does not own what is produced with it (but is funded via taxes on profits generated by enterprises); capital would be owned solely by the workers who use it, and workers would own the fruits of their labor for them to sell or use as they see fit.

If the popular vote is dissociated from the allocation of resources, then people will once again be alienated from government. This will incentivize the creation of a new right libertarian politics that champions co-ops against government intervention.

In the case of where there is insufficient demand and insufficient funding, the solution I am for is for co-ops to form networks where workers can be shifted from co-ops with less demand to co-ops with more demand, so workers change their jobs without jobs being lost. There can also be government-sponsored job training programs and like, to improve workers' ability to change from one job to another, in case whole industries are affected negatively by the market.

What is there to prevent these co-ops from falling into mutual competition that sabotages cooperative programs?

I would support a movement that seeks to establish your proposal. If the problems I mention crop up, I would hope activists consider moving farther to the left.

[Travis B.]

What I find objectionable is production being done as part of the state, where the state closely directs what is produced, even if at some level it is voters voting for what is to be produced. What you propose may not involve the state profiting, but does involve a heavy degree of state control, even if it is in the form of people voting for products.

If the state is not in control, then I can't guarantee anything. Good things may happen, but bad things could happen too. This is the problem with capitalism. Ideally, capitalism is capable of great things. In reality, bad behavior is almost always good business.

Note that I am for government regulating business, to prevent bad behavior (e.g. to deal with the externalities that the market practically always fails to take into account), as a stick just as giving businesses funding is a carrot.

I would prefer something more indirect, such as government funding of activities seen as desirable, whether as simply investing in them or as actual directly supporting them, in the case of activities that are needed but are unprofitable, while the government does not own capital and does not own what is produced with it (but is funded via taxes on profits generated by enterprises); capital would be owned solely by the workers who use it, and workers would own the fruits of their labor for them to sell or use as they see fit.

If the popular vote is dissociated from the allocation of resources, then people will once again be alienated from government. This will incentivize the creation of a new right libertarian politics that champions co-ops against government intervention.

Government as I see it would be through workers' councils, except where instead of workplaces being represented alone, people are also represented by geographic region. The difference here from traditional democratic government is that government starts at the very most local level, with people in small local regions and people in workplaces choosing individuals from amongst them to serve as delegates in their local workers' council for temporary periods, on a rotating basis, with a clear mandate being given to them by those who select them, and being arbitrarily and immediately recallable (e.g. if they break their mandate). From lower workers' councils the same mechanism operates for selecting delegates for higher workers' councils, and so on. As a result, government would not be as alienated from the general population as is the case with traditional democratic government. There would be no career politicians, decisions would be made from the bottom up, and people would have the most influence over political decisions close to home (whereas in traditional democratic government in many cases people have little influence over political decisions close to home because local races in many cases are not competitive in the first place).

In the case of where there is insufficient demand and insufficient funding, the solution I am for is for co-ops to form networks where workers can be shifted from co-ops with less demand to co-ops with more demand, so workers change their jobs without jobs being lost. There can also be government-sponsored job training programs and like, to improve workers' ability to change from one job to another, in case whole industries are affected negatively by the market.

What is there to prevent these co-ops from falling into mutual competition that sabotages cooperative programs?

That has not befallen Mondragon, which is kind of the model that I am thinking of here.

I would support a movement that seeks to establish your proposal. If the problems I mention crop up, I would hope activists will consider moving farther to the left.

I am not sure if left versus right really captures the differences between our proposals. I think it is more captured by being for a smaller state (one whose main roles are funding and regulation) versus being for a larger state (one who takes a central role in the operation of the entire economy).

[rotting bones]

Government as I see it would be through workers' councils, except where instead of workplaces being represented alone, people are also represented by geographic region. The difference here from traditional democratic government is that government starts at the very most local level, with people in small local regions and people in workplaces choosing individuals from amongst them to serve as delegates in their local workers' council for temporary periods, on a rotating basis, with a clear mandate being given to them by those who select them, and being arbitrarily and immediately recallable (e.g. if they break their mandate). From lower workers' councils the same mechanism operates for selecting delegates for higher workers' councils, and so on. As a result, government would not be as alienated from the general population as is the case with traditional democratic government. There would be no career politicians, decisions would be made from the bottom up, and people would have the most influence over political decisions close to home (whereas in traditional democratic government in many cases people have little influence over political decisions close to home because local races in many cases are not competitive in the first place).

A representative is the weakest link in democracy. From historical experience, I would expect decision-makers to be corrupted into a labor aristocracy. No one can be trusted not to put family first in a crisis, which means enriching oneself through another's labor. Love and corruption are two sides of the same coin.

That has not befallen Mondragon, which is kind of the model that I am thinking of here.

Mondragon is a rare co-op in a capitalist dystopia. You are describing a society where Donald Trump probably represents a co-op.

I am not sure if left versus right really captures the differences between our proposals. I think it is more captured by being for a smaller state (one whose main roles are funding and regulation) versus being for a larger state (one who takes a central role in the operation of the entire economy).

I wouldn't say the state controls the entire economy. Only the essential economy. Bartending is best left to Quark. While my proposal is less libertarian, it is also more directly democratic.

[zompist]

Government as I see it would be through workers' councils, except where instead of workplaces being represented alone, people are also represented by geographic region. The difference here from traditional democratic government is that government starts at the very most local level, with people in small local regions and people in workplaces choosing individuals from amongst them to serve as delegates in their local workers' council for temporary periods, on a rotating basis, with a clear mandate being given to them by those who select them, and being arbitrarily and immediately recallable (e.g. if they break their mandate). From lower workers' councils the same mechanism operates for selecting delegates for higher workers' councils, and so on. As a result, government would not be as alienated from the general population as is the case with traditional democratic government. There would be no career politicians, decisions would be made from the bottom up, and people would have the most influence over political decisions close to home (whereas in traditional democratic government in many cases people have little influence over political decisions close to home because local races in many cases are not competitive in the first place).

In general I am fine with your style of socialism. But this electoral system is pretty undemocratic.

The first level, the local council, might be OK. I don't get the allocation of votes from "regions" and "workers' councils"... does a person get two votes, based on workplace and region? What about people who don't work (disabled, elderly, students, people between jobs)? Plus, this really seems like a way for the largest co-ops to dominate. In a large workplace, potential delegates have name recognition and a large potential base of supporters. Are they more important than people who work alone, or in small groups?

Why would people be more interested in local government in this system? Why would it be more competitive?

"No career politicians" seems questionable. If someone turns out to be a really good delegate, you can't keep them? Rotating delegates seems like a good way to make sure that your councils are ineffective. New delegates won't know what they're doing, and your system is saying that as soon as they learn, you kick them out.

Then, the "higher workers' councils" are elected by the lower? That's less democratic, not more. All you're doing there is replacing direct votes on what interests voters the most-- national policy-- with a system where individual works have no power.

Again, I think designing systems is difficult. On the other hand, every proposed utopia ever is described as being run by benign, enthusiastic people who somehow manage to avoid all the problems in any similar systems. You can't count on benignity or enthusiasm or even any great understanding of how the system is supposed to work.

Mere size is more the cause of "alienation" than "capitalism" is. Whatever system you create to govern a million people, much less a hundred million, individuals will feel distant from it, with little power over it and little belief that their actions matter. The point of democracy isn't that it gives individuals power to live as they want; it's much more that it gives the people the power to kick out a terrible government.

One reason I believe in worker co-ops is because about the only entity that people can feel that they are an important part of is a small one-- on the order of 150 people. We want entities larger than that to be as fair as possible, of course, but it's impossible to scale up solutions that work for 150 people to 150 million.

[rotting bones]

In general I am fine with your style of socialism. But this electoral system is pretty undemocratic.

The first level, the local council, might be OK. I don't get the allocation of votes from "regions" and "workers' councils"... does a person get two votes, based on workplace and region? What about people who don't work (disabled, elderly, students, people between jobs)? Plus, this really seems like a way for the largest co-ops to dominate. In a large workplace, potential delegates have name recognition and a large potential base of supporters. Are they more important than people who work alone, or in small groups?

He could limit how many representatives come from one co-op. Either way, large corporations already receive preferential treatment.

Why would people be more interested in local government in this system? Why would it be more competitive?

Presumably because they only get to participate in local elections. If their representative breaks faith, they would be recalled immediately. This is actually a problem. It would absolutely encourage the election to higher councils of representatives from localities that would benefit from the council's agenda.

Then, the "higher workers' councils" are elected by the lower? That's less democratic, not more. All you're doing there is replacing direct votes on what interests voters the most-- national policy-- with a system where individual works have no power.

Early Communists tried soviets of soviets. Several commentators said they were corrupt. It is possible their own biases were showing, but I doubt it. Leaders like that would be incentivized to be corrupt according to the analysis in the The Dictator's Handbook.

Mere size is more the cause of "alienation" than "capitalism" is. Whatever system you create to govern a million people, much less a hundred million, individuals will feel distant from it, with little power over it and little belief that their actions matter. The point of democracy isn't that it gives individuals power to live as they want; it's much more that it gives the people the power to kick out a terrible government.

One reason I believe in worker co-ops is because about the only entity that people can feel that they are an important part of is a small one-- on the order of 150 people. We want entities larger than that to be as fair as possible, of course, but it's impossible to scale up solutions that work for 150 people to 150 million.

If I can count on getting a job, being paid fairly and being able to buy the products I enjoyed as a child, that is the least alienated system I can imagine. Because of economies of scale, I suspect dividing people into tribes will lead to tribal warfare.

[rotting bones]

An amusing video on economies of scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8

[MacAnDàil]

Ares Land's comments on co-operations give pause for thought.
I agree with Zompist that mere size is a key factor in alienation. Which underlines my support for independence.

Once "the economy" is another name for the robot that spits out food and clothing like a reverse Kardashian, who cares what percentage of the population chooses to sit around and watch TV?

Because that's a problem for people's health, from the impact on sleep to the underuse of neurons in the passiveness to the sendentary lifestyle. And that's without even considering which nonsense they might be watching or the age they might be. The neuroscientist Michel Desmurget details this, as well as the effect of the use of screens too much and too early, in his well-researched book La fabrique du crétin digital. Basically, freeloaders are a danger to themselves.

[rotting bones]

Ares Land's comments on co-operations give pause for thought.

Specifically?

I agree with Zompist that mere size is a key factor in alienation. Which underlines my support for independence.

What about people like me, who are alienated from our home communities? Will you sweep us under the rug because we are a minority?

[Ares Land]

As for having info, I've said several times that demand is not a kind of knowledge.

And yet supply, demand, and how people prioritize their expenses are all essential information.
Under your system, am I allowed to choose between beans made by coop A and those made by coop B? Can I pick a computer by coop C or one by coop D? Am I allowed to work wherever I like? Can a coop hire whoever they light?
If not, we're essentially trusting the voters to make a choice based on information they don't have.
If yes, then you do have markets and competition.

I know that my proposal will keep many enterprises alive that won't make it in a free market economy. I just don't understand why economists think I should care. I want some financially inefficient enterprises to thrive when there is popular demand for them. Eg. When environmental regulations make capitalist businesses unprofitable, when the people want to support traditional craftsmen who can't compete against robots, etc.

No disagreement here; but I should point out that nobody, outside of the most contrarian type of libertarian, opposes that kind of measures!


On more local government and smaller groups: an idea to look at is subsidiarity. The basic idea is that a local issue should be treated by the smallest political entity that is capable of dealing of it. Basically, everything than can be handled at town level is handled there; if the town can't, the county, or the region, then the country, then a larger supranational entity.
Central government only handles that which can't be done at a local level.
That's not too popular on the left since it's mostly a Christian Democratic policy, advocated by Protestant and held as a basic principle in Catholic thought...

What about people like me, who are alienated from our home communities? Will you sweep us under the rug because we are a minority?

That's a very good point. A few ideas on that:
- There should be a mechanism for rules to be applied from the top down. Local communities can have a significant amount of leadership, but there must be ground rules at some point. Local communities should get a great deal more political power, but no 'white only' towns, please, or local tax havens.
- Moving between communities should be possible and not only in a theoretical sense but in a real, practical sense. One problem we have with the UE is that subsidiarity is enforced between the UE and member countries, but not below the national level. It's counter-intuitive but we may get better results by moving power to even more local levels. Currently, the Polish conservative can make life very difficult at a national level, and practically moving to, say, Germany is a very significant change most people won't undertake. On the other hand, if people could move to a more liberal Polish city where other laws are applied, this might make things easier. (It's not ideal, mind. But OTOH wishing conservative voters would just disappear isn't practical).
- Generally it would provide a testing ground for a wider variety of approaches.


On co-ops! I've got nothing against the co-op model; but I don't think it's necessarily the best approaches in all cases.
Take, for instance, Pfizer, which is currently worth 181 billion dollars.
It has 81800 employees; that means under a co-op, each would own about $1.443 million. Among other consequences, this means a new employee can't, in practice, buy his own share. Another problem is what happens if someone leaves Pfizer to go work at a much smaller co op.

More generally, on ownership of the means of production:
Currently, a capitalist enjoys the luxury of a diversified portfolio. Pfizer's current owners don't just invest in pharmaceuticals; they have capital in plenty of other sectors too. They do that for the very simple reason that you don't put your eggs in the same basket.
I don't see why, under a more egalitarian system, ordinary folks shouldn't be allowed the same luxury.
Owning a share of the company/coop your work at is all right, but there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why you don't want all your assets there: you don't like the way it's currently run (yes, this can happen even with worker democracy!) or it's just a source of extra income that you don't particularly care about.
I'd suggest a more general solution of a very distributed ownership of capital, which could take many forms: co-ops, yes, but also investment by small shareowners or investment funds handling small scale portfolio.

The obvious rebuttal to that is that it's just reintroducing capitalism through the back door; to that I'll answer that one specific issue is the concentration of capital and that we can deal with that.
Basically, everyone gets to own some capital, and this is enforced by preventing concentration of capital beyond a certain degree.
That is indeed feasible:
a) If you think socialism is possible at all, then I'd like to point out that if you can socialize the economy right now, tax havens, capital flight and huge concentrations, then dealing with the much simpler problem of preventing capital accumulation before it reaches toxic levels should be fairly easy.
b) The much harder problem of dealing with 19th century style rentiers has been solved before, by -- as Keynes charmingly put it -- euthanizing them. For that matter, France was able to nationalize a solid chunk of its economy as late as 1981. Again, the easier task of redistributing parts of much smaller portfolios is entirely possible.

Nationalization and state ownership of a sizeable chunk of the economy is a possibility too, and to some extent desirable. Currently, the net worth of your average Western state approaches zero (taking into account both assets and debts). Considering that everyone outside hard core libertarians has a very long list of what they'd wish the state would do, it's completely absurd to entrust so much to an entity that for all practical purposes owns nothing at all.
On the other hand, I don't think state should have too much control over the economy, production and investment, for the very simple reason that it's not very good at it.
Leaving the Eastern bloc entirely aside, the track record of state capitalism in the Western world is mixed: sometimes positive (high speed trains, space programs), sometimes successful but entirely at odds with what people wanted (France's civil nuclear program), sometimes sub-par (France's plans for telecommunication, networks and computing, which worked but undeniably outperformed by Silicon Valley solutions and reduced to irrelevance in a few years) and sometimes a complete failure (Britain's deep crisis in the 1970s, various attempts at providing home grown alternatives to Google).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

On more local government and smaller groups: an idea to look at is subsidiarity. The basic idea is that a local issue should be treated by the smallest political entity that is capable of dealing of it. Basically, everything than can be handled at town level is handled there; if the town can't, the county, or the region, then the country, then a larger supranational entity.
Central government only handles that which can't be done at a local level.
That's not too popular on the left since it's mostly a Christian Democratic policy, advocated by Protestant and held as a basic principle in Catholic thought...

More generally, on ownership of the means of production:
Currently, a capitalist enjoys the luxury of a diversified portfolio. Pfizer's current owners don't just invest in pharmaceuticals; they have capital in plenty of other sectors too. They do that for the very simple reason that you don't put your eggs in the same basket.
I don't see why, under a more egalitarian system, ordinary folks shouldn't be allowed the same luxury.
Owning a share of the company/coop your work at is all right, but there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why you don't want all your assets there: you don't like the way it's currently run (yes, this can happen even with worker democracy!) or it's just a source of extra income that you don't particularly care about.
I'd suggest a more general solution of a very distributed ownership of capital, which could take many forms: co-ops, yes, but also investment by small shareowners or investment funds handling small scale portfolio.

The obvious rebuttal to that is that it's just reintroducing capitalism through the back door; to that I'll answer that one specific issue is the concentration of capital and that we can deal with that.
Basically, everyone gets to own some capital, and this is enforced by preventing concentration of capital beyond a certain degree.
That is indeed feasible:
a) If you think socialism is possible at all, then I'd like to point out that if you can socialize the economy right now, tax havens, capital flight and huge concentrations, then dealing with the much simpler problem of preventing capital accumulation before it reaches toxic levels should be fairly easy.
b) The much harder problem of dealing with 19th century style rentiers has been solved before, by -- as Keynes charmingly put it -- euthanizing them. For that matter, France was able to nationalize a solid chunk of its economy as late as 1981. Again, the easier task of redistributing parts of much smaller portfolios is entirely possible.

This sounds a great deal like distributism, of which I've long been fond. Much of it does have basis in Christian democracy and, yes, older Catholic social teaching, but its origin does not mean it need imply any sort of religiosity in its implementation (I'm not quite in favour of state relgions generally, yet some European state churches look, from the outside, very moderate, and hypothetically could be useful as shields against extremism, though this also feels rather cynical).

Nationalization and state ownership of a sizeable chunk of the economy is a possibility too, and to some extent desirable. Currently, the net worth of your average Western state approaches zero (taking into account both assets and debts). Considering that everyone outside hard core libertarians has a very long list of what they'd wish the state would do, it's completely absurd to entrust so much to an entity that for all practical purposes owns nothing at all.
...
Leaving the Eastern bloc entirely aside, the track record of state capitalism in the Western world is mixed: sometimes positive (high speed trains, space programs), sometimes successful but entirely at odds with what people wanted (France's civil nuclear program), sometimes sub-par (France's plans for telecommunication, networks and computing, which worked but undeniably outperformed by Silicon Valley solutions and reduced to irrelevance in a few years) and sometimes a complete failure (Britain's deep crisis in the 1970s, various attempts at providing home grown alternatives to Google).

Coming up with home-grown alternatives to Google and the rest is, at least hypothetically, very rational. Information technology companies are enormously powerful, and the limitation of that power is desirable, as is giving them competition, to keep them innovative, and to make sure they don't take their user-bases for granted. I would, on some level, also like the Internet to return to something of a pre-Corporate-takeover state — not a total wild west, but one in which everything isn't so commercialised, and in which major companies don't have so much power, or such control over the flow of information (though we are, admittedly, in the midst of a disinformation epidemic, though if we have more transparency in everything, surely the conspiracy paraonoia will die down at least somewhat).

On co-ops! I've got nothing against the co-op model; but I don't think it's necessarily the best approaches in all cases.
Take, for instance, Pfizer, which is currently worth 181 billion dollars.
It has 81800 employees; that means under a co-op, each would own about $1.443 million. Among other consequences, this means a new employee can't, in practice, buy his own share. Another problem is what happens if someone leaves Pfizer to go work at a much smaller co op.

I once imagined a gradual buy-in for when one ends up working at a larger business, which would couple well with some sort of UBI: one gradually buys smaller amount of shares rather than an equal share in the business all at once, and uses this as supplemental income alongside the UBI. However, I maintain my dislike of shareholders having hypothetically infinite returns on finite investments, especially when they contribute no labour to a business.

[Ares Land]

This sounds a great deal like distributism, of which I've long been fond. Much of it does have basis in Christian democracy and, yes, older Catholic social teaching, but its origin does not mean it need imply any sort of religiosity in its implementation (I'm not quite in favour of state relgions generally, yet some European state churches look, from the outside, very moderate, and hypothetically could be useful as shields against extremism, though this also feels rather cynical).

Heh. I'm not a Christian myself, but I generally find myself very much in agreement with left-wing Catholics.
Practicing Catholics in French can be very decent people with a much more solid grasp on ethics and policy than most non-religious left-wing people. The problem is that they are, I believe, a minority among practicing Catholics. The Catholic vote skews right and the views held often border on far-right.

Coming up with home-grown alternatives to Google and the rest is, at least hypothetically, very rational. Information technology companies are enormously powerful, and the limitation of that power is desirable, as is giving them competition, to keep them innovative, and to make sure they don't take their user-bases for granted. I would, on some level, also like the Internet to return to something of a pre-Corporate-takeover state — not a total wild west, but one in which everything isn't so commercialised, and in which major companies don't have so much power, or such control over the flow of information (though we are, admittedly, in the midst of a disinformation epidemic, though if we have more transparency in everything, surely the conspiracy paraonoia will die down at least somewhat).

I entirely agree with the idea of alternatives to Google and other corporate actors. The problem is that, at this point, alternatives have failed.
Of course, there's a solid case to be made that efforts in that direction have been entirely inadequate.

Free and open source software is an interesting case. FOSS is generally of far better quality and it's produced with a mix of private investment, individual volunteering, and academic and state contribution.
It also provides a very good example of the free market failing in an utterly preposterous way.
Getting a company or any institution to adopt a free software solution is a major hassle; I've been doing it for almost ten years, and successfully, I'm happy to report, but that requires so much effort it's often tempting to give up and let the CIO buy IBM or Microsoft to his heart's content. This despite open source alternatives being both cheaper and of better quality.

(Another failure is that generally evolution of personal computing is rapidly leading to a situation where most people are pure content consumers and entirely computer illiterate.)

However, I maintain my dislike of shareholders having hypothetically infinite returns on finite investments, especially when they contribute no labour to a business.

Having given more thought to the subject, I find myself agreeing with you. Return on investment needs to be limited, and at the very least finite if we want to discourage capital accumulation.
(Which doesn't imply that people need to contribute both capital and labor in the same investment!)

[Torco]

I'm in general very lax with this kind of thing: even though that's the story they sell, if you round out the decimals no worker can ever accumulate enough money to start a big business under capitalism, where the system is supposed to work so that that is possible. For that reason, I'm sympathetic to just let people and coops just invest their stuff and have savings and whatnot: investment is not an absurd operation anyway, some things _are_ better sown in winter and reaped in the summer.

The solutions to these kinds of details are, at any rate, a matter for successful revolutionaries to settle amongst themselves, democratically and responding to the local circumstances: if the yankees and their trillions of dollars of machines of death are aiming at your forehead, maybe you'd be willing to compromise in radical economic democracy in favour of nukes to make sure they don't pull the trigger.

(Another failure is that generally evolution of personal computing is rapidly leading to a situation where most people are pure content consumers and entirely computer illiterate.)

I agree with the symptoms but not the diagnosis: personal computers used to encourage computer literacy. it's smartphones and a specific business model coming to dominate the industry that has reversed that trend, not the fact that tiny computers are more common.

[Ares Land]

The solutions to these kinds of details are, at any rate, a matter for successful revolutionaries to settle amongst themselves, democratically and responding to the local circumstances: if the yankees and their trillions of dollars of machines of death are aiming at your forehead, maybe you'd be willing to compromise in radical economic democracy in favour of nukes to make sure they don't pull the trigger.

It's not quite detail: these very practical bits really do explain quite a bit about why the Eastern Bloc turned out as it did, or why state ownership under Western European social democracy was a disappointment.

Some people are content with the idea of getting rid of capitalism (which is understandable!). I'm more pessimistic. I generally feel that if we leave the details for later, most people will half-ass the implementation and some will try to grab power where they can.
The Soviet Union is too easy a target. Let's pick on France instead.
The left (including socialists and communists) came in power in 1981 with a stated objective of getting rid of capitalism, and figuring out that everything would sort out after a good deal of nationalization (*). Needless to say, that didn't work out at all like expected. Many voters were convinced enough by Reaganomics by 1986 to put conservatives in power again.

We can't even blame outside interference: the Americans generally didn't give a single fuck who was in power in France. (They found, in fact, the socialists easier to work with. Ironically, the Soviets were frankly bothered about all this. They were more comfortable with the centrists/conservatives traditionally in power, who were, at least a know entity.)


(*) OTOH, I still think of Mitterrand's two mandates as positive overall. The socialists did implement a lot that was much needed; but of course a lot of people were deeply disappointed that they never eliminated capitalism.

(Another failure is that generally evolution of personal computing is rapidly leading to a situation where most people are pure content consumers and entirely computer illiterate.)

I agree with the symptoms but not the diagnosis: personal computers used to encourage computer literacy. it's smartphones and a specific business model coming to dominate the industry that has reversed that trend, not the fact that tiny computers are more common.
[/quote]

I really agree with you here; it's indeed smartphones and the current business model I was thinking of.