Convince me

Distributism is a generally christian ideology. I've been lurking a while using this flag

The problem is not the CEO making ridiculous money, that is just an easily visible highly paid employee with a bit of stock most of the time.

Its the people who own the stock. They ultimately get the money that the workers produced, not the ceos. Those are not counted as income, but dividents, and are not taxed as income. In addition to that, they dont have to be employed in any company so they don't have to keep to those rules.

You are trying to stop a fish from swimming in water. Capitalism as a system inherently promotes monopolies and oligopolies because they make money money and thus are able to clear out the competition. Why do you want to keep in place a system where you create two classes, one which wants to fuck over the workers for more money because it has to to keep its company competitive and alive, and the other who want higher wages, even at the detriment of the company.

I mean if you have such a fucking hard on for markets but still want all this "fair&social" shit, just be a fucking market socialist. No owners, all companies are owned and controlled by the workers that work in them. Means of production won't be moved away so they can threaten you with it like they do now, because the workers won't make themselves unemployed, and shit decisions won't be made as easily because it affects all of the workers.

Its still far from perfect, because you will still have falling profit rates, competition, races to the bottom, business cycles, rising unemployment, but it covers all of the koombaya shit you want and its slightly better than actual full on capitalism.

...

You will never convince anyone to your ideology in the immature way you're acting. Give it up already and join the distributist master race.

If people are generally born ethical, as Rousseau thinks, then why would capitalist leaders do that so often? Don't you think it's a structural problem? In which case, why is it limited to just capitalism? Why can't we put restraints in place to stop it?

Market socialism seems fine to me, but I think distributism and social democracy works better in practice. I'd like to see market socialism tried more though.

it's just communism I find to be utopian and silly.
You've also got so much sectarianism that I think you'll *never* be able to organise properly

...

it IS a structural problem, and the solution to fixing a structural problem is not to put dicktape on it, its to build a structure that does not have structural problems. This is what socialism is, an answer to the structural problems of capitalism. The best restraint is to design a system that does not allow/encourage it by its very core design. The answer to people riding on top of trains is not to fine them, but to add more carts.

How can you guarantee you can reach socialism, and that we can't just continue to monitor capitalism closely and make sure it doesn't recede into the nonsense that is a result of its structural problems?

Surely, after generations of seeing the failures of capitalism and resetting to social democracy, people will realise Keynesianism is much better. History is not a circle.

...

Look, I don't care about what your thoughts are on religion, but you will never convince enough people, and I'm convinced of that.

Fine, then fuck off.

Have you paid any attention to what I just said? The capitalists will do anything to break down social benefits and social democracy because the system forces them, lest the end up going bankrupt. In a world full of perfect social democratic nations, yo live in a constant prisoners dilemma. One person has to give in a little bit to their social democracy and the capitalists will move their production there to save money, after which the other countries will be pressured and forced to reduce theirs too to keep the businesses they still have. This continues until you have a race to the bottom again, which ends up in having social democracy destroyed.

By keeping capitalism, you give the capitalists undemocratic power. They will use this power to their advantage, which can destroy the power of the citizens.

"The system forces them"
How if there are restraints?

"Lest them going bankrupt"
Not going to happen if you're in an actual fair market without monopolies. No small company would hold that much influence. You've proven by your analyses that capitalists *can* pay workers ethically and compete in a fair market. Why not use restraints to artificially create a fair market?

if you want to get rid of countries, why can't I? And if that were true, workers would work for bare minimum as it is, but that's not so because of….unions. And unions are still feasible under social democracy.

I don't think you've gone into a detailed enough analysis.

Because that is the fucking nature of capitalism. If you produce less efficient than your competitor, their prices will be lower, meaning that they will sell more stuff, allowing them to invest more, allowing them to produce more cheaply etc. And then nobody will buy your stuff, you go bankrupt. Therefore the capitalist needs to cut costs, even if it means breaking down the social democracy.

A small company can still go bankrupt. It does not matter if two mega car companies compete or two corner shops, if the prices of one are cheaper, they will have more customers, meaning that the other has to decrease its prices too, until one of them can not keep up anymore and goes under. The most companies that fail are small businesses, they can't keep up the game for as long, so larger companies will overall win out and become bigger due to a gaining a bigger market.

No I did not, don't project your own delusions onto me. Show me where I "proved" that.

They do in most of the world, even the first world. The bare minimum BEING up to the point that they demand more or else they are going to fuck your shit up. Unions are what happen when workers are driven to their limits, and as seen in all of the first world, their power diminishes once they accomplice a bit better wage, then wages go down again, and unions get stronger again. Also, you conveniently ignore unemployment. Even unions are forced on their knees by the capitalists by threatening to move the factory. You can force a union to give in to worse conditions by threatening to move the factory from Hamburg to Munchen, and force munchen to force lower wages by saying that you won't come unless they do. Shit work is better than no work. And minimum wage will be driven down because politicians are corruptable. All your arguments basically boil down to
Laws don't scare them off, you have seen that. Even in "good" social democracies the rich get barely any punishment for fucking shit up or breaking the law.

You want me to give you an entire detailed analysis of the capitalist system and all its factors in regards to social democracy? On an image board? Are you mental? Of course you are.

Entire books have been written on the workings of capitalism, an entire ideology has been formed around this analisys.

Its called communism. If you actually want a very detailed analysis of the capitalist system, you should start reading Das Kapital. It was written for exactly that purpose. I have given you an adequate analysis in response to image board spam.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

You've just repeated your initial premise without justifying it. I asked how capitalism would be able to do that very thing you're explaining- that is, breaking down social democracy. Why do you think corporations under a market would be able to garner a monopoly naturally?

Yes it can go bankrupt. It's not going to affect the larger market though, is it? Not much. That's my point! There will be no mega corps under a fair market.

Yes, you did. You agreed that capitalists don't have to pay workers less, but they do so because they want to compete in the free market. We're talking about a fair market.

This is not something that has to happen by its very nature though. Agreed?

Again, you're applying laws of today. They *can* be better enforced, I'm sure you'll agree.

lol, never heard of it do tell. And that's false. I can criticise capitalism without embracing communism.

They HAVE to compete, because otherwise they will go bankrupt. Therefore, they HAVE to lower wages.

Well then why don't you explain what this is.

They can be better enforced, but they won't be, because guess who offers the politicians money for their campaigns, or cushy jobs after their terms are over? Capitalism creates two opposing classes, and as such both classes will do what is in their interests, which means the class with lots of money is going to use that money to buy out politician. You can not prevent corruptions without preventing wealth disparity, which is by its very nature impossible if you allow one class to exploit the other.

NO. AS I FUCKING SAID:

but they can compete on a sphere on which the bar is artificially raised, RIGHT? E.g., limiting shares, limiting wages on the higher ups, raising taxes etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value

You need to read what I say instead of talking at me.

They will still compete. And thus try to cut costs. Which means they will try to cut wages. And they will use, among many others, the tactics I described. Raising tax or limiting the amount of shares per person per company is not going to do shit. They will simply invest their money more evenly and work with the other shareholders who have the same interests as he does, getting more money. The stock owners are not "higher ups", and they don't get paid wages. You can limit dividend income, but at that point they will simply use lawyers to find loopholes where they can, or simply use mules and launder the money. At this point I have to ask, if you want to keep capitalist damage to a minimum while still allowing for wage work, why not simply support market socialism, abolishing private property altogether. This fixes a few of the issues you don't like about the economic system, although it would still allow for decreasing wages in competitive environments, or monopolies/secret cartels to make more money.

That just is a term to describe a transaction deemed sufficiently "fair", it has nothing to do with a type of market. That "fair market price" is still the result from competition and supply and demand. Furthermore, it is a meaningless term because the buyer is always motivated, pressured by something, otherwise he would not buy, and the seller is pressure by the need to sell it in order to become a buyer somewhere else. In any transaction, both parties are pressured, because a trade attempt where neither party feels pressure does not happen, since there would be no need for one of the parties to engage in the trade. If one brings up the situation of "what if he pays more than the seller knows he can buy somewhere else easily" then it is not a fair market value, because the buy is not knowledgeable, as by its definition.

democracy, for one

Well shitposted, faggot.

wow, these totally not idealistic abstractions will totally work

communists are not democrats, you should know that

all democracies so far have been slave holding societies to varying degrees (ancient greek slavery, or modern wage slavery)

'democrats' desire state power and structures of representation instead of communalism, equality and liberty

you need to take the first step, dawg