It's not someone asking for communism, just for the return of a more healthy capitalism where everyone has a chance to invest, as opposed to some sort of feudalism where private ownership of strategic companies becomes more common, monopoly is the goal of every owner, and competition is seen as a harmful.
This capitalism of yesterday was also a key part of protecting us from people being enrolled in totalitarian world views: people used to say "when trade doesn't cross borders, armies will". Now, with that monopoly/concentrated economy mindset, the thinking in the US has shifted to "we must cross borders to secure our interests".
Calling it communism is the kind of fucked up newspeak supporting less capitalism rather than more.
Incidentally, you might find Sheen's "Communism and the Conscience of the West"[0] eye opening.
Wojtyła had similar things to say, which surprises people, because during the Cold War, he was seen as staunchly anti-communist - which he was - and the triumphant general responsible for toppling it, but his critiques and warnings concerning liberalism/capitalism were conveniently ignored or overlooked.
This doesn't sound like communism to me. Rather it sounds like an attempt to proselytize capitalism. The stated purpose of the book is to "to create an elevated vision for capitalism in which everyone gets richer from capital". The author goes on to state that they are researching things like equity incentive structures and profit sharing models.
Capitalism is all about aligning incentives. Those of us who have experienced startups know just how important it is to have your employees aligned with the interests of the company in the form of equity grants. I've always personally wondered why this isn't more common outside of Silicon Valley. I respect the goal of researching these topics more deeply.
I don't want to be the one, but did you actually read the article? Author is talking about "vision for the future of capitalism", "create an elevated vision for capitalism", and "project about creating more owners", so if anything it's like neo-capitalism or something, nowhere near communism if you have proper understanding of the concept.
Been listening to All-In podcast and they've been talking like this - its really amusing to see them (and this author) get excited by what are essentially taxes with a different narrative (i.e. US sovereign wealth fund, give cash to US citizens to invest in S&P, NASDAQ, crypto to give them skin in the game).
The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government.
The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees.
In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game.
To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies.
I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.
The chunk of the economy you own should be proportionate to the amount you contributed to growing the economy. In modern, functioning economies, this is more or less the case.
The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump.
People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as:
>People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as.
I don't think anybody cares much about the inequality itself (if anything, most people to care actually benefit from it), but apparent positive feedback loop that converts more wealth into more political power into more wealth, which seems to undermine first caveat you mentioned and also apparent erosion of the second at the same time.
"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump."
That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.
Capital (as in "money", not the means of production) is, boiled down, a means of social compulsion. I can compel a person to make me a sandwich with $10, and should they refuse very many times, they will be put into a position of jeopardy, with less access to food, shelter, medical services, hygiene, etc. In our culture, capital is like a whip to a horse and buggy.
Putting more capital into more people's pockets is like putting more whips into more people's hands. It does not address the root cause of the problem.
Can civilization work without social compulsion? I think our fear that it can’t, or our belief that the only way to compel people is the threat of punishment, is what keeps these dynamics alive.
>If we don’t do something about it we could lose democracy.
I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken.
But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This creates a catch 22 situation, because people enjoy this level of life, and are going to elect leaders that will let them continue to live this way, not realizing that this is not sustainable. Which automatically makes them reject any leaders that are attempting to fix the problems that are slowly created, because those solutions means either less freedoms or less money in the short term (even if it means more money or more freedoms in the long term).
I dunno what the solution to this is really, and nobody does. You can argue that strong authoritarian control by the right coalition could fix this, but then the question becomes "how do make enough people believe that they don't deserve the freedoms that they had in order to put trust in that coalition"
Oh, you will have election a-okay, it's not that modern dictatorships don't care to do the dance. The problem is the deep suspicion of who will win them forming 4 years in advance.
>I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken.
My guess- US coordinates with China on the timing of Taiwan's takeover. Trump then argues he can't very well step down in the middle of a war.
datadrivenangel|11 months ago
scarface_74|11 months ago
Without home equity it’s about 1.5 million.
Source: https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator/
Muromec|11 months ago
pyrale|11 months ago
This capitalism of yesterday was also a key part of protecting us from people being enrolled in totalitarian world views: people used to say "when trade doesn't cross borders, armies will". Now, with that monopoly/concentrated economy mindset, the thinking in the US has shifted to "we must cross borders to secure our interests".
Calling it communism is the kind of fucked up newspeak supporting less capitalism rather than more.
lo_zamoyski|11 months ago
Wojtyła had similar things to say, which surprises people, because during the Cold War, he was seen as staunchly anti-communist - which he was - and the triumphant general responsible for toppling it, but his critiques and warnings concerning liberalism/capitalism were conveniently ignored or overlooked.
[0] https://clunymedia.com/products/communism-and-the-conscience...
bryceneal|11 months ago
Capitalism is all about aligning incentives. Those of us who have experienced startups know just how important it is to have your employees aligned with the interests of the company in the form of equity grants. I've always personally wondered why this isn't more common outside of Silicon Valley. I respect the goal of researching these topics more deeply.
diggan|11 months ago
somethoughts|11 months ago
The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government.
The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees.
In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game.
To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies.
I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.
SoftMachine|11 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|11 months ago
[deleted]
slibhb|11 months ago
The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump.
People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as:
1. Wealth is highly correlated to productivity
2. The poor have access to the necessities
Muromec|11 months ago
I don't think anybody cares much about the inequality itself (if anything, most people to care actually benefit from it), but apparent positive feedback loop that converts more wealth into more political power into more wealth, which seems to undermine first caveat you mentioned and also apparent erosion of the second at the same time.
mugwumprk|11 months ago
That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.
mouse_|11 months ago
Putting more capital into more people's pockets is like putting more whips into more people's hands. It does not address the root cause of the problem.
helicalmix|11 months ago
also, the person's only source of wages isn't going to be specifically making sandwiches for just you, no?
louthy|11 months ago
panic|11 months ago
lo_zamoyski|11 months ago
What a childish and ignorant comment.
ActorNightly|11 months ago
I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken.
But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This creates a catch 22 situation, because people enjoy this level of life, and are going to elect leaders that will let them continue to live this way, not realizing that this is not sustainable. Which automatically makes them reject any leaders that are attempting to fix the problems that are slowly created, because those solutions means either less freedoms or less money in the short term (even if it means more money or more freedoms in the long term).
I dunno what the solution to this is really, and nobody does. You can argue that strong authoritarian control by the right coalition could fix this, but then the question becomes "how do make enough people believe that they don't deserve the freedoms that they had in order to put trust in that coalition"
Muromec|11 months ago
pupppet|11 months ago
My guess- US coordinates with China on the timing of Taiwan's takeover. Trump then argues he can't very well step down in the middle of a war.
xnx|11 months ago
Dictatorships can still have elections. Putin won his last election with 88% of the vote
slibhb|11 months ago
Care to make it interesting?