> 1) We don't choose to be born and live in this society. It just happens, and we don't get to learn the survival skills necessary to do without it. Therefore, one could say we're stuck in it. Especially considering nowadays everything is property of someone, you can't just go and take a piece of forest to have your primitive tribe there.
You're not stuck. Learning survival skills is not very hard. You are simply waking up every single day and choosing not to do it. Nobody is stopping you.
> 2) Technology and innovation ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE to Capitalism. Repeat it once again if you need. Soviets had a space program too you realize that? Saying that Capitalism is the only way to have innovation, because someone invented iPhone under Capitalism means having no idea of what false correlation is. I'd suggest studying the very basis of statistics before making such claims.
Of course the Soviets had a space program. It's all they had. Their economy was falling apart. Centrally planned economies can do things. They're particularly effective at mustering the entire population behind a single project: like the space race.
They're much less good at doing all the things necessary to run a modern economy simultaneously. Everyone who has ever tried to run an economy this way has failed. The Soviets, the Chinese, North Korea is still making a valiant effort, but it sure doesn't seem to be working out very well for them.
It's true that capitalism isn't the only way to have innovation. It's also true that it's the only way to do it consistently, over a long period of time, across a broad array of industries. There are precisely zero counter-examples in world history. Of course, that doesn't prove it can't be done. But the numbers don't look very good.
> Maybe we can take the best from both worlds. Lose the hunger for profit, the abstract finance, the exploitation and keep the progress.
It'd be nice. I think if you want ideas like that, Glen Weyl's book Radical Markets is probably for you. Fundamentally you aren't going to make any progress on creating that world until you recognize that markets are not your enemy. Centralized state planning is not and never will be an effective way of coordinating an economy. It can be useful in some domains, but it simply doesn't work to run an entire economy that way. What you can do, however, are create market mechanisms that are more progressive than what we have now, by having properly designed taxation schemes, as described in the aforementioned book.
You're not stuck. Learning survival skills is not very hard. You are simply waking up every single day and choosing not to do it. Nobody is stopping you.
> 2) Technology and innovation ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE to Capitalism. Repeat it once again if you need. Soviets had a space program too you realize that? Saying that Capitalism is the only way to have innovation, because someone invented iPhone under Capitalism means having no idea of what false correlation is. I'd suggest studying the very basis of statistics before making such claims.
Of course the Soviets had a space program. It's all they had. Their economy was falling apart. Centrally planned economies can do things. They're particularly effective at mustering the entire population behind a single project: like the space race.
They're much less good at doing all the things necessary to run a modern economy simultaneously. Everyone who has ever tried to run an economy this way has failed. The Soviets, the Chinese, North Korea is still making a valiant effort, but it sure doesn't seem to be working out very well for them.
It's true that capitalism isn't the only way to have innovation. It's also true that it's the only way to do it consistently, over a long period of time, across a broad array of industries. There are precisely zero counter-examples in world history. Of course, that doesn't prove it can't be done. But the numbers don't look very good.
> Maybe we can take the best from both worlds. Lose the hunger for profit, the abstract finance, the exploitation and keep the progress.
It'd be nice. I think if you want ideas like that, Glen Weyl's book Radical Markets is probably for you. Fundamentally you aren't going to make any progress on creating that world until you recognize that markets are not your enemy. Centralized state planning is not and never will be an effective way of coordinating an economy. It can be useful in some domains, but it simply doesn't work to run an entire economy that way. What you can do, however, are create market mechanisms that are more progressive than what we have now, by having properly designed taxation schemes, as described in the aforementioned book.