[atonse]

(genuinely asking) Is there another theoretical system that properly incentivizes people to compete with each other, innovate, and take risks to solve problems? I ask in the "build new solutions" space – we all know there are plenty of rent-seeking businesses that add no value but just take money from everyone. I'm not trying to defend any of that. I'm only asking in the case of "people doing new, innovative things and solving difficult problems" space.

[kag0]

There are a lot, the most mainstream are going to fall under "socialism". But to give you a specific answer, check out "Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy". It's a debate between Robin Hahnel and Erik Olin Wright around their personal ideas.

More broadly speaking, any number of systems could compensate people for innovation and problem solving (note I don't think competition should be rewarded in its own right, and risk taking isn't necessary in many systems) by providing them an elevated quality of life. The main difference to our capitalist system today is that rather than trying to accumulate as much personal capital as possible, value created from innovation would only go to the individual as needed to incentivize them. The rest would go to improving the world and lives of the people around them. Of course this requires the individual have some agency in that improvement, which we find lacking in the Soviet Union or other failed communist states.

[saulpw]

Let's not conflate "capitalism" with a "market economy". Capitalism is where the investors/shareholders reap most if not all of the rewards from market successes, while the innovators and problem-solvers are paid a fixed salary and given nominal (and often ephemeral) equity.

An alternative system could reward all stakeholders equitably, instead of just investors. The larger set of stakeholders include employees, customers, even members of the community that don't actively participate in the business (but they sure are affected by the business' success--witness traffic problems in Seattle caused largely by the growth of Microsoft and Amazon).

It's a brilliant trick the capitalist class has played on us (and apologies to those of you on the capital side--it's probably not your individual fault), to get us to believe that the only way to get competition and innovation is to take their money and give them all the profits.

[becquerel]

communism, because when everyone's basic needs are guaranteed they have the mental/physical bandwidth to be innovators, and without commodity fetishism, scientific advancements can be made for the sake of responding to human needs, rather than facilitating the creation of products

[HealthNeed]

History says that while the idea may have merit, the implementation has been poor, tragic even.

[dgfitz]

Communism in the US is just never going to happen. Full stop. Just. Not. Happening.

Following your line of reasoning to conclusion, what incentive do I have to work if all my "needs" are provided already? Extrapolate that out to the rest of the population. Oh so now I am being forced to work? What motivation do I have to do a good job? What will happen, I'll get fired from the job? Who cares, all my 'needs' are already taken care of. By who? I don't know. Oh wait I do know, by NOBODY.

This communism bullshit has got to stop, it's just never going to fucking happen.

[ativzzz]

There was a joke in soviet russia - "we don't get paid much, so we also don't work much either"

[gusgus01]

Well the question wasn't "What's a system that could happen in the USA", it was specifically asking about theoretical systems.

[janalsncm]

There’s something to be said for the fact that in a monopoly, the logical conclusion of capitalism, there is also a lack of competition and incentive to innovate.

To answer your question, though, if everyone’s needs were actually met why should anyone work? Within the century we will be living in a world where a lot of our most basic needs can be fulfilled by fully autonomous machines. Who should benefit from this? A few trillionaires, while the rest toil their lives away? Or the majority, whose lives can all be improved?

Likely every country will answer that question for themselves. But I submit that a country where there are the better part of a million homeless people (including children) and a handful of space-faring billionaires and celebrities hardly has the moral authority to shake their fingers at the others.

[dgfitz]

> Within the century we will be living in a world where a lot of our most basic needs can be fulfilled by fully autonomous machines.

How can you possibly know that? Answer: you can't.

Back in the 50s it was assumed we would have flying cars by now. Turns out we don't.

Dismissing my point with "well in 100 years.." is, to be blunt, a lazy, bullshit response.

[tacheiordache]

That's in theory only. In practice communism develops just like crony capitalism does.