The only thing coming close is Social Democracy. But in Social Democracy there is usually lots of capitalism going on. Sometimes with highly perverse incentives, if the markets has been altered in a ham-fisted way.

In conclusion, the track record for socialized production is not stellar. Far from it.

The technological approach is more interesting to me. If you can make distributed manufacturing efficient enough that a single person or group of people can own the capital needed to sustain themselves, you place a lower limit on the extent to which market-based social contract regression can harm a population. Alternatively, from the capitalist angle: companies that directly trade goods for labor are in a unique position to profit from a glut of labor that is not competitive on the global market.

This isn't a new idea. We call them communes. They have a well deserved reputation for being a shitshow. Probably because what they're trying to do -- boil a globe-spanning sprawl of infrastructure and trade down to an acceptable MVP -- is really, really hard. Unlike the world economy, though, that difficulty is a function of technology, rather than politics. Technology improves over time. Politics does not. Which means there's probably going to be a crossing point. I haven't the faintest clue when. I do my (tiny) part by contributing to "industrial" open source projects (mechanical and electrical modeling and simulation), which sorely need any attention they can get, regardless the underlying philosophy.

I'm not an expert, but it seems that all known political and/or economic systems fail in the face of greed and selfishness. Or maybe greed is the effect of a failed political system, either or all known systems are a failure from my perspective.

I think capitalism balanced by laws has worked best so far, but you seem to need so many laws that it creates loopholes. I.e blacklists doesn't work that well, especially not a complex blacklist. (And I'd even suggest that the blacklist has been trojaned by lobbyists and other agendas.)

So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation.

But, of course real solutions--particularly to such macro scale challenges--are seldom found at the extremes.

If we could spark an earnest discussion about what a saner version of capitalism would look like, then we could find a solution, and relatively easily vs what our "manipulated" experience might suggest.

EDIT: looking at the responses, then rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is the state of things is such that the solutions offered are characterized as communist, with the offered alternative being a form of laissez-faire economics, positioned as "standard" capitalism.

My bad. I blew that one.

There's plenty that's flawed about capitalism, but the thing is that it works better than anything else we've so far thought of for providing actual incentives for people to push the envelope of what's possible and create new things in economically viable ways. If there were some way to equally effectively incentivize regulatory oversight - which we manifestly do not have in existing governmental structures - we'd be in solid shape.

Carefully regulated capitalism should do fine. This is obviously not easy to achieve.

Incidentally, if you'd read the link which the other poster provided on market socialism, you'd have noticed that it scales in exactly the same way that laissez-faire capitalism scales, making your critique unfounded.

UPD: please don't downvote me, I am on spectrum

_For Profit_ doesn't cut it and is buggy. The side-effects are the waste due to consumerism, unsustainability and potential application crash (climate & earth).

The variables in the model needs to be tweaked so a new system evolves.

Wait, what??? Capitalism has been ludicrously effective at creating wealth and raising standards of living. What it hasn't necessarily done is guarantee equality or ensure that the very lowest (economic) class of citizens have a SoL that's above the baseline that a lot of people want. And given that Capitalism isn't a prescriptive system anyway, that's hardly surprising. It's also less than surprising given that we don't live (at least in the US and most of the Western world) in a truly capitalistic society to begin with. Most of this world is a mixed economy which features massive government regulation and other elements which work against pure laissez-faire.

Personally, I don't consider a certain measure of inequality to be a problem, with the caveat that nobody is artificially restrained from achieving economic success.

To me, we aren't waiting for "the left" (whatever that is) to present some new anti-capitalist plan... we're waiting to find a way to evolve society so that we can avoid the extremes of inequality that we have now, and create that baseline SoL for everyone. And I see no reason to think that Capitalism isn't the foundation those things should be built on.

The biggest thing that worries me right now is the whole "technological unemployment" issue. I remember worrying about that as far back as 7th grade... and while, so far, robots haven't replaced jobs to such an extreme that it's rendered human labor useless, one does wonder what will happen if/when that comes to pass. And there, to be honest, I will say that I'm not sure if the Capitalist approach will be workable. But on the flip-side, I'm not sure what other approach we can construct that doesn't require use of violence to redistribute wealth.

I've been trying to think about what something better might look like, and I hope people more versed in these subjects than I are doing so as well.

Likewise. Mainly I wish I had more time to think about this stuff.

They are structures or perhaps models. They all fail because of people not doing what they're supposed to be doing. The only true solution would be a process that forces people to do what they're supposed to do.

And I don't see that happening... ever? Until the AI rules us at least.