Yeah, anyone who has read KSR's <colour> Mars series knows he has some SERIOUSLY whacky ideas about neocommunism and the evils of capitalism. Which is quite possibly why this is on Buzzfeed news...
Yeah, anyone who has read KSR's <colour> Mars series knows he has some SERIOUSLY whacky ideas about neocommunism and the evils of capitalism. Which is quite possibly why this is on Buzzfeed news rather than an op ed somewhere more reputable.
Problem with taking on Capitalism is... it's gonna win. You have to work with it by capturing externalities and letting the profit motive sort things out - like with a carbon tax.
"The problem with taking on feudalism is... it's gonna win." There is no basis for that assertion. The October revolution proved that one can take on a system and change its' mode of operation. As...
Problem with taking on Capitalism is... it's gonna win.
"The problem with taking on feudalism is... it's gonna win."
There is no basis for that assertion. The October revolution proved that one can take on a system and change its' mode of operation. As long as laborers hold all of the power under a system, they can change it.
Except you're seeing 'win' as 'change to a different system', which is not accurate at all. The parts of capitalism people hold issues with was present in Feudalism and Mercantilism as well - the...
Except you're seeing 'win' as 'change to a different system', which is not accurate at all. The parts of capitalism people hold issues with was present in Feudalism and Mercantilism as well - the key change is the derivation of classes, not their existence, and not the driving force (the profit motive).
We're seeing the potential shift from capitalism to corporatism right now - it's still capitalism winning. And holding up the USSR as a win is hilarious.
Well, the October Revolution was a pretty spectacular 75 year failure, meanwhile the American Experiment produced the greatest creation of wealth in human history, I think it speaks to the...
Well, the October Revolution was a pretty spectacular 75 year failure, meanwhile the American Experiment produced the greatest creation of wealth in human history, I think it speaks to the relative strengths of our systems.
Capitalism isn't inherently flawed, it just needs to be reigned in when the interests of the markets don't align with the interests of society. And there are ways within capitalist systems to direct those market forces to align with our society's
That is the inherent flaw in capitalism. The actual interests of the markets (making as much money as possible) will never align with the interests of society. "Reigning it in" is an endless task...
the interests of the markets don't align with the interests of society
That is the inherent flaw in capitalism. The actual interests of the markets (making as much money as possible) will never align with the interests of society. "Reigning it in" is an endless task as capitalists find new ways to screw over society, especially with technology changing faster than laws can be updated to reflect said new technology.
Capitalism as a form of governance is very flawed, but capitalism has yet to be beaten as a form of commerce and investment. In my view the problem is that the USA has completely conflated the two...
Capitalism as a form of governance is very flawed, but capitalism has yet to be beaten as a form of commerce and investment. In my view the problem is that the USA has completely conflated the two concepts over the last 40 years, culminating in Citizens United.
I should have posted this in the unpopular opinions thread, but as is often in life, the answer lies in the middle, not at the extremes.
Of course, the American system has lead to something like 5% of the global population being the driving force towards global extinction and the end of civilization as we conceive it. But hey, we...
meanwhile the American Experiment produced the greatest creation of wealth in human history
Of course, the American system has lead to something like 5% of the global population being the driving force towards global extinction and the end of civilization as we conceive it. But hey, we have shiny cars and the illusion of choice so it's a win right?
How do you address the champagne glass distibution then? Yes capitalism is extremely effective at generating value but it is extremely poor at distributing it. That's why you need communistic...
greatest creation of wealth in human history
How do you address the champagne glass distibution then? Yes capitalism is extremely effective at generating value but it is extremely poor at distributing it. That's why you need communistic capitalism - i.e. worker ownership.
The profit motive will NEVER sort out climate change, the state is ultimately controlled by the capitalists and they will never allow it to take the measures needed to save the planet. It's...
The profit motive will NEVER sort out climate change, the state is ultimately controlled by the capitalists and they will never allow it to take the measures needed to save the planet. It's leftism or collapse, there are no alternatives.
Anyone who has undertaken the most cursory study of economics or history knows the profit motive is not something any individual or group has the ability to contest. Anyone who hasn't needs to go...
Anyone who has undertaken the most cursory study of economics or history knows the profit motive is not something any individual or group has the ability to contest. Anyone who hasn't needs to go and do that before they join a discussion like this, and anyone who has but still believes that honestly isn't worth my time.
I would be glad to talk about ways in which we can have markets more properly deal with the costs of their operation (the capturing externalities I mentioned in other comments) but arguing with people who think communism is a workable ideology isn't something I find appealing.
Your attitude of pure idealism about your pet theory is really no different from those that would espouse a complete communist takeover - but that's the crux of the issue; it's only a tiny...
Your attitude of pure idealism about your pet theory is really no different from those that would espouse a complete communist takeover - but that's the crux of the issue; it's only a tiny minority that think total communism is the only way.
In this day and age, most people who make make arguments for socialism are really pushing for a social democratic system that might someday move to a place of worker's coops and possibly state control of utilities and social programs. So you're basically creating a slippery-slope strawman so you don't have to argue your points on the merits.
I agree with all of this a lot. I think that some compromise position is the most workable solution at this point. As an anarchist, I want to abolish hierarchy tomorrow. So I advocate now for a...
I agree with all of this a lot. I think that some compromise position is the most workable solution at this point. As an anarchist, I want to abolish hierarchy tomorrow. So I advocate now for a capitalism with more communistic traits since I know I will be dead for many moons before the society I might actually enjoy exists.
Refusing to acknowledge the strengths of a communist or socialist based system is, I think, a mistake. It's not a magic fix, and it has plenty of it's own problems, but capitalism will only ever...
Refusing to acknowledge the strengths of a communist or socialist based system is, I think, a mistake. It's not a magic fix, and it has plenty of it's own problems, but capitalism will only ever funnel wealth to the few owners of the means of production. That inequality in wealth and influence makes it incapable for the labor force to have any control in any way that matters.
The future is in automation. When ever increasing sectors of the workplace are downsized or eliminated through the reduction of necessity of human labor, how is the worker supposed to have any word at all? It's easy to handwave the issue and say that new sectors of work will be created through automation, but that's not a guarantee and to think that a large portion of the people won't be left unemployable through no fault of their own would be the ultimate in naivete.
Capitalism is inherently structured on the exploitation of labor, in that a worker will never reap the full benefits of the labor they've put in, as each worker generates profit for the owning class.
Even a model in which corporations are owned by the workers themselves would do much to distribute the results of labor to the labor force, which would empower the same with a level of control not possible in the current system.
That capitalism is ideal or desirable implies that the worker is never entitled to the fruits of their labor, no matter how much capital they are capable of generating.
Regulations and legislation may limit wealth disparity, but it can not be eradicated under capitalism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, is more than a catchy slogan. I would argue that a more fair system would reflect the value of an individuals labor, and reward the same with the essentials of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unless and until this is met, the average worker will always pad the pockets of the owning class while they themselves live a financially unstable or restricted life.
The thing about the profit motive is it doesn't really exist in most of what we do. When some asks you to pass the mashed potatoes are you motivated by the profit motive? Do you capitalize on the...
The thing about the profit motive is it doesn't really exist in most of what we do.
When some asks you to pass the mashed potatoes are you motivated by the profit motive? Do you capitalize on the asker's need for potatoes? Or are you motivated by comraderie?
When someone asks you to hold the door do you ask them how much it'd be worth to them? No. I didn't think so. My point here is that daily life is riddled with instances where you already operate along communistic principles. To say that capitalism recreates rational self-interest is not totally true. Capitalism neglects our shared rational self-interest in cooperation.
anyone who hasn't needs to go and do that before they join a discussion like this
"hey op could you please pass the salt" "what the fuck??? you expect to just have control over my labor like that???? you fkcucing godless commie why don't you just buy your own salt-water...
"hey op could you please pass the salt" "what the fuck??? you expect to just have control over my labor like that???? you fkcucing godless commie why don't you just buy your own salt-water distillery if you want salt so much?? so tired of all these people asking for handouts, haven't they heard of the profit motive"
Idk I think to an extent this is roughly accurate, but it still posits a natural humanity not already exposed to any ideological influence, which rly is an abstraction over anything. Much of the...
Idk I think to an extent this is roughly accurate, but it still posits a natural humanity not already exposed to any ideological influence, which rly is an abstraction over anything. Much of the core aspects of Marxism rly are logical conclusions of a lot of aphorisms we grow up with, but a lot abt the analysis of Capital & the base of the material world isn't necessarily intuitive, as the world it reflects isn't necessarily either
If there weren't some degree of natural humanity I think there would be more forms of primitive human civilization than (very roughly speaking) clans and tribes. But for the most part people tend...
it still posits a natural humanity
If there weren't some degree of natural humanity I think there would be more forms of primitive human civilization than (very roughly speaking) clans and tribes. But for the most part people tend to stick together.
Like if individualistic late-stage capitalism were actually a model for rational human action then wouldn't there be more instances of similar societies in the past? I'm not an anthropologist by any means but I can't think of any time I learned about a primitive (for lack of a better word) society that involved people looking out for number one and constantly skewering eachother.
I think that's because more simple societies are fundamentally based on, 'if we don't get food we'll all die', and the rise of agriculture led to societies based on, 'if you take my food, you'll...
I think that's because more simple societies are fundamentally based on, 'if we don't get food we'll all die', and the rise of agriculture led to societies based on, 'if you take my food, you'll die', and in a post-industrial world we've arrived at, 'I'm full, but I'll have some more'.
Funny how there are PhD level economists and historians who are socialists (or Marxists, anarcho-communists, etc.) and not only believe the profit motive can be removed from society, they are also...
Anyone who has undertaken the most cursory study of economics or history knows the profit motive is not something any individual or group has the ability to contest.
Funny how there are PhD level economists and historians who are socialists (or Marxists, anarcho-communists, etc.) and not only believe the profit motive can be removed from society, they are also actively trying to help society reach that point.
You're just demonstrating Robinson's point: "There are many university departments and think tanks and hedge funds that study and practice economics [...] but they do not try to imagine a...
I would be glad to talk about ways in which we can have markets more properly deal with the costs of their operation
You're just demonstrating Robinson's point: "There are many university departments and think tanks and hedge funds that study and practice economics [...] but they do not try to imagine a different, better economic system. Tweaks are often suggested, but new systems, no."
arguing with people who think communism is a workable ideology isn't something I find appealing.
Firstly, communism is not the only alternative to capitalism. It's not even the only so-called "leftist" alternative! Socialism is a thing.
Secondly, communism is not the same as the totalitarian authoritarian systems which called themselves "communist" in the 20th century. Would you use the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as an example to prove that democracy isn't a workable ideology? We haven't seen true communism (or socialism, for that matter) tried in a large-scale situation. How do you know it won't work?
It's a very natural progression of Mercantilism, which itself simply grew out of the centralisation of power coming out of the feudal era. And even that's only a western perspective, the golden...
It's a very natural progression of Mercantilism, which itself simply grew out of the centralisation of power coming out of the feudal era. And even that's only a western perspective, the golden age of Islam saw capitalism in all but name.
The profit motive has dominated most of human history.
It grew out of forces present throughout mercantilism & feudalism, sure, but feudalism & mercantalism themselves gave birth to & incubated forces non-existent to any human societies prior. To put...
It grew out of forces present throughout mercantilism & feudalism, sure, but feudalism & mercantalism themselves gave birth to & incubated forces non-existent to any human societies prior.
To put capitalism teleologically as the ultimate endpoint - the end of history - is regurgitating reductive and non-materialist gospel. human & non-human history alike has been a dynamic interaction between thousands of intertangled forces, the dominance & intensity of any of them has never remained static throughout any epoch in either space nor time.
Enclosures of the Commons have been violently fought against over and over again, and are still being fought & won against. We're facing a global catastrophe due to incentivized externalities, intensified by the maniacal belief that compound (exponential) growth is compatible with a finite planet. Why is believing that the rate of growth of profit can remain steady amidst an ever-increasing mass of commodities any more ""rational"" than believing that people can run their own workplaces?? can run their own lives?? if so, i've got a chessboard to sell ya, hope you've got some rice!
You say so many fun things in the comment. You can just say Fukuyama was talking out of his neck with "End of History." It's okay you wont hurt his feelings ;) What on earth??
You say so many fun things in the comment.
To put capitalism teleologically as the ultimate endpoint - the end of history - is regurgitating reductive and non-materialist gospel.
You can just say Fukuyama was talking out of his neck with "End of History." It's okay you wont hurt his feelings ;)
if so, i've got a chessboard to sell ya, hope you've got some rice!
As the world become more crowded though, competing over who can concentrate the most wealth is dangerous. If our economic system forces us to compete, some are bound to play dirty. As the...
As the world become more crowded though, competing over who can concentrate the most wealth is dangerous. If our economic system forces us to compete, some are bound to play dirty. As the capitalist forces grow their capacity for harm increases drastically.
Absolutely agree. Markets, as it turns out, are really effective - more so than any other technique for managing demand and distribution that we've yet found - so the trick is harnessing that...
Problem with taking on Capitalism is... it's gonna win. You have to work with it by capturing externalities and letting the profit motive sort things out - like with a carbon tax.
Absolutely agree. Markets, as it turns out, are really effective - more so than any other technique for managing demand and distribution that we've yet found - so the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome.
Why do markets have to be tightly coupled with the exploitation of workers? For example you could have corporations become workers collectives in which the workers share the profits and determine...
Why do markets have to be tightly coupled with the exploitation of workers? For example you could have corporations become workers collectives in which the workers share the profits and determine the future direction of the company (how do we engage with the market, the environment, the government, local community etc.).
Totally with you - that's very much an example of the kind of thing I meant by "the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome". It sounds as though you thought I disagreed, though?
Totally with you - that's very much an example of the kind of thing I meant by "the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome". It sounds as though you thought I disagreed, though?
Exploitation is an externality that needs to be captured via legislation (like minimum wages, leave protections, etc), to guide the market rather than fight it.
Exploitation is an externality that needs to be captured via legislation (like minimum wages, leave protections, etc), to guide the market rather than fight it.
None of those solve exploitation, until the workers are in complete control of the means of production and profit has been abolished people are being exploited
like minimum wages, leave protections, etc
None of those solve exploitation, until the workers are in complete control of the means of production and profit has been abolished people are being exploited
Can you explain what it looks like for profit to be abolished? Is there a practical distinction between profit and surplus beyond the relationship that it has to the system in which it is viewed?...
Can you explain what it looks like for profit to be abolished? Is there a practical distinction between profit and surplus beyond the relationship that it has to the system in which it is viewed? I can wrap my head around democratic control of the workplace, there are examples of this. I can't comprehend how profit can be abolished except by not calling it profit and/or not handing it directly to an owner.
I'm gonna open with a doozy, so i beg you to stay with me.... Here goes. When you look at this meme diagram the dark red circle is the value of labor and the regular red circle is "profit" --...
I'm gonna open with a doozy, so i beg you to stay with me....
Here goes.
When you look at this meme diagram the dark red circle is the value of labor and the regular red circle is "profit" -- a.k.a the portion of value which is not earned as pay or put back into the business.
I can't comprehend how profit can be abolished except by not calling it profit and/or not handing it directly to an owner.
You abolish profit by making all people owners. Co-operatively owned business are much more effective at distributing value from labor.
I'm on board with the concept of worker ownership, my question was more nomenclatural. I think Diet_Coke gave me a satisfying answer there. I should say that the phrase "Abolish profit" invokes a...
I'm on board with the concept of worker ownership, my question was more nomenclatural. I think Diet_Coke gave me a satisfying answer there.
I should say that the phrase "Abolish profit" invokes a vision of central planning which is not something that I consider desirable from a feasibility standpoint.
I'm trying to figure out conceptually how something like Market Socialism could play out in the long term. It seems like even with worker control, there are problems with "profit" motive and hegemonic maneuvering. Sorry for the digression.
I think one good way to mitigate this is the consensus decision making process. Consensus is good because it requires stakeholder buy-in and so by default involvement and attention. It is often...
problems with "profit" motive and hegemonic maneuvering
I think one good way to mitigate this is the consensus decision making process. Consensus is good because it requires stakeholder buy-in and so by default involvement and attention.
It is often incompletely explained as "everyone votes the same way" which is technically true. But what that misses is how that is reached -- in short, by revising and reworking a proposal until it is workable by all concerned parties.
In some models (AFIK as a non-expert) non-stakeholders are given a vote, which can also help the process. A good example is in a consensus process, the women's reproductive rights issue would only be settled by women.
If the business is owned by the workers the receipts in excess of expenses can be distributed to theml workers as dividends at the end of the year or reinvested in the business, so technically...
If the business is owned by the workers the receipts in excess of expenses can be distributed to theml workers as dividends at the end of the year or reinvested in the business, so technically it's not profit.
Surplus subsumes Profit; when labor is no longer accounted as a separate input in order to attain revenue generation, & instead as the universal democratic voice deciding what happens w that...
Surplus subsumes Profit; when labor is no longer accounted as a separate input in order to attain revenue generation, & instead as the universal democratic voice deciding what happens w that Surplus, then dividing Profit becomes philosophically sorta difficult. Since actions are based on some type of consensus procedure, the motive force of the cooperative only partially follows the profit motive, & on the macro scale stops (or scrambles) the societal focus on profit
So what happens when wealth concentration (which is an inevitable facet of capitalism as you well know from Piketty) leads to people so wealthy they use their money to dismantle legislation?
externality that needs to be captured via legislation
So what happens when wealth concentration (which is an inevitable facet of capitalism as you well know from Piketty) leads to people so wealthy they use their money to dismantle legislation?
Oh. Is that why wealth is distributed like this? Doesn't seem all that good to me. Despite my comment suggesting the contrary, I'm interested what sort of things you see working in the future.
Markets, as it turns out, are really effective managing demand and distribution that we've yet found
Oh. Is that why wealth is distributed like this? Doesn't seem all that good to me.
the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome.
Despite my comment suggesting the contrary, I'm interested what sort of things you see working in the future.
Firstly, just to be clear, I'm talking about markets vs. central planning here, and that's what's guiding my thinking. I'm also not an expert, although I try to inform myself as much as I can, so...
Firstly, just to be clear, I'm talking about markets vs. central planning here, and that's what's guiding my thinking. I'm also not an expert, although I try to inform myself as much as I can, so I'm open to other perspectives on this.
Oh. Is that why wealth is distributed like this? Doesn't seem all that good to me.
I chose my wording very carefully - "effective" not "good" - and right now a whole lot of that effectiveness is being used to funnel money upwards. Even then, it's interesting to look at China for example, where a change away from central planning (under the same governmental structure) improved living standards for hundreds of millions of people even though it simultaneously widened inequality.
Despite my comment suggesting the contrary, I'm interested what sort of things you see working in the future.
I try to be pragmatic, and I'm naturally sceptical of anything that sounds too utopian. I have high hopes for universal basic income, assuming that the inflation issues can be managed, as it combats poverty while still allowing and encouraging people to experiment with new ideas; providing a safety net for failure allows risk taking, and risk taking drives progress. I'm not against increased taxes on high income, wealth, and/or inheritance in order to fund this and to curtail the extremes of inequality.
On environmental issues, I fully believe that capturing and pricing the externalities will lead to the most efficient solution. Rather than mandating "use electric cars", for example, mandate that all companies are directly liable for the emissions of their product and the cost to mitigate them. The price of fuel rises accordingly, more research goes into carbon capture, the lifetime emission cost of the battery production & power station is included for the electric car, and by the end of it all there's a single number that takes into account all of the lifetime power costs, cleanup, and projections of each vehicle: the price. New, emergent technologies that previous regulation could non even have predicted are inherently reflected and promoted in the system because they, too, are priced based on their efficiency and emissions.
Of course, "pricing externalities" is easy to say but very, very hard to do; I touched on it briefly here. I still think it's a lot more plausible than trying to regulate each issue directly. Direct regulation requires a relatively small number of people to understand the issue in near-perfect detail, and anticipate nearly any unintended consequence; market steering just needs an understanding of the specific goal you're trying to incentivise, and lets the aggregate behaviour of the masses figure out the "how".
The earth will suffer temporarily, homeostasis is kicking in now and will decimate or wipe us out. The planet plays the long game, it will be okay. We wont.
The earth will suffer temporarily, homeostasis is kicking in now and will decimate or wipe us out.
The planet plays the long game, it will be okay.
We wont.
I think this is something that revolutionary Communists and Anarchists should take more seriously. I'm all for an anti-capitalist revolution but I think it would fail. Whereas I think that if we...
Problem with taking on Capitalism is... it's gonna win. You have to work with it by capturing externalities and letting the profit motive sort things out - like with a carbon tax.
I think this is something that revolutionary Communists and Anarchists should take more seriously. I'm all for an anti-capitalist revolution but I think it would fail. Whereas I think that if we start establishing and growing anti-capitalist, non-market systems we actually have a chance.
Yeah, anyone who has read KSR's <colour> Mars series knows he has some SERIOUSLY whacky ideas about neocommunism and the evils of capitalism. Which is quite possibly why this is on Buzzfeed news rather than an op ed somewhere more reputable.
Problem with taking on Capitalism is... it's gonna win. You have to work with it by capturing externalities and letting the profit motive sort things out - like with a carbon tax.
"The problem with taking on feudalism is... it's gonna win."
There is no basis for that assertion. The October revolution proved that one can take on a system and change its' mode of operation. As long as laborers hold all of the power under a system, they can change it.
Except you're seeing 'win' as 'change to a different system', which is not accurate at all. The parts of capitalism people hold issues with was present in Feudalism and Mercantilism as well - the key change is the derivation of classes, not their existence, and not the driving force (the profit motive).
We're seeing the potential shift from capitalism to corporatism right now - it's still capitalism winning. And holding up the USSR as a win is hilarious.
Well, the October Revolution was a pretty spectacular 75 year failure, meanwhile the American Experiment produced the greatest creation of wealth in human history, I think it speaks to the relative strengths of our systems.
Capitalism isn't inherently flawed, it just needs to be reigned in when the interests of the markets don't align with the interests of society. And there are ways within capitalist systems to direct those market forces to align with our society's
That is the inherent flaw in capitalism. The actual interests of the markets (making as much money as possible) will never align with the interests of society. "Reigning it in" is an endless task as capitalists find new ways to screw over society, especially with technology changing faster than laws can be updated to reflect said new technology.
Capitalism as a form of governance is very flawed, but capitalism has yet to be beaten as a form of commerce and investment. In my view the problem is that the USA has completely conflated the two concepts over the last 40 years, culminating in Citizens United.
I should have posted this in the unpopular opinions thread, but as is often in life, the answer lies in the middle, not at the extremes.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy is a good foundation for rational stuff.
Anecdotally, I’ve lived under both communism and capitalism. Both extremes suck.
This is what drew me to Mutualism. AnComs like to shit on mutualism as a half measure. I like to see it as a tasty compromise.
I don't see my mutualism as a compromise, I see it as more radical than anarchist communism :shrug:
Of course, the American system has lead to something like 5% of the global population being the driving force towards global extinction and the end of civilization as we conceive it. But hey, we have shiny cars and the illusion of choice so it's a win right?
How do you address the champagne glass distibution then? Yes capitalism is extremely effective at generating value but it is extremely poor at distributing it. That's why you need communistic capitalism - i.e. worker ownership.
The profit motive will NEVER sort out climate change, the state is ultimately controlled by the capitalists and they will never allow it to take the measures needed to save the planet. It's leftism or collapse, there are no alternatives.
Then it's collapse, because the left isn't going to win.
Anyone who has undertaken the most cursory study of economics or history knows the profit motive is not something any individual or group has the ability to contest. Anyone who hasn't needs to go and do that before they join a discussion like this, and anyone who has but still believes that honestly isn't worth my time.
I would be glad to talk about ways in which we can have markets more properly deal with the costs of their operation (the capturing externalities I mentioned in other comments) but arguing with people who think communism is a workable ideology isn't something I find appealing.
Your attitude of pure idealism about your pet theory is really no different from those that would espouse a complete communist takeover - but that's the crux of the issue; it's only a tiny minority that think total communism is the only way.
In this day and age, most people who make make arguments for socialism are really pushing for a social democratic system that might someday move to a place of worker's coops and possibly state control of utilities and social programs. So you're basically creating a slippery-slope strawman so you don't have to argue your points on the merits.
I agree with all of this a lot. I think that some compromise position is the most workable solution at this point. As an anarchist, I want to abolish hierarchy tomorrow. So I advocate now for a capitalism with more communistic traits since I know I will be dead for many moons before the society I might actually enjoy exists.
Refusing to acknowledge the strengths of a communist or socialist based system is, I think, a mistake. It's not a magic fix, and it has plenty of it's own problems, but capitalism will only ever funnel wealth to the few owners of the means of production. That inequality in wealth and influence makes it incapable for the labor force to have any control in any way that matters.
The future is in automation. When ever increasing sectors of the workplace are downsized or eliminated through the reduction of necessity of human labor, how is the worker supposed to have any word at all? It's easy to handwave the issue and say that new sectors of work will be created through automation, but that's not a guarantee and to think that a large portion of the people won't be left unemployable through no fault of their own would be the ultimate in naivete.
Capitalism is inherently structured on the exploitation of labor, in that a worker will never reap the full benefits of the labor they've put in, as each worker generates profit for the owning class.
Even a model in which corporations are owned by the workers themselves would do much to distribute the results of labor to the labor force, which would empower the same with a level of control not possible in the current system.
That capitalism is ideal or desirable implies that the worker is never entitled to the fruits of their labor, no matter how much capital they are capable of generating.
Regulations and legislation may limit wealth disparity, but it can not be eradicated under capitalism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, is more than a catchy slogan. I would argue that a more fair system would reflect the value of an individuals labor, and reward the same with the essentials of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Unless and until this is met, the average worker will always pad the pockets of the owning class while they themselves live a financially unstable or restricted life.
The thing about the profit motive is it doesn't really exist in most of what we do.
When some asks you to pass the mashed potatoes are you motivated by the profit motive? Do you capitalize on the asker's need for potatoes? Or are you motivated by comraderie?
When someone asks you to hold the door do you ask them how much it'd be worth to them? No. I didn't think so. My point here is that daily life is riddled with instances where you already operate along communistic principles. To say that capitalism recreates rational self-interest is not totally true. Capitalism neglects our shared rational self-interest in cooperation.
5/7 gatekeeping also. Really really solid.
"hey op could you please pass the salt" "what the fuck??? you expect to just have control over my labor like that???? you fkcucing godless commie why don't you just buy your own salt-water distillery if you want salt so much?? so tired of all these people asking for handouts, haven't they heard of the profit motive"
Exactly. We're already communists. Society just brainwashes us to not notice.
Idk I think to an extent this is roughly accurate, but it still posits a natural humanity not already exposed to any ideological influence, which rly is an abstraction over anything. Much of the core aspects of Marxism rly are logical conclusions of a lot of aphorisms we grow up with, but a lot abt the analysis of Capital & the base of the material world isn't necessarily intuitive, as the world it reflects isn't necessarily either
If there weren't some degree of natural humanity I think there would be more forms of primitive human civilization than (very roughly speaking) clans and tribes. But for the most part people tend to stick together.
Like if individualistic late-stage capitalism were actually a model for rational human action then wouldn't there be more instances of similar societies in the past? I'm not an anthropologist by any means but I can't think of any time I learned about a primitive (for lack of a better word) society that involved people looking out for number one and constantly skewering eachother.
I think that's because more simple societies are fundamentally based on, 'if we don't get food we'll all die', and the rise of agriculture led to societies based on, 'if you take my food, you'll die', and in a post-industrial world we've arrived at, 'I'm full, but I'll have some more'.
Funny how there are PhD level economists and historians who are socialists (or Marxists, anarcho-communists, etc.) and not only believe the profit motive can be removed from society, they are also actively trying to help society reach that point.
You're just demonstrating Robinson's point: "There are many university departments and think tanks and hedge funds that study and practice economics [...] but they do not try to imagine a different, better economic system. Tweaks are often suggested, but new systems, no."
Firstly, communism is not the only alternative to capitalism. It's not even the only so-called "leftist" alternative! Socialism is a thing.
Secondly, communism is not the same as the totalitarian authoritarian systems which called themselves "communist" in the 20th century. Would you use the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as an example to prove that democracy isn't a workable ideology? We haven't seen true communism (or socialism, for that matter) tried in a large-scale situation. How do you know it won't work?
And you know this... how? What historical and/or political and/or economic expertise do you have which leads you to this conclusion?
Capitalism has existed maybe 400 years.
It's a very natural progression of Mercantilism, which itself simply grew out of the centralisation of power coming out of the feudal era. And even that's only a western perspective, the golden age of Islam saw capitalism in all but name.
The profit motive has dominated most of human history.
It grew out of forces present throughout mercantilism & feudalism, sure, but feudalism & mercantalism themselves gave birth to & incubated forces non-existent to any human societies prior.
To put capitalism teleologically as the ultimate endpoint - the end of history - is regurgitating reductive and non-materialist gospel. human & non-human history alike has been a dynamic interaction between thousands of intertangled forces, the dominance & intensity of any of them has never remained static throughout any epoch in either space nor time.
Enclosures of the Commons have been violently fought against over and over again, and are still being fought & won against. We're facing a global catastrophe due to incentivized externalities, intensified by the maniacal belief that compound (exponential) growth is compatible with a finite planet. Why is believing that the rate of growth of profit can remain steady amidst an ever-increasing mass of commodities any more ""rational"" than believing that people can run their own workplaces?? can run their own lives?? if so, i've got a chessboard to sell ya, hope you've got some rice!
You say so many fun things in the comment.
You can just say Fukuyama was talking out of his neck with "End of History." It's okay you wont hurt his feelings ;)
What on earth??
Name one thing fukuyama was wrong about. Okay name two. Okay,, name ten,,,
This on earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem
As the world become more crowded though, competing over who can concentrate the most wealth is dangerous. If our economic system forces us to compete, some are bound to play dirty. As the capitalist forces grow their capacity for harm increases drastically.
Absolutely agree. Markets, as it turns out, are really effective - more so than any other technique for managing demand and distribution that we've yet found - so the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome.
Why do markets have to be tightly coupled with the exploitation of workers? For example you could have corporations become workers collectives in which the workers share the profits and determine the future direction of the company (how do we engage with the market, the environment, the government, local community etc.).
Totally with you - that's very much an example of the kind of thing I meant by "the trick is harnessing that effectiveness for positive outcome". It sounds as though you thought I disagreed, though?
Sorry I meant to reply to the comment you quoted!
Exploitation is an externality that needs to be captured via legislation (like minimum wages, leave protections, etc), to guide the market rather than fight it.
None of those solve exploitation, until the workers are in complete control of the means of production and profit has been abolished people are being exploited
Can you explain what it looks like for profit to be abolished? Is there a practical distinction between profit and surplus beyond the relationship that it has to the system in which it is viewed? I can wrap my head around democratic control of the workplace, there are examples of this. I can't comprehend how profit can be abolished except by not calling it profit and/or not handing it directly to an owner.
I'm gonna open with a doozy, so i beg you to stay with me....
Here goes.
When you look at this
memediagram the dark red circle is the value of labor and the regular red circle is "profit" -- a.k.a the portion of value which is not earned as pay or put back into the business.You abolish profit by making all people owners. Co-operatively owned business are much more effective at distributing value from labor.
I'm on board with the concept of worker ownership, my question was more nomenclatural. I think Diet_Coke gave me a satisfying answer there.
I should say that the phrase "Abolish profit" invokes a vision of central planning which is not something that I consider desirable from a feasibility standpoint.
I'm trying to figure out conceptually how something like Market Socialism could play out in the long term. It seems like even with worker control, there are problems with "profit" motive and hegemonic maneuvering. Sorry for the digression.
I think one good way to mitigate this is the consensus decision making process. Consensus is good because it requires stakeholder buy-in and so by default involvement and attention.
It is often incompletely explained as "everyone votes the same way" which is technically true. But what that misses is how that is reached -- in short, by revising and reworking a proposal until it is workable by all concerned parties.
In some models (AFIK as a non-expert) non-stakeholders are given a vote, which can also help the process. A good example is in a consensus process, the women's reproductive rights issue would only be settled by women.
If the business is owned by the workers the receipts in excess of expenses can be distributed to theml workers as dividends at the end of the year or reinvested in the business, so technically it's not profit.
Surplus subsumes Profit; when labor is no longer accounted as a separate input in order to attain revenue generation, & instead as the universal democratic voice deciding what happens w that Surplus, then dividing Profit becomes philosophically sorta difficult. Since actions are based on some type of consensus procedure, the motive force of the cooperative only partially follows the profit motive, & on the macro scale stops (or scrambles) the societal focus on profit
So what happens when wealth concentration (which is an inevitable facet of capitalism as you well know from Piketty) leads to people so wealthy they use their money to dismantle legislation?
Oh. Is that why wealth is distributed like this? Doesn't seem all that good to me.
Despite my comment suggesting the contrary, I'm interested what sort of things you see working in the future.
Firstly, just to be clear, I'm talking about markets vs. central planning here, and that's what's guiding my thinking. I'm also not an expert, although I try to inform myself as much as I can, so I'm open to other perspectives on this.
I chose my wording very carefully - "effective" not "good" - and right now a whole lot of that effectiveness is being used to funnel money upwards. Even then, it's interesting to look at China for example, where a change away from central planning (under the same governmental structure) improved living standards for hundreds of millions of people even though it simultaneously widened inequality.
I try to be pragmatic, and I'm naturally sceptical of anything that sounds too utopian. I have high hopes for universal basic income, assuming that the inflation issues can be managed, as it combats poverty while still allowing and encouraging people to experiment with new ideas; providing a safety net for failure allows risk taking, and risk taking drives progress. I'm not against increased taxes on high income, wealth, and/or inheritance in order to fund this and to curtail the extremes of inequality.
On environmental issues, I fully believe that capturing and pricing the externalities will lead to the most efficient solution. Rather than mandating "use electric cars", for example, mandate that all companies are directly liable for the emissions of their product and the cost to mitigate them. The price of fuel rises accordingly, more research goes into carbon capture, the lifetime emission cost of the battery production & power station is included for the electric car, and by the end of it all there's a single number that takes into account all of the lifetime power costs, cleanup, and projections of each vehicle: the price. New, emergent technologies that previous regulation could non even have predicted are inherently reflected and promoted in the system because they, too, are priced based on their efficiency and emissions.
Of course, "pricing externalities" is easy to say but very, very hard to do; I touched on it briefly here. I still think it's a lot more plausible than trying to regulate each issue directly. Direct regulation requires a relatively small number of people to understand the issue in near-perfect detail, and anticipate nearly any unintended consequence; market steering just needs an understanding of the specific goal you're trying to incentivise, and lets the aggregate behaviour of the masses figure out the "how".
As long as there is money to be made by it, the earth will suffer.
The earth will suffer temporarily, homeostasis is kicking in now and will decimate or wipe us out.
The planet plays the long game, it will be okay.
We wont.
That is correct.
I think this is something that revolutionary Communists and Anarchists should take more seriously. I'm all for an anti-capitalist revolution but I think it would fail. Whereas I think that if we start establishing and growing anti-capitalist, non-market systems we actually have a chance.