Is capitalism the best model?

[Lark]

I dont confuse the only with the best when I consider economic or social systems.

Most the arguments or supports for capitalism presently are really normative, that is they are trying to sustain a particular cultural underpinning or what is perceived as a particular (often exclusive) cultural underpinning, and its less to do with the objective reality of how the economy is working and its contradictions.

For instance, deconstruct conservatism or most of the conservative or even radical capitalisms and what you will find are a clear series of norms and dictats, ie you will work, work hard, make sacrifices, you may be rewarded, there's nothing like the genius of the elites, and most of those adcovating them fall into two camps A) these norms are great, for others, particularly labourers or working people, B) I'm prepared to submit to these norms, even be happy about it but sure as hell everyone else will do likewise, and I think there's a class divide at the heart of that.

Part of the problem is that these norms wherent exclusively associated with conservatism or capitalism for a long, long time, if you can find and read early socialist books for instance you will find those norms which today are associated exclusively with the opposite. That is hard work, strenuous efforts and personal sacrifices deserves reward, for instance, were universal norms and not capitalist ones, this moral dichotomy, "good" capitalism, bad everything else, doomed to failure, is what has assured capitalism in its afterlife, long after it deserved to become obsolete. So we have today Zombi capitalism.

The thing about all those norms and values though is that I dont see how they correspond to objective realities within the economy, infinite expansion in production to satisfy infinite demand with finite resources? Even if the market is the most allocatively efficient means to calculating prices it hasnt and wont be able to cost that one, the reality that eventually the lifestyles most take for granted will become the preserve of a shrinking and shrinking elite is so unpalatable, even to most capitalists, that they avoid it or optimistically believe they will be the elite or in their close personal service.

 

[enfp can be shy]

hard work, strenuous efforts and personal sacrifices deserves reward, for instance, were universal norms

And it never becomes clear who, how, and at what point in time, evaluates such things. The capitalist model - quite present in every state socialism too - relies on very linear A->B interaction between entities. In reality, they have complex multi-variable interactions, for anything after farmers and craftsmen.

As an example: genes. The popular view is that a certain gene does a certain thing. You remove the "bad" gene, you remove the "badness". But it turns out that a gene does many things at once, participates in more than one dependency, hard to represent as a sum of isolated relations. Similarly, they first thought the human appendix serves no function for the species, but it turned out it does, even if very rarely.

 

[Lark]

And it never becomes clear who, how, and at what point in time, evaluates such things. The capitalist model - quite present in every state socialism too - relies on very linear A->B interaction between entities. In reality, they have complex multi-variable interactions, for anything after farmers and craftsmen.

As an example: genes. The popular view is that a certain gene does a certain thing. You remove the "bad" gene, you remove the "badness". But it turns out that a gene does many things at once, participates in more than one dependency, hard to represent as a sum of isolated relations. Similarly, they first thought the human appendix serves no function for the species, but it turned out it does, even if very rarely.

I do think that at the heart of either capitalist or socialist economic models there is a form of artifical intelligence, I dont see the dichotomy between those that a lot of people have or maintain, its all simultaneous equations.

The latest, most innovative, thinking from socialists actually starts from the present with the present prices generated by the present mechanism and seeks to revise those prices with improved information transfers to permit the generation of greater accuracy in prices and costs, in some of them it means restructuring the economy altogether, like Participatory Economics and substituting alternative institutions such as iteration boards, for existing ones like banks and others, like Economic Democracy, have a greater role for markets and dont seek to reinvent the wheel.

I think there's a great problem in maintaining that dichotomy or ignoring the essentially mixed reality of the economy and inadequacy of pure theorising, class struggles or other issues will always seriously eschew applied economic theory. I dont see the economy or social order in the future to be more closely approximate either capitalism or socialism but something else, disatisfying to either a capitalist or a socialist.

 

[MikeA]

I live in a country affected by communism. We're not only richer than all the nations in North and South America combined, we also have free health care. I find it humorous when Americans speak of capitalism as if it was not a complete failure. I hear Americans are cheap and make good house pets, I was thinking about buying myself one next year. I will pet it, feed it, and let it sleep in my bed.

 

[problemz]

Bickelz, the problem w communism is that it concentrates POWER into the hands of a very few. Liberal capitalism allows for freedom of markets and freedom of information. These are both better than when one group controls the markets or the media. In Cuba you can't have a computer unless you're a party member. If you're a party member and you go outside the major websites that the party has said are ok, you face a five-year prison sentence. Similar protocols are in place in North Korea and in Red China and in Myanmar. You don't want to go to prison in places like that because the survival rates are very low. Liberal capitalism does reward a few, and those of us who are prone to envy might want that to stop. But the wealth also really does trickle down. Bill Gates is giving away most of his money. After about a hundred grand a year most wealth is superfluous anyways. People figure that out. But it's fun to make it, and then give it away. If everybody has the right to make great wealth then it diversifies the power structure. Being able to write very well is another form of wealth. You can have a big influence if you write well. Communist systems tend to kill people who can write well, since they too often vie with the power system already in place.

Socialist systems such as the European systems are not as draconian as the ones in place in Asia and in Africa and in South America, where the political leaders try to kill off all their opponents.

Perhaps in America we would be more like the Europeans. We already do have giant socialist systems in place such as welfare, social security, and Medicaid which use up well over 50% of the national budget. We're not a totally capitalist system. Most people think that we are, but we are actually quite on par with the Europeans, and yet we don't pay such heavy taxes as they do. This country is just fine, although the current guy has run up the debt to 14 trillion dollars, which is hurting young people's chances of getting started.

 

[Billy]

I live in a country affected by communism. We're not only richer than all the nations in North and South America combined, we also have free health care. I find it humorous when Americans speak of capitalism as if it was not a complete failure. I hear Americans are cheap and make good house pets, I was thinking about buying myself one next year. I will pet it, feed it, and let it sleep in my bed.

Oh this is good, which country is that?

 

[enfp can be shy]

I dont see the economy or social order in the future to be more closely approximate either capitalism or socialism but something else, disatisfying to either a capitalist or a socialist.

Indeed, these terms (capitalism, socialism) come from descriptions of - great thinkers - but who worked centuries ago, and many of their core principles are outdated beyond repair.

The struggle of the labor class is now almost irrelevant: most of these people should not work. The majority of jobs today are either unnecessary or outright counter-productive. What has to happen is nullifying of all debt worldwide, full automation of everything possible to automate, and freeing people from the obligation to "earn a living", which is some slavery residue - it motivated the physical work of farmers and craftsmen, not the kind of work needed today. People are motivated for creative work, because it's interesting to know and can, rather than for competitive survival reasons and existential fear.

 

[manatee]

I dont see the economy or social order in the future to be more closely approximate either capitalism or socialism but something else, disatisfying to either a capitalist or a socialist.

Either the means of production are owned by the political class (socialism) or they're owned by private citizens (capitalism). Of course, it can be a mix between the two (like it is today) that is indeed dissatisfying for anyone taking a principled stance for either side, but the spectrum is pretty one-dimensional. There's the coercive way and there's the voluntary way, and all conceivable systems combine these in one way or another. What would the fourth way be?

 

[MikeA]

Oh this is good, which country is that?

What good could possibly come out of mentioning what country I reside in?

 

[enfp can be shy]

Either the means of production are owned by the political class (socialism) or they're owned by private citizens (capitalism). Of course, it can be a mix between the two (like it is today) that is indeed dissatisfying for anyone taking a principled stance for either side, but the spectrum is pretty one-dimensional. There's the coercive way and there's the voluntary way, and all conceivable systems combine these in one way or another. What would the fourth way be?

Another way of looking at it is that nothing is ever owned by anyone, it is passed around, and used for a certain period of time. It is also never consumed, but only transformed. We have to analyze the full cycles of all the transformations, instead of only the package for a buy-sell transaction.

 

[manatee]

Another way of looking at it is that nothing is ever owned by anyone, it is passed around, and used for a certain period of time. It is also never consumed, but only transformed. We have to analyze the full cycles of all the transformations, instead of only the package for a buy-sell transaction.

Yeah, that is another way of looking at it, but it completely misses the purpose of ownership. If resources are scarce and multiple persons exist, there will come situations when different persons have different opinions of how scarce resources should be employed. To resolve these conflicts, we need established ownership rights. If no one owns anything, we have a situation of constant, total conflict. By the way, wouldn't those full cycles of transformation sort of start in the beginning of time and kind of continue unto infinity?

hi hi hi , i don't understand what you mean, he he he

 

[enfp can be shy]

Yeah, that is another way of looking at it, but it completely misses the purpose of ownership. If resources are scarce and multiple persons exist, there will come situations when different persons have different opinions of how scarce resources should be employed. To resolve these conflicts, we need established ownership rights. If no one owns anything, we have a situation of constant, total conflict. By the way, wouldn't those full cycles of transformation sort of start in the beginning of time and kind of continue unto infinity?

The assumption that someone owns something (which is always only imaginary and temporary; and more of a social manipulation than physical provable reality) does not remove that conflict, at all. That's why you have crime and war, everywhere, constantly, and the most shootings in the US, a country with very strong belief in private ownership, among other beliefs. As much as there has been any resolution of such conflicts, it was through what science agrees on, because it can be tested by anyone and be shown to work. Yes, the cycles of transformation also evolve over time.

 

[problemz]

If no one owns anything, then the state owns everything including ideas. This is dangerous for individuals, as it gives them no rights against the powers of the state. Proudhon argued early on that "property is theft" but later on realized that the private property is the only stay against the Cyclopsean state. Proudhon predicted the Soviet Union under Stalin long before it took place.

The crime of individualism is a crime that the Cyclopsean state constantly utters using socialism as its excuse. In Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the prisoners were not permitted to turn over without written permission in their sleep.

The crime was "individualism" and it was punishable by death.

Everyone under the Khmer Rouge was a prisoner.

 

[enfp can be shy]

No one today needs a state, or a party, these arguments are more than a century old.

If your individualism means to first coerce people for your imaginary heroic ownership and then to benevolently "give it away" for charity (as if it were ever yours) then ask yourself - does this sadomasochism really feel better than just those people not needing your charity in the first place? I would be happier if all the people lived so well that nobody needed my charity, but maybe that's just me.

 

[manatee]

The assumption that someone owns something (which is always only imaginary and temporary; and more of a social manipulation than physical provable reality) does not remove that conflict, at all. That's why you have crime and war, everywhere, constantly, and the most shootings in the US, a country with very strong belief in private ownership, among other beliefs. As much as there has been any resolution of such conflicts, it was through what science agrees on, because it can be tested by anyone and be shown to work. Yes, the cycles of transformation also evolve over time.

Yes, of course, ownership is nothing more than a social construct, no right or wrong, there is no God, booya booya and all that. And, obviously, the existence of such a construct in the minds of some does not mean that everyone will gladly comply. But the point of ownership rights is still that, if they were to be observed, we would be able to live without otherwise unavoidable conflicts. The fact that some deny other's property rights by stealing their stuff, or other's self-ownership by bombing the crap out of them doesn't change that.

If the US has such a strong belief in private ownership, it's surprising that their gov't doesn't really seem to give much of a damn about it (it actually isn't, I'm phrasing it this way to make some sort of rhetorical point, I think). I'm curious about this science stuff. Which conflicts over scarce resources were resolved due to scientific consensuses?

No one today needs a state, or a party, these arguments are more than a century old.

If your individualism means to first coerce people for your imaginary heroic ownership and then to benevolently "give it away" for charity (as if it were ever yours) then ask yourself - does this sadomasochism really feel better than just those people not needing your charity in the first place? I would be happier if all the people lived so well that nobody needed my charity, but maybe that's just me.

Well, the thing is, without any rules regarding property rights, the only de facto rule will be the right of might, not to mention the fact that division of labor and economic calculation would go bye-bye. But fine, I'm sure you're anarcho-communistic futurist-fetishistic idealism will feel really nice when civilization crumbles and everyone is in need of charity with no one able to offer it. But no, of course, I'm just plain wrong, everything is magically available in abundance, wealth simply exists 'cause it always has existed, and the only thing stopping this massive amount of overabundant wealth from reaching the masses is violent greed! Right?

By the way, do you really mean to imply that nothing older than a century has any value today, or even that a century is a long time? Damn, I'd say that's pretty arrogant, if you asked me. xD!

 

[enfp can be shy]

But the point of ownership rights is still that, if they were to be observed, we would be able to live without otherwise unavoidable conflicts. The fact that some deny other's property rights by stealing their stuff, or other's self-ownership by bombing the crap out of them doesn't change that.

Why do you think they steal?

At what point do you start to believe that something belongs exclusively to you (indefinitely?), I've never understood that part of this sect? How do you convince yourself? How do you prove it objectively? It seems physically impossible, even if you wanted it very badly (for whatever reason that I can't comprehend). To me, it's right there with ancient burials, where they put their wives, cattle and treasures with them in some tomb - and yet again, they couldn't keep those "treasures", and we have them now in museums instead, for little children to laugh at their crudity.

 

[~jet]

I've heard this before. "Communism/socialsim kills the human spirit". It's the leaders that kill feeling and though, not the system.

I doubt that having a road system, public schools or the NHS in England kills human spirit of innovation. Capitalism, ultimately, can make a society richer very quickly but when unregulated, the wealth will concentrate into the hands of few.

Mm... anyone listening to that is a victim of propaganda. Communism and Socialism are 'we' constructs... ones that should not be confused with one another, contrary to right-wing beliefs. Still, the point is, the structures assume that people are looking out for and supporting each other... rather than trying to amass as much as they possibly can for themselves (what is best considered a 'me' society.)

The problem is dunbar's number, in my long-researched opinion. After 150 close acquaintances, the human mind simply cannot handle any more. After that point, whenever a new contact or relationship is made, another must go. It's not a criticism or accusation... it's biology. Our brains are limited. Communism is too idealistic and ignores this fact (or simply didn't know about it.) Wherever communism arose from within and in a small village, it worked splendidly well. Everyone knew everyone... everyone's self interest was everyone else's self interest... it was a tribe. People looked out for each other and shared their burdens... from building/repairing the village, harvesting together, seeing after each other's children, et cetera. It's beautiful in a way, and I can understand a nation that comes from that wanting to retain these ideals.

But after that 150th person, someone suddenly becomes an 'outsider.' They're different... foreign... mysterious... possibly hostile! There will always be and always has been rivalry, thanks to that whole 'survival of the fittest' thang... but it's not the same as seeing someone as an alien... an 'outsider'... an 'other.' If you are going to have a nation-village, you start having to decide whose perspective and will is the right one... and enforcing it on those who disagree. This isn't a NECESSITY of communism, but I can understand the path that leads a well-meaning youthful nation toward centralized decision making (dictatorship or government owned) and police/military to guard it.

Socialism I think will be harder to define because it is, itself, a hybrid and is being re-hybridized in five dozen different ways depending on who is doing it. Some experiments are working better than others... most better than our own, which is actually quite socialized too. If it takes wealth and resources contributed by everyone and works for the benefit of everyone... it's social. Police... military... fire departments... highways and roads... the electrification of rural places... so many utilities people take for granted. Every single one of these is a social construct. We were not socialist in these ways (i'm speaking as an american, here) we'd have to rely on local gangs and mercenaries to protect our homes (or stockpile weapons and hope the local thieves aren't better armed than we are), pay exorbitant private fire insurances and hope someone who pays more isn't having a fire at the same time you are, defend ourselves individually (rather than as a nation) whenever a better organized construct decides to invade. Good luck if the river ever overflows, a volcano erupts, or a tornado passes overhead, because you damn well are on your own.

Individualism is beautiful... everyone should be unique and empowered and self-assured. This is ~not~ the same thing as being a nation unto yourself. This does not require obscene opulence to achieve, nor does it preclude looking for consensus, giving a little of yourself for the common good, or helping your neighbor. This 'me me me me me' thing we've been espousing since the days of Bernays (nephew of freud and admired by goebbels) fits neatly within the mantra of 'divide and conquer.' It fattens the wallets of the elite at your expense, turns you against your neighbors, whittles your dunbar number down to units that are easy to squash should you resist, and quite literally causes majority percentiles of you to willingly give up your liberties ... hell, your wits ... for nothing except maybe a pretty bauble complete with 'planned obsolescence' just to ensure you're stuck buying it again and again and again when human ingenuity is more than capable of making said same item to last for generations.

There is no strict definition for ANY of these government types, including our own. What you really need to be aware of is that:

1. You can't go it alone. The specie will go extinct if you do.
2. It takes a village... it really does.
3. You are far more likely to be helped by others if you, gasp, help others
4. it's okay to concentrate common resources and effort (i.e., power) to achieve greater things, so long as those things are, in turn, used for the good of the whole rather than the good of those wielding said concentrated power.
5. Look to motivations... it doesn't matter if you think you are a democracy, capitalist, communist, socialist, monarch or dictator; they're all corruptible... all dangerous.
6. People can be convinced of anything if you suggest they are under threat from some outside (and/or inside) force. (Why, hello there G

 

[manatee]

Why do you think they steal?

Because violent intervention, triangular mostly, deprives them of opportunities to provide for themselves without criminal activities; because they see the binary interventions (which, incidentally, erode the civil society that could have helped these lost souls) and understandably think they legitimize these activities (the only other conclusion would be that they were second class citizens, which of course is effectively the case); and, to some extent, autistic interventions make sure that they step outside of the boundaries of the state's laws even though what they do does not violate anyone else's rights. It's a complicated issue, though, and I don't purport to have any definite answer.

At what point do you start to believe that something belongs exclusively to you (indefinitely?), I've never understood that part of this sect? How do you convince yourself? How do you prove it objectively? It seems physically impossible, even if you wanted it very badly (for whatever reason that I can't comprehend). To me, it's right there with ancient burials, where they put their wives, cattle and treasures with them in some tomb - and yet again, they couldn't keep those "treasures", and we have them now in museums instead, for little children to laugh at their crudity.

I've never thought that I own anything indefinitely, and very few probably do. The problem is just that when at any given time more than one person lays claim to the right to decide over what a specific object should be used for during a specific time, one person (or several) needs to have exclusive control over it, since not all wishes can be fulfilled, they're mutually exclusive. As long as scarcity is present it's not a matter of if anyone should have exclusive ownership, the only question is who.

I don't support the "right of might", that the strongest should own whatever /s/he lays claim to. I don't support a privileged group owning whatever resources it lays claim to. I recognize that the utopian, impossible fairy tale of universal collective ownership can never be implemented in practice, and is only a lie fabricated by those who wish to form the aforementioned privileged group, hiding their tyranny behind the mantle of "public interest".

I'm sorry, but I only see one possible way for me to take. Please, don't misunderstand me though, I don't support the status quo.

 

[Aleksei]

Yes and no. The pillars of societal security are strong community bonds, and high levels of economic prosperity under which people can feel secure. Capitalism, with a certain amount of direction, can deliver on the latter, but not on the former. And without the former, capitalism (being inherently individualistic) will compound upon feelings of helplessness and anomie.

 

[enfp can be shy]

I'm sorry, but I only see one possible way for me to take.

What would that be?

I wonder why civilization has to crumble, what's wrong with it? And so far my conclusion is that it seems to operate with a model that was suited for completely different economic reality - based on labor (that applies to communism, as well, or at least the past applications) - while the reality today is that human labor, in the old understanding of it, becomes more and more undesirable for the economy. And the new kinds of labor, based on exchange of ideas and methods, become harder to evaluate and privatize, as we did with tomatoes.