If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Your first reaction is to assume that I support something else. I don't, because that thing hasn't been invented yet, but capitalism still sucks. It really does. We can do much better.
There is a complete myth that there is this "invisible hand of the free market" that is all-knowing and the decider of value in our society. This is a load of crap. The free market decides what things can be easily monetized and supported by the system, perhaps a compatibility test if you will, but different sorts of professions and skills work better in the system than others.
For example, there are terrible middle managers of large companies that make far more money than fantastic teachers, artists, even scientists. Humanities suffer greatly under capitalism, yet it has been proven time and time again how important they are to civilization. As a musician working in a tech startup, I feel a constant sense of guilt that I make a 6 digit salary while so many other people doing noble things struggle. Fortunately I believe in what we are building, but there are so many other companies, products, etc. that in no stretch of the imagination are more "valuable" (by my definition) of all of the many people enriching and changing actual lives.
Capitalism also sucks because of what is going on in the US now, where the middle class is being completely gutted. I'm sure many of you saw the footage of an Indiana company announcing to its employees that the 3000 people they employee will be replaced by Mexican workers once the plant is relocated. Outsourcing of this nature allows companies to transfer operations to where the currency is least valuable in comparison to their primary currency. Currencies are valued based on actions of leadership and government - the so called 1%, so none of this is at all fair to actual people, nor a reflection of the actual value of work being done.
So, all of this is to say that I get tired of people lauding capitalism. Sure it is better than inferior systems, but why do we set the bar so low? We should be working on replacing capitalism, or at least rebuilding what we have now - maybe capitalism 2.0, whatever you want to call it, but NOBODY should be satisfied with what we have or feel that it is the ultimate expression of humanity.
Aren't you confusing "corporate management F-ups" with "capitalism?" The idea that, if I do something that's worth value for someone else, that I should receive that value - which should encourage me to do more of that something with more value as a reward - is what capitalism is about.
Middle managers who are a waste of space has nothing to do with the economic system, and you can find reams of data on that subject from experience in Soviet bureaucracies, which tended to reward crappy but "loyal" Party members over people who were actually good at anything.
Aren't you confusing "corporate management F-ups" with "capitalism?" The idea that, if I do something that's worth value for someone else, that I should receive that value - which should encourage me to do more of that something with more value as a reward - is what capitalism is about.
I think I understand the premise, but the rewards are not necessarily in line with the actual value to society (if you were to measure value in terms of positive and direct impact on lives), so it's a myth to embrace the idea that this system works as well as it sounds.
Middle managers who are a waste of space has nothing to do with the economic system, and you can find reams of data on that subject from experience in Soviet bureaucracies, which tended to reward crappy but "loyal" Party members over people who were actually good at anything.
Which is another good point: there are a number of ugly factors that influence that final value that is assigned. Those crappy and loyal party members are not more valuable than people out there trying to eradicate diseases, fight hunger, etc.
Capitalism is fine, gov't bumbling around with it is what sucks.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'd say more people are supporting themselves through artistic pursuits now than in any other time in history. That's not just gross numbers, I'm talking by percentage of all people alive.
That's one of the reasons it gets a good rap. It's capitalism which has pushed us to the point where we have this kind of surplus wealth available to dedicate to the humanities.
I know someone who just peeled off $20MM to build the new astronomy building at the university he went to. He could do that because he's a successful financier.
"Value to society" is not a feature of capitalism. Individuals assess the value of something and determine if it is worth it to themselves to exchange value for that something. Society benefits when individuals see value in "good things" like medicine, public works, and so on.
But beware of any system that depends on altruism. The fact that capitalism has allowed us to prosper to the point where we can BE altruistic and charitable, does not even remotely imply that altruism is a feature of capitalism. It's a side effect. Communism could not flourish where individual workers saw no benefit to themselves in busting their rumps "for the state" because it actually did depend on altruism.
No, but your argument does not seem to be about capitalism itself, only about some features of how certain companies working in a capitalist system are structured.
Well, one of your arguments is capitalism doesn't address the importance of the humanities.
I'm saying it kinda, sorta does... kinda sorta does it well. As in better than any other option.
We've tried lots of options here. Frankly, the only way someone is going to come up with a better option is from leveraging the surplus wealth from capitalism into time for people to theorize.
No, but your argument does not seem to be about capitalism itself, only about some features of how certain companies working in a capitalist system are structured.
It is about capitalism itself, that it is a terrible system for advancement of our species, and that we can do better.
The contrast wasn't the refutation. The refutation was challenging the extent to which you claim the humanities do poorly under capitalism.
Middle managers making more than musicians is balanced out by there being more musicians than ever. These are both results of capitalism.
The point is that capitalism is a bogus assessor of actual value to society, and merely an assessor of what is most compatible with capitalism itself. Nobility is often not tied to money making. If it was there would be no homeless, starving, sick, etc. people in the world.
The point is that capitalism is a bogus assessor of actual value to society, and merely an assessor of what is most compatible with capitalism itself. Nobility is often not tied to money making. If it was there would be no homeless, starving, sick, etc. people in the world.
I'm confused.
Capitalism is a good assessor of the price of a good or service. That's completely different from value a good or service has to society.
I'm confused as to what you are confused by, as usually seems to be the case when we have these discussions.
Let's start with my first post, what about it is confusing to you?
I'm confused about where you are getting the idea capitalism claims to be good at determining something's value, when what it claims to be good at determining is price.
I'm confused about where you are getting the idea capitalism claims to be good at determining something's value, when what it claims to be good at determining is price.
That's exactly my point.
I'm not claiming that it is good at determining something's value, I'm claiming that is what is wrong with it - it doesn't, it determines its price, as you said.
Running a society based on not what is valuable, but what is worth a high price is not the best of what humanity has to offer. Thus, capitalism is fatally flawed when it is deemed worthy of building our entire existence around, which is pretty much the case today. We ought to seek something better to replace it with.
Perhaps fantasizing about replacing capitalism seems too pie-in-the-sky and unrealistic right now, but it would be nice to at least put to rest these myths about the righteousness of all-things-capitalism. It seems that there are many that believe in the infallibility of the free market. This might be a strawman argument since there are many that merely prefer the free market to government, but it does seem that there are those that really live by free market principles as some sort of ideal for our existence.
Capitalism is also very effective in setting up reward feedback loops for those in the position to benefit most from them. It allows for routine under (or zero) valuing of anything that can be gained for free or little effort, be this environmental recourses or human resources. And it is phenomenally inefficient at distributing the gains from its endeavours.
It also depends on the availability of a rule of law, a stable society and the avialability of governmeny subsidy to provide markets when times are good and to bail it out when it f**ks up heroically.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
I think the issue is that while a lot of people know something is wrong and needs to be changed, no-one has an answer as to how to change it or what to change it to.
My FB feed is filled with posts decrying treatment of refugees and asylum seekers but with no ideas about how to pay for them if you take them in indiscriminately, or how to deal with the terrorists or liars who sneak in among them. Lots of hate towards the 1% but no ideas for fair ways to redistribute the wealth. You can't take all someones money just because they have more of it than you. How the **** would that work?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I'm not claiming that it is good at determining something's value, I'm claiming that is what is wrong with it - it doesn't, it determines its price, as you said.
Running a society based on not what is valuable, but what is worth a high price is not the best of what humanity has to offer. Thus, capitalism is fatally flawed when it is deemed worthy of building our entire existence around, which is pretty much the case today. We ought to seek something better to replace it with.
Perhaps fantasizing about replacing capitalism seems too pie-in-the-sky and unrealistic right now, but it would be nice to at least put to rest these myths about the righteousness of all-things-capitalism. It seems that there are many that believe in the infallibility of the free market. This might be a strawman argument since there are many that merely prefer the free market to government, but it does seem that there are those that really live by free market principles as some sort of ideal for our existence.
Similar to my question about whether capitalism determines value or price, I ask whether capitalism is meant as a way to run a society, or a way to run an economy.
I feel like capitalism is getting the **** straw manned out of it.
I think the issue is that while a lot of people know something is wrong and needs to be changed, no-one has an answer as to how to change it or what to change it to.
My FB feed is filled with posts decrying treatment of refugees and asylum seekers but with no ideas about how to pay for them if you take them in indiscriminately, or how to deal with the terrorists or liars who sneak in among them. Lots of hate towards the 1% but no ideas for fair ways to redistribute the wealth. You can't take all someones money just because they have more of it than you. How the **** would that work?
I agree that you can't take the wealth away in redistribution (although so long as our current system exists I'm in favor of sensible regulations), but can we not redefine what constitutes value and wealth in the first place? Right now value is defined as what is compatible with monetization, but as we have been seeing this is not the same thing so long as we share a common definition of what is actually valuable to society (and I think we do - if we were to come up with a list we'd all agree that some things in this list of skills/services are being grossly devalued).
But to add another thing to this thought exercise, have you ever thought about what sort of skills, research, information, etc. is purposely not being shared with society by individuals when they have absolutely no incentive to share it? We all have bills to pay. If I'm a neuroscientist having problems getting my research funded why wouldn't I just consider becoming an investment banker instead?
The point here is not only is capitalism not often what is best for the advancement of our species, but ironically it often defeats itself. Think about all of the research, science, technology, etc. that has not seen the light of day because of this fatigue factor, or else simply being mismanaged because of sheer greed/power/politics. Capitalism supports and perhaps rewards this greed, and what we are seeing now in the US is this getting completely out-of-control. Some would point to the greed/power/politics belonging to the government, some the private sector, some both, but I think few people would disagree that whatever form it exists in, it is a cancer.
So, I get tired of all of the capitalism rah rah rah. It sucks. Hard. Let's agree upon this and then make something better.
Similar to my question about whether capitalism determines value or price, I ask whether capitalism is meant as a way to run a society, or a way to run an economy.
I feel like capitalism is getting the **** straw manned out of it.
What's the difference? Our society is all about pursuit and maintenance of wealth. What percentage of your life is spent just doing stuff to pay your bills, or increase your wealth?
What's the difference? Our society is all about pursuit and maintenance of wealth. What percentage of your life is spent just doing stuff to pay your bills, or increase your wealth?
Honestly, at this point, not much, because I have more than I need.
But I'm not the greatest example, I think a better example would be teachers, who aren't about pursuit of wealth, yet still manage to exist.
Charity often gets brought up in discussions about capitalism.
I'm not going to argue charity can fix all of the ails brought about by capitalism, but the fact it exists and is so widespread is a strong challenge to the assertion capitalism makes our society all about wealth.
Has Bill Gates not proven to you he has concerns beyond pursuit and maintenance of wealth?
Charity often gets brought up in discussions about capitalism.
I'm not going to argue charity can fix all of the ails brought about by capitalism, but the fact it exists and is so widespread is a strong challenge to the assertion capitalism makes our society all about wealth.
Has Bill Gates not proven to you he has concerns beyond pursuit and maintenance of wealth?
Charity is a compensation for a non-ideal system, which works for funding projects to some extent, but not the direct pursuits of individuals. It is a positive thing, but not something we can use to completely blow off the problems with capitalism I have been describing.
I'm not claiming charity is a cure for capitalism.
I'm claiming charity refutes the argument our society is about pursuit and maintenance of wealth to the extent one can use "economy" and "society" interchangeably.
Here is my crazy idea for what would be ideal to replace capitalism with.
Please refrain from blowing it out of the water, there are obviously 29034230948 details that would need to be accounted for more thoroughly, and obvious flaws. This is not perfect, but I think on the right path to something that would ultimately be superior to capitalism.
It's a weird hybrid of capitalism, democratic socialism (much like we have now with government funding), and technology inspired by the existence of crowdsourcing.
Your company, project, service, whatever would have the option to go at it alone, or to be proposed to an elected body of assessors, perhaps sort of like an improved version of unions. This elected body will unravel your proposal or whatever it is that you do, and ultimately decide whether it will receive public funding based on a democratic assessment of value and what benefits society. This could range from small individual freelancing to large military projects. You will still be allowed to sell stuff and make as much money as you want, but if we decide that some researcher researching cures to cancer is doing a noble thing (even though it won't turn a profit for 50 years), we at least assure that that project/company/thing exists.
So, it's not a complete wealth redistribution equalizer thing in the sense that if you are Apple you are no doubt going to always make more money than the cancer research organization, but it assures that we are supporting things we deem to be important.
By publicizing the scrutiny of these projects/companies/things, it also encourages excess profits to be donated to these things as well.
Of course, we would have to assure that the assessors, whatever they would be called, could not be bought out. Like I said, there are a gazillion details to work out here, but to the benefactors of people doing noble things, stability to their existence is a vast improvement over what exists today.
If the government wants to encourage something (because, say, they think it's good for society), they offer a subsidy.
They do that for some things like green energy projects, but I want to make this a complete public process available to every single company and citizen in America, ala Kickstarter for public funding.
They do that for some things like green energy projects, but I want to make this a complete public process available to every single company and citizen in America, ala Kickstarter for public funding.
Given the capricious nature of today's society, we don't have nearly the resources for that. We'd end up with millions of individual projects in varying states of completion and few ever being finished at all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Given the capricious nature of today's society, we don't have nearly the resources for that. We'd end up with millions of individual projects in varying states of completion and few ever being finished at all.
There are definite issues here, although we have the resources for company applications for LLCs/S-corps/etc., so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to expand upon that making use of technology, and devoting resources at the local level for this sort of thing?
They do that for some things like green energy projects, but I want to make this a complete public process available to every single company and citizen in America, ala Kickstarter for public funding.
Except ultimately for the projects which don't benefit society enough.
Why would we open it to all only to reject most of it rather than specifically ask for what we want via subsidy?
Likewise, you're arguing for centralization. Is the problem a lack of centralization?
Guys, I'm not interested in picking apart the idea to this level while it is unclear to me whether you agree with some of what I'm saying, or you are just interested in picking it apart for sport to shut down my general idea. It was merely an example of the sort of framework I think could be a capitalism successor. I haven't put that much thought into yet, and I have no doubt it would have 20984093248 issues and things to work through including and in addition to the ones you've mentioned.
Changing the very foundation of society is not a little weekend project.
The point, though, is that we can and should improve what is not working well rather than accepting it as an immutable ideal. The same is true for the constitution, our legal system, etc. Pretty much every system is designed to evolve over time.
The problem isn't lack of ideas, the problem is the lack of political will to implement them.
Agreed, but the problem is that no politician can assemble the will while so many people can easily parrot and perpetuate this myth of unfettered capitalism being invincible. We first need to see things for what they are before we can change them. My goal for this thread was to get people to agree that we shouldn't be satisfied with capitalism as it stands today, and even with changes to regulation and oversight it is still fundamentally flawed in not addressing the concept of nobility and what capitalism rewards not being the same thing.
Guys, I'm not interested in picking apart the idea to this level while it is unclear to me whether you agree with some of what I'm saying, or you are just interested in picking it apart for sport to shut down my general idea. It was merely an example of the sort of framework I think could be a capitalism successor. I haven't put that much thought into yet, and I have no doubt it would have 20984093248 issues and things to work through including and in addition to the ones you've mentioned.
Changing the very foundation of society is not a little weekend project.
The point, though, is that we can and should improve what is not working well rather than accepting it as an immutable ideal. The same is true for the constitution, our legal system, etc. Pretty much every system is designed to evolve over time.
Originally Posted by subego
The problem isn't lack of ideas, the problem is the lack of political will to implement them.
Introduction
1. The spirit of revolution in the field of capital and labor is on everyone’s mind.
2. As We have discussed other topics, “truth and justice” demand that We address these topics of rights and duties so that further revolution can be avoided.
3. What is absolutely clear is that
a. something must be done for the workers who are suffering
b. guilds, which have disappeared, cannot protect the worker
c. states and “public institutions” have rejected the faith
d. wealth is in the hands of the few, which creates a new kind of slavery.
I. SOCIALISM’S ANSWER
4. Socialists offer an answer by removing private property. This is wrong and would cause the workers to suffer first.
5. Property, or capital, is simply wages in another form. Thus socialism strikes at the heart of what labor is for, i.e. the free use of what one has earned.
6. This socialist principle against private property is against the virtue of justice. Private property is a natural right. Indeed permanent possession of things is part of what humans require for life.
7. Furthermore, man’s needs extend into the future, which means he requires planning, which means he requires long-term possession of capital. Nature provides man’s needs through the earth and its fruits. Man, therefore, does not need the State. Man “precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.”
8. God allows for private property. Still, we are not allowed to use it however we want. There are limits which are “fixed by man’s own industry, and by the law of the individual races.”
9. Another proof of the right to private property is that man “leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality” on that on which he labors. Thus, he must be allowed ownership of the thing.
10. This is all so obvious it is odd that the socialist answer cannot see this truth. The fruit of a one’s labor belongs to them.
11. The respect for private property is, in fact, “the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human existence.” Divine law even confirms this in the 9th and 10th commandments.
12. The need to provide for a family further make this right to private property necessary. Since man is called to raise families, and families are “older than any State.” Man has a right to provide for his society, the family.
13. The right to private property becomes firmer with the increased size of the family. And looking to the future, if the father cannot own property how can he pass on capital to his family? “The family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community.”
14. The State, therefore, cannot have control over the family. This is a “great and pernicious error.” Certainly public aid for needy families ought to be in place. The State may step in with regard to certain abuses. “But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further.” The socialist answer results in the destruction of the “structure of the home.”
15. This main tenet of socialism, the “community of goods,” can only result in envy, a dis-incentivizing of labor, and nothing else but equal misery.
16. Thus, “no practical solution of this question will be found apart from the intervention of religion and of the Church.” The Church is the keeper of the Gospel, which provides the key to solving the conflict between men. The Gospel not only “enlightens the mind” but also gives practical directives for daily life. Furthermore, the Church does already improve the working conditions of laborers around the world “by means of numerous organizations.”
RN goes on to discuss the role of the Church and the state, as well as owners and workers/unions/associations
20. These are the duties of the “proletarian and the worker.”
a. to do the work agreed upon well
b. never to injure the property or person of the employer
c. never to engage in violence or disorder to defend one’s cause
d. do not associate with hucksters
The following are the duties of the “wealthy owner and the employer.”
a. view every worker with dignity and not as a “bondsmen.”
b. to know that working for gain is “creditable”
c. to know that to misuse men, to view them as means to an end is “truly shameful and inhuman.”
d. in dealing with workers, their religion and soul ought to be kept in mind
i. make sure they have time to fulfill religious duties
ii. protect them from corruption and “dangerous occasions” iii. do not lead him away from his family
iv. encourage him way from squandering his earnings
e. do not overly tax employees
f. do not employ people to labor “unsuited to their sex and age.”
g. give them a just wage
i. to gather profit from the need of others – i.e. the indigent or destitute – is against human/divine law.
ii. to defraud someone of just wage is a crime that calls for vengeance from Heaven iii. the employer may not cut the wages by force, fraud, or usury
There's more, but I don't want to make a ginormous post.
It is about capitalism itself, that it is a terrible system for advancement of our species, and that we can do better.
It's actually the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. (Paraphrasing Churchill here...)
I suggest that it is what capitalism does economically that allows us to be concerned about advancing our species, rather than having to be concerned about just perpetuating the species. By advancing our economic status to the point where we have "disposable income," capitalism has gotten us to the point where we can pay attention to such things as humanities, science (for the sake of science) and so on.
Before we reform capitalism, I'd like to see some changes to democracy.
I still think my garbage collection protocols have merit.
New bills or laws should be kept to one subject each, no tacking on of other crap to sneak it through;
Each bill or law should include a description of what issue it hopes to address or problem it hopes to solve and a clearly defined set of metrics with timescales to measure the success or failure of the bill or law;
Bills failing to achieve their goals are automatically repealed or brought back up for review according to their metrics;
I'd also like to see the implementation of modern tech to allow politicians to better gauge public opinion. Too much policy is drafted without the public (or anyone else) deciding what the driving philosophy behind it should be.
Lots of opinion polls to be taken via government website and a dedicated app. Nothing legally binding, just a way to test the waters on important issues.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Agreed, but the problem is that no politician can assemble the will while so many people can easily parrot and perpetuate this myth of unfettered capitalism being invincible. We first need to see things for what they are before we can change them. My goal for this thread was to get people to agree that we shouldn't be satisfied with capitalism as it stands today, and even with changes to regulation and oversight it is still fundamentally flawed in not addressing the concept of nobility and what capitalism rewards not being the same thing.
Capitalism is like a hammer. It pounds nails.
If the goal isn't nail pounding-centric, the poor results from the hammer aren't because the hammer is fundamentally flawed, it's because the tool has been misapplied.
Capitalism isn't flawed for failing to address nobility. It's not supposed to. Not-hammer tools exist for us to shape the results of capitalism any way we want.
A hammer which makes a bad wrench isn't broken. There are wrenches in the toolbox.
(
Last edited by subego; Feb 14, 2016 at 11:51 PM.
)
If the goal isn't nail pounding-centric, the poor results from the hammer aren't because the hammer is fundamentally flawed, it's because the tool has been misapplied.
Capitalism isn't flawed for failing to address nobility. It's not supposed to. Not-hammer tools exist for us to shape the results of capitalism any way we want.
A hammer which makes a bad wrench isn't broken. There are wrenches in the toolbox.
I agree with this, but I think that many do see capitalism as more than this. As we experience problems as we are in the US now with the middle class collapsing, we are also seeing that capitalism doesn't have a repair button. Maybe it's time to look outside of capitalism for that button.
Robert Kennedy, March 1968: "Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
I just like it when people think for themselves. Call me crazy.
The notion that Chongo can't pick what sandwich he wants to eat for lunch without running it by a priest first makes me sad. I'm exaggerating of course before anyone gets all pedantically pissy at me.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I just like it when people think for themselves. Call me crazy.
That runs counter to the philosophy being bandied about by the regressive Marxists that are infesting universities now, and that's the only brand of anti-consumerism that's gained any traction these days, apart from the "love thy neighbor" communalism espoused by certain sects Christianity (the RCC being one of them).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top