Lets talk about capitalism

[Osterbaum]

Capitalism is the system wherein we humans organize ourselves and our society based on the principles of competition, profit making and self-interest.

The profit motive is the driver behind this capitalist system. It can manifest itself in different forms, that is profits aka accumulation of wealth in our society often means accumulating money in one form or another. Capital attracts more capital and those with the most of it have the most power or at least the most advantaged position in society.

There are several wide spread, almost universal myths about capitalism as an economic system. This is all part of capitalist realism, the pervasive global atmosphere where it is 'easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism'. I'm going to briefly try and debunk a few of the most common myths here. I wont go into much detail, I'm hoping to spark a discussion which might then lead to further elaboration of several topics.

myth the 1st
Capitalism is human nature.

No.

Whenever someone claims something in the name of 'human nature' it's good to get skeptical as hell. It is an extremely complicated concept, largely abstract and certainly not easily quantifiable. Not to mention that there are a ton of historical and contemporary examples of people acting differently from what our current ideas about 'human nature' would suggest.

Proponents of capitalism would have us believe that they know humans are greedy, competitive and only self-interested by nature. What's their proof? Often it amounts to little more than some kind of social darwinism, which I hope I don't have to tell everyone why it's bullshit. A large part of their 'proof' is the way our world functions. But I don't have to tell you that's a circular argument: Capitalism is best because people are greedy ---> we know people are greedy because capitalism?

Is it in fact more likely, that the world we live in molds our 'nature'? Many people act greedy or self-interested, because we live in a world that promises to reward such behavior. Because in our world the driving motive for most things is making profit.

myth the 2nd
Capitalism is efficient.

A system in which we throw out food while people starve.
A system in which people are homeless while there are empty buildings.
A system where planned obsolescence is a thing.

There is nothing efficient about any of that.

And this is the way it works because by capitalist logic business doesn't care about producing for need, only for profit. Food is worthless to capitalism if no one buys it. Homes are useless unless someone pays to live in them. Designing long lasting products generates less profit than selling people a new consumer toy every few years.

In short, there is nothing efficient about producing for profit.

myth the 3rd
Capitalism is fair.

What does the value of a product consist of?
- raw materials
- wear & tear of machinery and tools
- work

The raw materials are worth what they're worth. The wear & tear costs are more or less constant, they certainly can't generate new value. So it is the work done to transform raw materials into products, using the necessary knowledge and tools, that creates this extra value.

If we accept that the extra value is added to raw materials via work done on them, then we accept that this is the source of profit. If we accept work as the source of added value, then how would it be fair that this generated value should go into the pockets of """job creators"""?

myth the 4th
Capitalism is freedom.

Work for someone else or starve.

That's not a choice, that's a threat!

myth the 5th
There is no alternative.

The famous TINA argument.

But history is again full of examples of people struggling to create their own alternatives that they feel are best for them and their communities.

Hunter gatherers lived quite differently from us. We had alternative communities in Europe in the middle-ages. We've had several more0contemporary revolutions where people sought to take matters into their own hands and create their own world; the revolutionary waves of 1848, Paris Commune in 1871, the Russian and Ukranian revolutions (1917-1921, after which they became something else entirely), the German revolution (1918-1920), the Spanish revolution (1936-37), Hungary in 1956, the revolutionary wave of 1968 and the social movements all over the world that have risen out of the anti-globalisation movement of the late 90's/early 00's and the present capitalist crisis.

We have the Zapatista movement.

And these are just the examples I can name off the top of my head.

After all, even capitalism didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Feudalism was quite a different system. There is always an alternative, we just need to be willing to imagine it and then strive towards createing it. Discuss.

[Aerozord]

I forget who said it, but it is the one I find to be the most true and drives my views on all systems. "All models will be corrupted". I agree, capitalism isn't human nature. What is human nature is the drive to get the most out of something. Human will always seek to find ways to exploit something. The original Bioshock demonstrated this perfectly. The reason a pure capitalistic-objectivist society would implode is it only takes one guy to realize the lower class can be effectively motivated through a simple "offer of a better life" and out number the upper class 100 to 1.

The other is someone is going to be in charge. Part of this is practicality. When dealing with hundreds of millions, or even billions, you need some oversight. Memes would drive an alternative as macro-psychology has shown us society grabs onto certain things and propagates them. Even ignoring all that, your average person just doesn't have the time to become educated on every detail of economics and government.

With all that out of the way, I go with the economic model that creates a utilitarian effect. The most good for the most people. I believe in a world run by scarcity, a mixed economy is best. Just to get this out of the way YES this is a scarcity market. The major driving forces in our economy are energy, man power, time, and IP. People starve on a large scale because of the first two reasons. Food is not scarce. We have enough for everyone, but getting food to them is very difficult.

A mixed economy places restrictions on businesses and offers support to the lower and middle class to allow upward movement. "Old money" doesn't work too well as what is scarce keeps shifting. Its why many of todays wealthy are involved in media and technology. This limits the foothold specific individuals can maintain. Of course this is a rolling shift of growth and recession. New laws and limitations need to be created as humans discover ways around the old one. Like how Google has gotten around anti-trust laws by expanding outwardly.

I am of course open to alternatives, but I believe new systems is what we need not old ones. In time I am hoping we can have a transitive economy where base needs are met and economy is driven purely by luxury.

[Kim]

My perspective is that Capitalism is Evil and I would like it gone forever.

Also that hierarchies lead to exploitation and abuse, and capitalism is just the latest form of that. I think of capitalism in many ways as an attempt at a secular, merit-based hierarchy.

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.

Even if you get down to the family unit, families are hierarchical. Parents effectively own their children, and because we live in a patriarchy the father is at the top of the pyramid. I think this encourages abuse in many forms.

I don't like it, but I don't know how to fix it, and I've resigned myself to the fact that even if I get to live a long life we probably won't fix this problem in my lifetime.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Kim

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.

This is true, which is why we should focus on systems that mitigate abuse instead of people constantly trying to push idealized versions of their model.

You need to think of how your model can be broken and exploited, worst case scenario situation. Because eventually your system will be that. Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

This is true, which is why we should focus on systems that mitigate abuse instead of people constantly trying to push idealized versions of their model.

You need to think of how your model can be broken and exploited, worst case scenario situation. Because eventually your system will be that. Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

I disagree immensely with your last statement.

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by Aero

The other is someone is going to be in charge. Part of this is practicality. When dealing with hundreds of millions, or even billions, you need some oversight.

Oversight might be necessary, but I do not think this oversight needs to be authoritative. People are perfectly capable of getting together and reaching decisions about subjects that affect them all, even on a global scale. Though the logistical hurdles to overcome should not be underestimated!

People starve on a large scale because of the first two reasons. Food is not scarce. We have enough for everyone, but getting food to them is very difficult.

What's so difficult about getting the food to people? We have the technology to efficiently both grow and transport food. There is also no reason why food production could not be localized. It is again the search for profits that has lead to food production centering in the hands of large corporations, often more or less tied to some specific geographic area.

Capitalism is a broken system. One that leads to human misery, to environmental destruction and for what? For the profits of a relative few? That right there is enough reason for me to abolish it once and for all.

Originally Posted by Kim

My perspective is that Capitalism is Evil and I would like it gone forever.

Also that hierarchies lead to exploitation and abuse, and capitalism is just the latest form of that. I think of capitalism in many ways as an attempt at a secular, merit-based hierarchy.

Thing is I don't know how to structure things in ways that won't inevitably form new hierarchies, and those hierarchies will always lead to abuse and exploitation.

Even if you get down to the family unit, families are hierarchical. Parents effectively own their children, and because we live in a patriarchy the father is at the top of the pyramid. I think this encourages abuse in many forms.

I don't like it, but I don't know how to fix it, and I've resigned myself to the fact that even if I get to live a long life we probably won't fix this problem in my lifetime.

As an anarchist (greek "an-" = without + arkhos = leader), it is indeed a big part of my opposition to capitalism that it is an immensly hierarchical system. It not only creates it's own economic based hierarchies like boss/employee & rich/poor, but also supports the existence of other hierarchies.

I would suggest you look more into anarchism if hierarchies piss you off. That is unless you already have.

It's a difficult thing to structure things in ways that wont lead to hierarchies. It would require a complete change in thought, in the way people view things. But I believe it's possible. By striving towards a world free of hierarchies we can at least get as close as is humanely possible. You mention family hierarchy as an example, but I believe that in our current society it's at least possible these hierarchies are informed by the existence of other hierarchies. Hierarchy is also something we learn, they are largely social constructs or based on such.

And in questioning all authority it does not mean anarchists necessarily reject all authority. As demonstrated by this Mikhail Bakunin quote:

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.

In a sense one could think that a child defering to the authority of their parents would be similarly justified, at least until they reach an age where they can understand and choose for themselves.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

Right now our mixed economy is at its worst, but at its worst your average person still enjoys a standard of living thats better than the rest of the world.

People in a Capitalist society might enjoy a standard of living that is a bit more than the people who live in the societies which said Capitalist society has plundered and looted and stomped all over in order to provide that standard.

[Doc ock rokc]

My personal thoughts on the matter are this

Capitalism isn't evil nor is it good. It is merely a system. An organized way to trade things of equal value.

That being said, it isn't the most effective or fair system. Just the most resistant system. Its easy to set up and easy to keep going. It offers a centralized concept with decentralized controls.

When done right it can work. However their is always the debate in how it is done right.

You see the Free-market has always failed. Too many monopolies. Too little "Trickle downs." Poor safety conditions to cut costs. Workers not getting or having rights. The money just stops circulating right.

On the flip side Socialist economics hasn't worked well ether. No incentives. No Ownership. Overwhelming costly regulations. Workers not getting or having rights.

That being said, Having both of them together is the only logical choice. Competition breeds innovation, but Collaboration breeds progress.

The issue we have now is that the market has stagnated. Too few are holding too much. Too many are captive audiences. This isn't because of the lack of competition mind you. The problem stems from the ease it takes for larger companies to crush and absorb other ones. The large ones have become "Too Big To Fail" which in turn ruins the system. if we want money to move around properly we need giants to fall. we also need an evening of the scales every once and a while. a flat tax could do it. as well as eliminating some tax loopholes for corporations.

That being said mom and pop places are not dead. Far From it. You can work for yourself, but remember you just trade one boss for several hundred thousand. The internet has provided a medium for many mom and pop's to flourish. For as long as it is impartial they will continue to do so. That being said ISP's need to be labeled Common Carriers like Telephones or else the entire internet will suffer.

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by K-Resh

People in a Capitalist society might enjoy a standard of living that is a bit more than the people who live in the societies which said Capitalist society has plundered and looted and stomped all over in order to provide that standard.

This. And in addition, there are tons of people in advanced capitalist societies as well who dont enjoy a middle-class or higher standard of living.

One thing you often hear these days is how the (industrial) working class is practically non-existent. But really it's just located elsewhere, in the factories where they make our clothes and where they refine the raw materials we use to make our smart phones etc.

Originally Posted by Doc

Capitalism isn't evil nor is it good. It is merely a system. An organized way to trade things of equal value.

Sure, it's not evil as such. But the logic of it that dominates our society leads to some pretty evil shit too. However it is not a way to trade things of equal value; if all trades were of equal value, then where would the profit be? In order for someone to profit from a trade, someone else has to lose.

That being said, it isn't the most effective or fair system. Just the most resistant system. Its easy to set up and easy to keep going. It offers a centralized concept with decentralized controls.

Resistant perhaps, but even capitalism can't survive the environmental catastrophe it is creating. Bureucracy is also rampant as all hell in our capitalist societies, so I wouldn't say it's all that easy to keep going either.

On the flip side Socialist economics hasn't worked well ether. No incentives. No Ownership. Overwhelming costly regulations. Workers not getting or having rights.

Are you thinking of the USSR or other self-proclaimed "communist" countries? The USSR and it's allies were mostly state capitalist. They did not abolish private property, they did not abolish the wage system and they did not abolish the boss-worker relationship. All they did was transfer ownership to the state, replace individual capitalists with the state and bosses with bureucrats.

There is a lot more to socialist/communist/anarchist economics. I suggest you do some research if you have the time. Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any other on the internet. I identify as an anarcho-communist myself.

The issue we have now is that the market has stagnated. Too few are holding too much. Too many are captive audiences. This isn't because of the lack of competition mind you. The problem stems from the ease it takes for larger companies to crush and absorb other ones. The large ones have become "Too Big To Fail" which in turn ruins the system. if we want money to move around properly we need giants to fall. we also need an evening of the scales every once and a while. a flat tax could do it. as well as eliminating some tax loopholes for corporations.

This is a natural development for capitalism: further concentration of wealth. It is the direction where the profit motive motivates businesses to go.

[Doc ock rokc]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Sure, it's not evil as such. But the logic of it that dominates our society leads to some pretty evil shit too. However it is not a way to trade things of equal value; if all trades were of equal value, then where would the profit be? In order for someone to profit from a trade, someone else has to lose.

Not necessarily. When I go to the store to buy milk. I value the milk more then I value the money I spend. The store clerk values the money more then the milk he sells. I think he "Loses," He thinks I "lose."

The only time you have a "Winner" is when you chose between two similar products.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Resistant perhaps, but even capitalism can't survive the environmental catastrophe it is creating. Bureucracy is also rampant as all hell in our capitalist societies, so I wouldn't say it's all that easy to keep going either.

As long as people think the money has value it does. As long as it holds a value it can be traded for goods/services. That is why Capitalism has worked across the ages. It doesn't need the bureaucracy in the end.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Are you thinking of the USSR or other self-proclaimed "communist" countries? The USSR and it's allies were mostly state capitalist. They did not abolish private property, they did not abolish the wage system and they did not abolish the boss-worker relationship. All they did was transfer ownership to the state, replace individual capitalists with the state and bosses with bureucrats.

There is a lot more to socialist/communist/anarchist economics. I suggest you do some research if you have the time. Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any other on the internet. I identify as an anarcho-communist myself.

A) - few of these economies to work on a state level let alone a Global scale. Some or theories and have never been successfully practiced

B) - To get to a functional level of even distribution one would need extensive bureaucracy to function. Leading to a possudo-Goverment in order to manage resources. To spread these resources out one would need oversight to ensure proper delivery. In the end a Anarchic-Communistic state would devolve into a...State communistic state...Its a nice idea but it can't take off on paper let alone reality.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

This is a natural development for capitalism: further concentration of wealth. It is the direction where the profit motive motivates businesses to go.

Unfortunately yes that is the problem...however with the right measures one could increase the circulation and thus the GDP of everyone making EVERYONE wealthier. Capitalism succeeds if the money keeps flowing. The more that flows and the faster the more the market flows and the harder the market hits. If we even had 60% of the total us money supply moving we would see the markets change in a flash and "Voting with the dollar" would be even more effective. But that is if we can actually get it moving instead of this stupid trickle down shit. Currently the bottom 80% (who hold up the economy) are wielding ~5% as of 2010. With 5% we have kept the us economy afloat.

With a little bit of fair even taxing, we get more money flowing (as well as pay off the US Debt)