Capitalism - Good or bad ?

[kentuck]

Why?

[slackmaster]

1. Good

It's what's for breakfast.

[bupkus]

2. As currently practiced in America -- BAD

Because it's been transformed from an economic to a political system where all the prizes go to the highest bidders and everyone else can go to hell.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Capitalism freed us from Monarchies

Tax breaks , Weak regulations , off shore bank accounts , weren't part of the equation ,it's good when wealth is kept in check by the government and not the other way around.

[Skinner]

4. Good or bad is not really the point. Capitalism is well suited to human nature.

Humans are a product of evolution, which (broadly speaking) tends to reinforce behaviors that are self-serving. For better or worse, living creatures tend to look out for themselves and (to a lesser extent) their kin.

To be blunt: Capitalism works for humans because we are basically selfish. It turns our selfish nature into productive economic activity. Economic systems that ignore the reality of human nature are (unfortunately) doomed to failure.

So, the goal of public policy (in my liberal view) should be to keep the broad incentives of capitalism in place, while regulating it so harmful side-effects are avoided as much as possible, nobody accrues too much power, and the benefits are widely shared.

[rug]

8. That argument is made many times. It turns on what human nature is.

Usually it's described as competitive as well as selfish.

Yet for each example of selfish or competitive behavior, there are dozens of altruistic or cooperative acts. I suggest that, even on a biological or sociological scale, human beings are the product of, and thrive in, cooperative settings.

Even the most rabid conservative praises the notion of family and country and solemnly affirms each is worthy of the ultimate sacrifice. There is no selfishness or competition in that assertion. The problem is that cooperation, that selflessness, is limited to that family, that group, that nation. And woe be to any outside group.

Politically, the task is to extend that - human - nature of cooperation beyond barriers of nations, races, gender and the rest of the carefully calculated and nurtured divisions among human beings. Capitalism thrives on maintaining those distinctions and it reaps the benefit of those divisions.

So, the goal of public policy (in my Marxist view) should be to replace the chimerical incentives of capitalism and to inculcate the values of cooperation, by whatever ideological terms one chooses. And to do it as quickly as possible, the sooner the better.

[randome]

13. Capitalism exists nearly everywhere.

That's not a coincidence any more than cars and electricity are everywhere.

[rug]

17. So does bacteria.

[Skinner]

31. Bacteria are selfish. (nt)

[rug]

34. They'd need a concept of self first.

[randome]

38. Bacteria lack the desire to accumulate finer things.

But they behave according to their nature. Like it or not, so do human beings. However, we are the only creatures on the planet who ponder these kind of things (so far as we know). And that makes it an eternal battle between what we WANT to do and what we SHOULD do.

[rug]

40. I'm tempted to bring up the oldest successful collection of living things but that would get silly.

[randome]

44. That kind of 'success' is according to their nature, too.

I'm not at all saying we should be slaves to our nature. That's not in...er, our nature. But there is a reason Capitalism is ascendent throughout the world.

Better regulated Capitalism would definitely be preferable.

[rug]

46. Capitalism has been ascendant for historical reasons.

Empires were ascendant also less than a century ago.

[Zalatix]

84. Empires are still ascendant now, in a different form.

Financial empires, not political empires.

[Skinner]

41. Not at all.

Bacteria are "selfish" in the sense that they are "designed" to serve their own needs (ie: the needs of their genes) above all else. If a bacteria does not, it will quickly get weeded out by natural selection.

[rug]

43. They don't have a choice. People do. Ergo, politics.

[Skinner]

48. Some would argue that humans have much less choice than they think.

But whether free will is real or just an illusion, the fact remains that humans -- and all living things -- more often than not act in a manner that is self-serving.

[BOG PERSON]

37. bacteria are not sentient!!!

[rug]

42. Neither are republican voters.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

73. I think you meant sapient.

[BOG PERSON]

74. ok?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

75. OK what?

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. Bacteria are NOT shellfish.

What a silly thing to say.

[FarCenter]

14. Greed can be relied upon; Altruism cannot

Any social system has to be structured so that defectors from its norms are controlled.

If you assume that economic actors are motivated by greed, then you can design a reasonably robust structure.

If you assume that economic actors are motivated by altruism, then the resulting structure is vulnerable to takeover by defectors, including defection by the most powerful members of society.

[rug]

26. For one thing, that's based on a false assumption.

For another thing, you have not defined society. Is it an extended family, a clan, a state, a nation, a hemisphere? Once you have defined a particular society, take a look at it and see if it indeed is bound together by greed or by cooperation.

For a final thing, capitalism scorns these quaint notions of society. It stops at no border, it has no loyalty (even though the supreme capitalist judicial organ has bestowed upon it personhood), it has no obligation, indeed it has no consciousness. It simply flows to the areas of greatest profit. It seeks the place of greatest exploitation of natural and human resources to feed its appetite, leaving in its wake those who marvel at its progress arguing with those, stunned, who have experienced its passage.

[FarCenter]

52. The society could be any of an extended family, a clan, a state, a nation, a hemisphere.

Since money is often the cause of divorce, even in the non-extended family, a lack of cooperation in economic matters is ubiquitous.

My father had a brother that he would not do business with.

[FarCenter]

55. LIARS & OUTLIERS - Enabling the Trust That Society Needs to Thrive by Bruce Schneier

I'm about half way through this book. You might find it interesting.

Schneier started out in cryptography and information security. He's written a number of books in the field. As more and more of society's functions are conducted over the network, the issue's related to how you determine whether your counterparty is trustworthy (whatever that means) have become more an more pronounced.

Part I - The Science of Trust includes chapters on a natural history of security, the evolution of cooperation, a social history of trust, and societal dilemmas.

[kentuck]

18. Under no circumstances...

could I agree that the selfishness of the few supercede the needs of the many. I think that is what you reference so eloquently in your last sentence.

[coalition_unwilling]

19. At the risk of pissing off the head honcho of DU, your post is ahistorical,

based upon questionable assumptions, and thereby sloppy thinking.

To wit, what is 'human nature'? If capitalism is so well suited to human nature, then why wasn't capitalism practiced by indigenous peoples here in the Americas before the Columbian invasion?

See my post down-thread with statistics about how well American capitalism is currently 'working.'

There's no scientific proof that private ownership of the means of production produces better outcomes for the average person than public ownership of same. Again, see pre-Columbian Native Americans.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Kinda depends on how you define...

"better outcomes".

Pre-Columbian societies practiced human sacrifice and slavery, were almost constantly at war, often managed to destroy their natural environments, and were almost wiped out by invaders. Maybe, like Africans, they might have done better if the discovered the wheel or invented a written language.

I have absolutely no idea why China and Europe suddenly became so inventive while the rest of the planet remained in the stone age, but when they did Europe, at least, also discovered that profit drove invention. It just took a while to understand and control the direction of that invention.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. Those damned Injuns needed them some civilizing, gawl-durnnit! - n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

83. Because the pre-Columbian societies were slave cultures.......

The European cultures were feudal. Which is a step up (more advanced) than slave cultures. Regardless, they weren't capitalist in the majority sense. That came later.

[coalition_unwilling]

135. OK, I'm not an expert here and I don't want to propound as

fact what is merely my opinion based on general reading and certainly not on systematic in-depth study.

That said, I would argue that the pre-Columbian societies were 'communist' (in the sense that the means of production was publicly owned, if 'owned' is the proper term. Maybe better to say 'publicly controlled.')

That is the fundamental criterion by which one distinguishes capitalism from communism: who controls the means of production?

Some pre-Columbian cultures may have practiced slavery, although I'm not sure the term means the same thing there as it would in, say, our ante-bellum South. Even so, it's a jump from that to saying those cultures were 'slave cultures.'

If I'm wrong about this, it is only because I have not studied the matter in depth. I will willingly defer and adopt my opinion to those with more expertise in pre-Columbian history.

[Nye Bevan]

118. So how well did non-capitalism work out for these indigenous peoples? (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

129. Does it really matter to this discussion how well 'non-capitalism' worked out? Not trying to

be snarky, but I'm not understanding the gist of your question or its intent.

[Puregonzo1188]

138. I love it. First the capitalist apologists claim capitalism is human nature and exists everywhere.

Then we people come in with facts about how other economic systems predate capitalism they throw the "well how did feudalism/indigenous society" work out ignoring the fact that that's not the point. The point is that capitalist apologist make an essetentialist argument about human nature. When others point out that that argument is ahistorical the point is not that other societies where better, but to point out that capitalism is not akin to human nature or has always existed and thus it is capable to discuss and imagine alternatives.

Whether or not such alternatives are better is subject to debate, but capitalist apologist hate and despise debate and must shut it down at all costs.

[coalition_unwilling]

140. Post structuralists would argue that the very concept of such a thing as

'human nature' is itself a purely linguistic construction. That argument might get some interesting commentary as well from anthropologists and evolutionary biologists, many of whom would have significant quibbles with the nature and meaning of a phrase as vague as 'human nature.'

Thanks though for boiling down the bait and switch being promulgated here in the name of defending capitalism.

[Skinner]

141. "capitalist apologist hate and despise debate and must shut it down at all costs."

Allow me to point out that you are the one attacking the messenger here.

This capitalist apologist would prefer that we stick to debating the issue at hand.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Social Darwinism? We can't help ourselves from being predators of other humans?

It's kind of like saying because we, as animals, need to reproduce, rape is acceptable.

[Skinner]

56. No, it's not Social Darwinism. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Are you talking about "nature" or "inclinations"?

I contend that evolution involves finding the most efficient course to survival. We can argue about whether capitalism, socialism, feudalism, etc, is the most efficient but none of them are "in our nature".

Further, we may be inclined to grab everything we can, but beyond a certain point, doing so threatens survival rather than accommodates it.

[rug]

5. Bad.

Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. - Preamble to the Communist Manifesto

[BOG PERSON]

86. prescient as heck

[bluedave]

6. bad

in principle

[JHB]

7. Gray - black or white?

[Starry Messenger]

9. Bad.

Its early progressive phase away from feudalism ended quick, with exploitation, monopoly, slavery, poverty and colonialism sliming along in its wake like a gigantic snail trail. 300 years later the wealth of the entire globe has contracted upwards to 1% of humanity, while economic crisis that throws millions of people into misery is now accepted as "the cost of business". Capitalism will always cause overproduction, while forcing wages down. If you make too much shit and then don't pay people enough money to buy the shit that you made too much of (with their labor), you have lost the argument that yours is the superior plan for humanity.

[DLevine]

10. Bad.

Capitalism is all about greed.

[meow2u3]

11. Good and bad

Well-regulated capitalism balances and respects the property rights of average citizens, independent business owners, well-run corporations, cooperatives, and other organizations, with the rights of workers to work with dignity, respect, and living wages. This kind of capitalism is good.

The bad kind of capitalism is the unbridled, financialized capitalism which amounts to little more than a license for a tiny minority of superrich sociopaths to rig the system in their favor by using their outsized wealth to buy politicians and judges, capture (extort) regulatory agencies, pay off police departments not only to turn a blind eye to their own crimes, but also to use them as mercenaries by silencing and criminalizing their critics, and even write the laws to place themselves above the laws to which the rest of us mortal human beings are subjected, then it's no longer capitalism, but state-sanctioned organized crime.

[TBF]

12. Inherently oppressive by definition -

you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse economic system. (aka BAD)

[white_wolf]

66. You know sometimes I wonder just how worse feudalism really was than capitalism?

I'm not saying we should go back to it, of course. But I am starting to wonder if our current form of capitalism, which I think is simply a natural stage in the evolution of the system, is really that much less exploitative than feudalism? At least in feudalism the serfs had certain guarantees of protection.

[Zalatix]

67. Guarantees of protection?

Sounds to me like they were constantly falling prey to roaming bandits and wars between their "lords".

[white_wolf]

69. Is that really that much different today?

Hasn't the U.S. been in a near constant state of war for the past 50 years at the behest of their corporate lords?

[Zalatix]

70. Point taken!

[TBF]

87. Agree

and I am looking forward to the evolution to socialism - I have had enough of this barbaric system.

[H2O Man]

15. Yes, definitely.

It seems good or bad, with little in-between.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Historically useful, now outmoded and soon to

be replaced by Democratic Socialism, I hope.

Current reality:

1% control 40% of the wealth and 10% control 80% of the wealth. To put a human face on it, the six Walton heirs to the Walmart empire control as much wealth betwen them as the bottom 30 million Americans.

50 million Americans without health insurance.

46 million Americans receiving government nutrition assistance.

23% of American children living at or below the poverty level. (That's one for any lurking anti-choice yahoo.)

In the face of these statistics, anyone who maintains with a straight face that capitalism is good is reality-challenged, imo.

[SoutherDem]

25. I agree!

The problem is the "S" word has long been considered Anti-American.

While the majority of American citizens would do better under Democratic Socialism or even possibly Socialism. They will not accept the idea that we were socialistic in any form.

[1-Old-Man]

20. Good

Because all alternatives are planned economies and no person, no computer system, nothing short of a god can plan an economy. There is no god.

[kentuck]

27. Greed is not good...

And nothing good can be grown from evil seed...

[1-Old-Man]

29. Competition is not greed, neither is capital formation

I thought the question was about an economic system, not a belief, good or bad, in a moral principle.

[kentuck]

36. Filled up your gas tank lately?

Real competitive, huh? Under no circumstances should the powerful or wealthy minority control what the majority eat, breathe, see, hear, or think. Pretty words like "capital formation" are only that, brainwashed little terms to get us to think what is best for the greedy is best for us all.

[Vidar]

21. Inherently evil.

[SoutherDem]

22. Depends on who you ask

The way I was taught capitalism in the purest sense it is a dog eat dog system. Ideally no regulation except that which the market place puts on it and we often hear how we need to let the market place work.

Well, for non-neccesities like tv's and dvd's the market place worked pretty well. For necessities such as gas and health car it hasn't worked.

Without regulation we know from history, employers (job creators) will work employees long hours, low pay no benefits and in dangerous work environments.

Cash is king and profits are the driving force for all activities.

So if you ask the employer it is good if you ask the employee it is bad. It isn't that clean cut but without a long list of qualifiers that is the best way to put it.

[valerief]

23. With or without corporate socialism? nt

[boxman15]

24. When properly regulated, good.

If properly regulated, it's the greatest economic force for prosperity possible.

If not, it's a way for the rich to prey on the poor.

[SoutherDem]

28. Regulations are the problem

Not that I am saying regulations are bad, but they are considered as bad. For the Republican party they are no longer called regulations but JOB KILLING REGULATIONS.

I know a man who works in a job which is more dangerous than the average job, but wouldn't be considered an extremely dangerous job. Some of the "silly regulations" as he calls them are to protect him from being killed or injured on the job, but because they restrict his income, or at least that is what his employer tell him, he want them to be eliminated.

[boxman15]

30. That's why the Democratic Party needs to hit back hard.

Sure, there are some outdated regulations, but most are there for good reason. We need to do a better job of explaining to Americans why we need regulations, taxes, etc. We also need to explain why the trickle-down version of capitalism has failed this country for the past 30 years.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

92. IMO, vigorously regulated small business capitalism, with a large government sector for

providing education, healthcare, infrastructure, and safety nets, provides the best possible democratic society. Nobody gets very rich from such capitalism, because all long-run profits get competed away by free entry of other businesses. And government regulation protects society from fraud, pollution, unsafe products, and whatever else unscrupulous ingenuity would try to get away with.

But IMO the arch enemy of democratic society is BIG business. Big BUSINESS MUST try to corrupt government, because only government can protect big business from having long-run profits competed away by new entrants into their industries.

Think of the worst of the worst big businesses. The planet-destroying oil industry depends on corrupt government leasing of public lands and oceans for drilling. Pharmaceutical companies get patent monopolies for drugs that attack alleged diseases and conditions like erectile dysfunction and anxiety rather than the world's greatest killers such as sleeping sickness. Communications giants like the pirate Comcast buy up public airwaves on the cheap. Unsafe mining operations get government approval for mountaintop removal and dumping millions of tons of toxic waste into streams and watersheds. Gas companies got GW Bush to give them complete EXEMPTION from environmental laws so they could destroy millions of acres of groundwater with "fracking". Financial institutions got essentially self-regulation under GW Bush's SEC chairman and ramped up leverage to unsafe 40X levels from relativeky safe 10X levels under Clinton.

All of this would be impossible without tens of thousands of big-business lobbyists and trade associations whose job it is to corrupt politicians with "campaign" bribes and threats to support primary election opponents if they don't get "quos" for their "quids".

[BOG PERSON]

32. chaotic neutral

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Good.

A government which considers its primary role to facilitate capitalism rather than care for its citizens; bad.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Bad question...

Capitalism cannot be good or bad any more than electricity, automobiles, towns, families, or any other useful invention or social structure can be-- it is merely one way of distributing limited goods and services among a population. And it has proven to be a very effective method of distribution when resources aren't extremely limited. It appears to be the natural evolution of economics, since every other system we've tried has failed miserably.

The question should be how do we limit the potential damage that capitalism can do, since it, like everything else, does have the potential for inequality and destruction.

[kentuck]

47. To each, according to his needs....

...plus $1 billion dollars more to play with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor." Voltaire

[Mairead]

60. "The Pleasures of the Rich are bought with the Tears of the Poor" --Rev. Thos. Fuller

[Mairead]

51. VERY Bad.

"Human nature", contrary to what some believe, is nothing more (or less) than personal adaptability.

People adapt their behaviors, and then, because of the need to resolve cognitive dissonance, their beliefs, to the social situation they're in. If the situation is healthy and pro-social, they become healthier and more pro-social. If it's pathological and anti-social, they become more pathologised and anti-social.

Any social, developmental, or clinical psychologist will tell you the same, unless their doc was really in rat-bothering (which, unfortunately, some have been).

The natural form of human socioeconomic organisation is a non-hierarchical gift economy. Any anthro
will tell you the same. We know it's natural because people chose it independently all over the world, and it's is still visible in many places.

Capitalism, which is the latest coat of paint on classism, is not natural, except in the same sense that cancer, AIDS, murder, baby-fscking, etc. are "natural". Those pathologies appear by action of nature, but they're abnormal.

Reptile-like self-centeredness will show up in a few percent of individuals in every generation because of cosmic randomness. Such people are called "psychopaths" in English, "kunlangeta" (q.v.) in Yupik. In natural human societies, the elders made/make sure that the obligative psychopaths didn't/don't survive to adulthood.

When human communities grew too big for the elders to cull the psychopaths, the socioeconomic form shifted to chiefs and redistribution rather than equality and sharing. The psychopaths made themselves the chiefs and priests. The chiefs and priests eventually made themselves kings or popes, and the rest of us became their property.

There is nothing special about Capitalism except that it provides a new excuse for the psychopathic few to exploit the rest of us. It doesn't provide the rest of us anything we'd want that egalitarian sharing couldn't provide just as well.

There's compelling evidence of that fact: Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa. In 60 years, without exploiting anyone, it's grown from 5 young engineers making paraffin stoves in a shed under the guidance of a one-eyed socialist priest to a gigantic conglomerate (ca. €33G assets) doing everything from tertiary education and basic research to selling retail groceries.

We don't need Capitalism. It's unhealthy for children and other living things. So if we don't want most forms of life on Earth including us to go extinct, we must get rid of it.

[randome]

53. I don't expect you -or any of us- to have all the answers but...

...what do you think we can replace it with? And, more importantly, how?

[Mairead]

59. Imagine, if you will, what the knock-on effects would be of four relatively minor changes

"Minor" in the sense that they wouldn't involve heavy machinery or a breakthrough in physics.

1) Shift to political democracy: everyone is their own legislator, if they want to be. Or, if it takes all their time just to live, they could delegate someone to vote on their behalf.

2) Devolve all decisions that don't impact civil equality to their effective level. E.g., decisions about school curricula would be made at the community level, not in DC.

3) Shift to economic democracy: disallow all forms of business except individual/immediate-family proprietorship, and cooperative corporation.

4) Make land-use, food, shelter, healthcare, and education public utilities available to all, like roads, rather than luxuries as they are today.

All those could be accomplished by lawmaking, but the effects would be immense.

Wars would stop because, as Smedley Butler pointed out, there'd be no money in them.

Government corruption would stop, because we'd all be the government and, as Jefferson humorously observed, we'd each have to bribe ourselves.

Vast fortunes like those of the Kochs' would go away, because they'd no longer be able to skim value from other people's work.

Education would probably improve, because there'd be no reason to keep training kids to be obedient work-units.

All the jobs dedicated to making the few richer would go away, freeing up an immense amount of time for more enjoyable work.

The cultural standards would go through the roof because of all the extra time available. People rarely notice it, but the wealthy elites almost never contribute to cultural richness. It's working people who play fiddle for dancing, repair the loved-to-pieces library books, paint the pictures, act in the plays and films, and sew the beautiful clothing. One of the things the anthros found is that most people in those original-flavor societies spend most of their time in cultural activities --music, dancing, conversation, and artistic craftwork. Time that we are forced to spend keeping the wealthy elites in idle luxury.

[Skinner]

77. That sounds nice. But how would anything get made that is technologically advanced?

And by technologically advanced, I mean 19th-century-or-later technology. Anything requiring mass production or large-scale human cooperation.

I don't see how your society creates the computer you are posting on. Or the railroad that your great-great-great grandparents rode on (if they were among the lucky few who could afford such things). Or even the films that your working people would theoretically be acting in.

[kentuck]

89. You make a very good point Skinner...

We would have to have a capitalist system of some sort to come up with cellphones, TVs, and computers, I suppose? Usually if there is a demand, there will be a supply. So they would be supply and demand capitalists, as opposed to private equity capitalists. They would be capitalists that would work to fulfill a demand.

There would be no need for advertising or persuasion, as with much of our present capitalist system. Almost all of our basic needs could be met with simple barter. You would trade (barter) something you have for something someone else has, without the use of money. Or you could swap your labor for a product as a negotiation with another person.

Of course, if we wanted to continue the present society as it is, we, the people, would have to take over the means of productions, such as factories and power plants, and use them for the benefit of the whole. But that would be leaning toward socialism and that may not be acceptable?

But I could envision ways we could live in an advanced, technological world without living under the present form of capitalism.

[white_wolf]

91. One of the answers to your question is market socialism.

The basic concept is this. The free market would remain and there would be competition. However, every factory, store, etc. would be democratically controlled. There would be no CEOs, shareholders, or anything like that. Think of the Wobby Shop model on a national scale.

[Mairead]

95. Think of Mondragón. Of open-source software. Of inventors. Of university research centers.

They all demonstrate that technologically-advanced research, prototyping, reduction-to-practice, and maintenance/upgrades are fully compatible with having absolutely no private-profit Capitalism or Capitalists involved.

With the usual caveats about Nature abhorring both vacuums and bright-line divisions, we know that people fall into a few basic categories when it comes to motivation.

A tiny number are motivated primarily by the desire for power-over-others. They're the psychopaths, the human-shaped reptiles.

A somewhat larger number are motivated primarily by the desire for the biggest, shiniest, most-expensive "stuff". They're constantly playing status games. Those with power play the status games that are wrecking the world.

Another group are motivated primarily by the desire for achievement: they have a strong desire to be the first to discover, understand, make, do, or improve something.

The rest --the vast majority-- have no primary motivation, no burning needs. They just want to live out their lives with the most social approval and least social disapproval they can get without too much effort. They're usually the healthiest, psychologically. They'll never discover the cure for cancer, but they'll never start a war, either.



The achievement-oriented people are the ones responsible for nearly all non-cultural improvements. They don't require any outside motivation. They take lousy "day jobs" to keep body and soul together, and spend their free time working toward their current goal. To them, Capitalism and Capitalists are time-and-energy sinks. Free them from the need to keep that Capitalist-enriching day-job and they won't loaf -- they'll spend all their time working on solving the problems that engage them.

[randome]

96. Well said.

The mantra against a social safety net ignores the truth of what you said. Despite a strong safety net, inventive and altruistic individuals will always want to do something more with their lives.

[Skinner]

98. I still don't see who would build your computer...

...if there were no corporations to do it.

A single person or small group of people in a workshop can make a piece of beautiful furniture, or a finely crafted hand tool. But they can't build a computer chip. Or a locomotive. Or a movie camera.

[randome]

99. Capitalism is war by other means.

Not sure who said that but it holds true, still. To reach difficult goals requires 'herding'. That's basically what Capitalism does, it puts us into dedicated groups.

We sure as hell wouldn't have landed on the Moon if left to a worker's collective of some sort. And we wouldn't have any of the other things you mentioned.

[Mairead]

100. You really don't?

Wealth is whatever sustains, or can be exchanged for what sustains, life. If it doesn't or can't be, then it's not wealth. Thus wealth is situational.

We can see that clearly if we take the example of gold. Hereabouts, an ounce of gold can be exchanged for far more than 100 packets of seeds. But for someone on some remote island from which there is no prospect of rescue, a ton of gold would not be worth as much as even one packet of seeds, never mind 100.

Capital is wealth that exists in excess of current requirements. It need not be in private hands, and during most of human history it wasn't.

We can take the example of Polynesia, where in traditional economies, wealth is measured in yams and pigs. A village that works hard and produces a surplus of yams and pigs --their capital-- is a wealthy village because they can shift the focus of their work to some other goal and still keep going for some period of time. They can consume their accumulated capital.

A corporation, at bottom, is nothing more than a group of people. It's etymologically an "embodiment", a reified abstraction. It need not have a particular form of ownership. It can be a cooperative, where ownership and profit are distributed equally among the people forming it.

Steve Wozniak personally designed and assembled the first Apple. He could have continued to build them personally by hand, no corporation required. Or he and Jobs could have formed a cooperative corporation to produce them. There's nothing magical or foreordained about the fact that they didn't.

If you argue that Wozniak had integrated circuits and other technologies available to him, I'll agree. And I'll also suggest that we look back in history to see where they came from. And when we do, we'll find that all the underlying technologies came from achievement-oriented individuals working in sheds, not private-profit corporations owned by "money men".

Our current socioeconomic system is not a product of natural forces. It was organised by and for the benefit of psychopaths and greedheads, as anyone able to think about why we're in the fix we're in will inevitably conclude.

It's because it was organised by and for the benefit of the psychopaths and status-gamers that food, shelter, healthcare, education, and everything else are luxuries.

It's because our rulers are psychopaths that they're feel no remorse when people die because healthcare is a luxury they cannot afford.

It's because our rulers are psychopaths that they feel neither hesitation nor remorse when they send working-class kids to kill and be killed for a few cents more profit on the dollar, and then abandon the survivors.

There is no reason at all why, given the will to do it, we cannot change that deeply-pathological system to exclusively use communal capital to fund distributed-profit corporations.

As Mondragón demonstrates, such corporations are capable of doing the most cutting-edge research and the most complicated production.

[kentuck]

101. A very, well-thought out post.

Thanks!

[Skinner]

103. So, why didn't Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak form a cooperative corporation?

They were both smart people. Surely they would have seen the benefit of setting up a cooperative corporation, if such benefit existed.

[Mairead]

105. I think I've already answered that

People conform their behavior to the situation they're in. In a pathological environment, most people's behavior becomes more pathological. Ours is extremely pathological.

Note that Wozniak didn't bother to help Jobs exploit his creation. Money is what's called a "hygiene" factor: above a certain amount, it ceases to motivate. The point at which it stops working varies with the individual. For the status-gamers, whose needs are pathological rather than real, that point is never reached. For someone like Wozniak, it's reached at the point where they have enough to do what they want.

Jobs formed the corporation to meet his needs. In a healthier situation, he might well have been satisfied by forming a cooperative corporation. We'll never know what he would have done. But many people do act in more pro-social ways even in this environment so we know that it's a completely realistic possibility in general.

[Skinner]

106. EXACTLY.

"Jobs formed the corporation to meet his needs."

And while meeting his needs, he also mass-produced a computer which met the needs of millions of other people, and he created an organization that created many more amazing things, right up to the iPhone I am posting on right now.

Capitalism turns self-serving behavior into productive economic activity.

[Mairead]

110. You're arguing a fallacious version of the Anthropic Principle

Just because it did happen that way is no evidence that it was either necessary or desirable that it happen that way.

In order to make beef available to your table, Capitalism causes rainforests to be destroyed and non-human species driven to extinction. Destruction of forests causes overaccumulation of atmospheric CO2, which in turn causes global overheating, which if not stopped pretty damned soon will kill us all. That is not a necessary or desirable thing to do.

But it's profitable for the Capitalist, and so it will continue until we eliminate Capitalism or Earth becomes uninhabitable by high-order life, whichever comes first.

[randome]

108. We would not have the scientific principle if it wasn't for religion.

It's not pleasant to admit that but there it is.

By the same token, we would not have the 'relative' peace we have now if Capitalism had not bent war-like countries toward other goals.

If something will replace Capitalism, it will happen but it won't be the result of planning and labels and definitions any more than any other advancement in civilization has been. It will be organic in nature.

We need to keep applying logic and altruism to everything we do but something this ingrained in us will only change slowly. And the best way to make it change is to acknowledge the benefits as well as the shortcomings.

[Mairead]

112. Very few human advancements have been "organic" in the way I think you're using the term.

They've all (I can't think of even a single exception--can you?) resulted from some individual observing what's going on and trying purposefully to change it for the better.

[randome]

115. Indoor plumbing. Sanitation disposal. Central heating and air conditioning.

Sure, electricity was discovered by a small group of people (actually more than one group, but for the sake of argument, let's say it was Edison and Co.) but the application of electricity was defined over a good many years. And adopted because people saw the advantages.

And Edison formed his own company (don't know if it was a corporation in the way we think of it today) to further its spread.

But the actual adoption and application was a sea change in society, not one individual or one workers' cooperative making these kinds of decisions.

If there had not been a Societal organizing principle behind it, we would not have the benefit of the common good that we have in today's cities.

[Mairead]

122. Okay, we're talking about two different levels

I'd certainly agree with you that there's a kind of psychological brownian motion involved in the adoption of improvements.

[randome]

125. 'Psychological brownian motion". Excellent way to phrase it.

[Zalatix]

132. Smart people don't always do the right thing.

[Starry Messenger]

109. And just to hook on to your great posts here-

billions of R&D money for computer development in Silicon Valley originated from the US Navy--our socialized military. Many of the "shed" guys came out of Stanford and its milieu, where military funding had been channeled for years into defense research.

http://steveblank.com/2009/08/17/stanford-crosses-the-rubicon/

After the end of World War II, returning veterans were happy to beat swords into plowshares (and microwave tubes) on the Stanford campus. From 1946 until 1950, Stanford’s Electronic Research Lab conducted basic research in microwave tubes. Although this research would lead to the development of the Backward Wave Oscillator and Traveling Wave Tube for military applications, Stanford was building tubes and circuits not entire systems. The labs basic research was done by graduate students or Ph.Ds doing postdoctoral internships, supervised by faculty members or hired staff (many from Fred Terman’s WWII Electronic Warfare lab.)

<snip>

Early in 1950, just months before the outbreak of the Korean War the Office of Naval Research asked Fred Terman to build an Applied electronics program for electronic warfare. All branches of the military (the Air Force and Army would fund the program as well) wanted Stanford to build prototypes of electronic intelligence and electronic warfare systems that could be put into production by partners in industry. The Navy informs Terman that, “money was not a problem but time was.”

<snip>

Stanford Industrial Park – Microwave Valley Booms
By the early 1950’s many of the corporations that attended the yearly Stanford Electronic Warfare conferences would establish research labs centered around Stanford for just this reason – to learn from Stanford’s basic and applied research and get a piece of the ELINT and Electronic Warfare contracting pie.

Stanford Industrial Park was the first technology office park set up to house local and out of state microwave and electronics startups. First occupied in 1953 it would include Varian, Watkins Johnson, Admiral, HP, General Electric, Kodak, Lockheed. Other east coast companies which established branches in Microwave valley in the 1950’s included IBM, Sylvania, Philco, Zenith and ITT.

[Mairead]

117. Well caught! Thank you.

Yes, as you point out, enormous amounts of investment have been taken from our pockets without so much as a by-your-leave, the profits from them going into the pockets of the few.

How lovely it would be had we not just funded all that research, but profited in monetary terms from it too.

[Mairead]

102. "A single person or small group of people in a workshop ...

can't build a computer chip. Or a locomotive. Or a movie camera."

You must be kidding. All those things were first built by individuals or small groups of people in workshops.

There's a lovely little comedy film made by the Ealing Studios in the early '50s. It's called "The Titfield Thunderbolt", and concerns the efforts of a fictional village in England to save their branch railway. The real star of the film is "Lion", a locomotive built in 1838 and re-named "Thunderbolt" for the film. It's the actual antique locomotive, not a fake (tho they did use a fake for one scene) or a copy, and it's truly charming to watch it huffing through the picturesque countryside in its race to satisfy the Ministry of Transport's requirements.

The Lion was made by "a small group of people in a workshop". The first modern loco, the "Rocket", was designed and built just ten years earlier by only 3 people: George Stephenson, his son, Robert, and Henry Booth.

[Skinner]

104. Why can't I ride a Lion today?

Why am I stuck riding on charmless, mass-produced, cookie-cutter commuter trains?

[Mairead]

107. Because they're no longer being made, and the surviving Lion went back to the museum

after it starred as the Thunderbolt.

The fact that technology has moved on has nothing to do with private-profit corporations, which I think is what you're trying to argue.

Big, rich corporations don't do innovation. Their advances in technology are usually small and/or pedestrian. That's their major failing, and why they tend to go out of business after awhile. When they want/need to innovate, what they do is buy out small garage-level operations. Or the money people in charge fail to even have that much awareness of reality and their corporation expires.

Taking the example of locomotives, the really large steam locomotives of the mid-20th c. were very little different to the Lion or Rocket. Bigger, yes, but based on the same principles of operation developed by Stephenson et al. 130+ years before. The same is true of the diesel locos in Europe: they operate on the same principles developed personally by Rudolf Diesel in 1893.

[randome]

111. Capitalism without corporations? Is that what you're advocating?

That might be worth exploring.

[Mairead]

113. No, small-c capitalism without *private-profit* corporations

As pointed out earlier, a "corporation" is just a name for the groupness of a group of people. The Polynesian village is a "corporation". Their shared goal, which might change from moment to moment, is what makes them a group rather than just some number of individuals who happen to be in the same place by accident.

[Skinner]

114. I am not arguing that for-profit corporations innovate.

I am arguing that for-profit corporations create things on a large scale, efficiently, and relatively inexpensively.

The reason nobody is building locomotives in small workshops today is because it is extremely expensive and inefficient to do so.

[Mairead]

116. Let's presume the advantages are as you say

(though you haven't offered any evidence for your assertion). Why would the same advantages not accrue --I presume you're arguing that they would not accrue-- to a public-profit corporation?

Actually, why wouldn't a public-profit corporation offer more advantages to the community, given that there'd be nobody skimming profit off the top?

[Skinner]

120. The evidence that capitalism works is everywhere.

And the evidence that some alternative system could work as well or better is virtually nonexistent. If lack of evidence is the issue, that would seem to be the problem of those who propose alternate systems.

Could a public-profit corporation produce something cheaply and efficiently on a large scale? I think so. (It would have to be a fairly large and sophisticated organization, which goes beyond the small workshop model.)

Could that public-profit corporation continue to produce that item, and do it more cheaply and more efficiently than it did the previous year, year-after-year? Highly doubtful. There would be little incentive to do so.

[Mairead]

123. I'd urge you to read about Mondragón.

You clearly have some ideas about what's possible that aren't supported by everyday reality.

[Zalatix]

124. Necessity, not Capitalism or profit, is the first mother of invention.

[randome]

126. Very true.

[Zalatix]

128. One of the greatest signs of human evolution in the modern era is the Open Source movement.

It is (IMO) the greatest expression of necessity's primacy over Capitalism and selfishness.

In fact, it may even be the largest and hottest coal that ever landed on Ayn Rand's head down in hell.

[Marrah_G]

57. Unregulated capitalism is devastating

If we must have capitalism, it needs to be heavily regulated.

[Initech]

58. As I said before - when one companies' annual profit is greater than the combined GDP of 50 countries...

We have a problem. When they use this obscene wealth to game the system and buy politicians who will stop at nothing to screw over the populace while they continue to stockpile massive amounts of cash and not only get away with paying zero in taxes - we pay them in subsidies - then our system has failed.

[and-justice-for-all]

61. Capitalism is fine..

as long as it is regulated properly and companies like BAIN are not allowed to do the shit that they have done.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Bad. It is predicated on exploitation, wide spread poverty, and endless resources.

On average the outcomes are as horrible for the masses as any other system and it is celebrated based on a brief period of exception with very little likelihood of ever being replicated that were largely illusion of perspective despite being in the exceptional period.

Without a competing economic ideology, low hanging fruit resources, and with real global competition in production there would have been no amount of effective regulation that would give the impression of broad benefit and remember that even then it was an illusion that didn't get much traction outside our shores and limited inside them.

Outside of a single generation in around three hundred years the mass impact is no better than the feudal system it replaced/papered over. I don't get the fixation with the exception and the willful blindness to the rule.

Good or bad though, it is stupid and unworkable. It requires infinite growth and resources, artificial lack to be created in the face of actual plenty to support pricing (see homelessness), and demands population growth and using resources just to do it because that enables a buck to be made.

Also, anyone who trumpets capitalism but keeps the focus on the exceptional New Deal period is running a sales pitch. You cannot gloss over and justify around 300 years with 20-30 that poorly resemble the majority, especially when you have no plan or even desire to re-create the conditions of the exception.

[kentuck]

64. Their wet dream was always to have the Chinese "market"...

with a billion people.

And now they have it. They are holding all the cards. Labor can make no demands in this country. Otherwise, they will just take their jobs over to China or else where.

Yes, these are great times for the capitalists.

[Starry Messenger]

78. ++++

[shcrane71]

65. Good with governments that provide safety nets, regulations...

Unfettered capitalism with no regulations wreaks havoc, breeds corruption, and is fascist.

Everything in moderation.

[JonLP24]

68. Good

If there is some socialism mixed in & appropriately regulated.

Completely on it's on with few regulations - bad.

[AJTheMan]

71. Whatever system they have in Denmark or Sweden probably works the best.

[hack89]

76. Which is free market capitalism. nt

[AJTheMan]

88. So yes, free market capitalism is good. I'm not sure why but it is good. Better than communism.

[HiPointDem]

72. I think it's funny that people are talking about "human nature" being the proof of capitalism's

naturalness & superiority when today's capitalism is the product of 500 years of war, force & propaganda. People didn't "naturally" take to capitalism, it was imposed on them every step of the way, & still is being.

[Mairead]

97. Exactly. I find it funny (fsvo "funny")

that Dr Adam Smith, whom ignorant Capitalists wave like a banner, had nothing good to say about Capitalism or Capitalists.

[Nye Bevan]

130. Nothing is being "imposed" on anyone.

Feel free to go out and start an anti-capitalist political party. Then whoever doesn't want capitalism can vote for you.

[HiPointDem]

142. History says it was. Violently.

[white_wolf]

145. Here is just one example of capitalism being imposed violently.

Chile in 1973. A socialist was elected and was overthrow in a U.S. backed coup and a capitalist dictator was installed. The people of Chile choose to end capitalism in their country and it was imposed upon them.

[FreeJoe]

79. Good...or at least better

I would love for there to be a better alternative to capitalism. I haven't ever seen it. EVERY reasonably wealthy country and EVERY reasonably free country practices capitalism. The smarter ones regulate it well.

[MrSlayer]

80. Properly reigned in? Good.

Unfettered? Bad.

Pretty simple.

[GeorgeGist]

81. Bad

It's destroying the environment.

[99Forever]

82. What kind of Capitalism?

Well regulated and balanced?

Or laissez faire?

Or something in-between?

If you are referring to what we have now, it's more like Corporatocracy, Corporatism, or Fascism than Capitalism.

Need I explain what's bad about that?

[joshcryer]

90. Bad, but better than state socialism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. Good or bad is not possible to say. But so far the human condition has not yet created a sustainable

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

workable alternative model that has been able to produce an equal or superior standard of living along with an equal or superior standard of civil liberties and human rights for the majority of any society anywhere in the world.

Marxism is a great analytical tool. It offers a very intelligent, rational and plausible approach to understanding history and current events. But like psychoanalysis the only thing it seems to cure is ignorance. So far in the human experience neither a Marxist or Anarchist model has been able to create anywhere in the world a sustainable standard of living with a high standard of human rights and civil liberties equal or great than that of any number of western-capitalist democracies.

Is it possible that at some point a workable alternative system that is superior to the liberal western capitalist model might arise? Yes it is possible. But at this time it is not the way things seem to be heading.

[unkachuck]

94. a horrible....

....nasty, evil, caca system that favors the few over the many....you couldn't design a more inequitable economic system if you tried....

[rucky]

119. Neither. It's amoral

the good or bad outcomes are all residuals of the pure profit motive.

[Honeycombe8]

121. Good. As history proves. This is the only way for the masses to improve their lot.

Study history and you'll find that socialism may provide for certain necessities, but it doesn't make wealthy people out of poor people.

Example: Free health care in Mexico. Yet millions illegally migrate to the U.S. to make money because of poverty and inability to improve their situation in Mexico. Free health care in Cuba, yet people risk death to float to the U.S. for the chance to improve their lot financially and politically.

Don't confuse economic systems with government systems. China has capitalism, but is not a democracy.

[craigmatic]

127. Because socialism is better.

[taught_me_patience]

131. Good if well regulated

without regulation, monopolies form and monopolies are bad for the consumer and bad for society.

[randome]

133. I would look to basic human needs as the answer.

In addition to food, sex and shelter, civilized humans (we can argue about the term 'civilized' some other time) have a great need to be recognized. To stand out from the rest. To be appreciated.

I contend that this need, over time and with greater population density, tends to make corporations the all-encompassing, all-controlling entities we know them as today.

With more and more people, it becomes more and more difficult to stand out. What is a human being to do?

Come up with a radical idea of enhancing corporate profits by convincing people to buy things they don't need.

Or cut expenses by laying off a few hundred people.

Or model a convoluted stock trading system that eventually adds to the bottom line.

As population increases, it becomes ever more difficult to stand out. So people tend to take the 'easy' way out in order to fulfill this basic need.

[cynatnite]

134. It's definitely bad if it's allowed to run without limits. n/t

[Jamaal510]

136. Capitalism is wonderful for anyone who has a comfortable and steady income,

but not so much for those who are struggling to make ends meet. Unlike Socialism, it does not ensure that people's basic needs are met, and it isn't so much about promoting the common good. Capitalism is about maximizing one's own profits.

[daaron]

137. Non-existent.

We have a mixed economy, not 'free market capitalism', and have had ever since the Great Depression. Capitalism is a canard, and we should stop pretending that it exists, when debating wingers. It doesn't, and it plays into their hands to accept the redefinition of that term. They WANT capitalism, but they can't have it.

[Puregonzo1188]

139. Capitalism is a system of production for exchange on a market, as opposed to production for use.

This is why there can be homeless people and foreclosed houses--houses aren't made to give shelter to people, but to be sold on the market at a profitable rate of return. Thus, if houses can't be sold profitably it doesn't matter whether or not people are homeless.

Capitalism also has a structural tendency to accumulate in greater and greater amounts which always leads to crisis of over accumulation of capital causing an economic collapse.

Thus, it's safe to say capitalism while better than it's historical predecessors is quite bad. You can't regulate away or overcome the boom/bust cycle, which is essentially the premise of all capitalist apologists whether or not they be social democrats or free-market fundamentalist.

[aikoaiko]

143. Mostly good but there are unhappy side effects

[kentuck]

144. Thanks to Skinner, mairead, randome, Starry Messenger, et al....

...for all their great responses in this thread. Very educational and thought-provoking.

From what I can decipher, it seems that capitalism could take something as simple as a hula hoop or a yo-yo or a pet rock and make a bunch of money off it by mass-production. However, they do not normally think of the creation or invent the product, but they are capable, not only of mass production with the labor of others, but also with advertising and marketing, of making the product appealing to the masses, whether they need it or not. Corporations can make products, even computers, available to more people, for better or worse.

However, corporations are not necessary for any of these products to exist. It is mostly personal ingenuity that creates products that can used by individuals and society. Could these products be produced without the present form of corporations? Yes, I think they could. But, none of these could be made without labor. In the final analysis, labor is a more important ingredient in the mass production for society's use than is the existence of a "corporation".

Whether corporations are good or bad can only be measured by the "good" or "bad" they do for society, for all of us. Whether or not they reward labor fairly and whether or not they treat our environment with respect. If we assume that corporations can make as much money as they are capable of making without regard to the above, then we are looking at the issue from the wrong perspective, in my opinion.

[Mairead]

146. Very well said

The rhetoric of Capitalism's apologetics notwithstanding, private-profit corporations are non-democratic feudal entities: economic baronies.

Like political baronies in the middle ages, they shield the ones running them from personal economic and legal responsibility while allowing them free rein to plunder and pillage as they wish.

The "publicly-owned" private-profit "baronies" today are almost perfect microcosms of our political governments. The rhetoric is democratic, but the reality is feudal.

The ones in charge get to be in charge by processes we "owners" have little or nothing to say about, and once they have the power of the office they get to do whatever they want to do unless stopped, while the power to stop them is so diffused that effective resistance is nearly impossible to organise, or is actually illegal.

Margaret Mead noted that history has many examples of ruling classes being so stupid/evil/self-centered that they destroyed the world and people they controlled (e.g., Easter Island). But, she said, it's only recently that they've had enough power that they can kill everyone on the whole planet. She had in mind atomic weapons, but it looks like they're going to do it with the CO2 and methane from making "stuff" instead.

Can we somehow organise in time to stop them? Do enough of us even care enough? Or are we counting on the scriptwriters to save us?