• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Anti-capitalists: what should fix/replace capitalism?

sphagnum

Banned
It depends on the material and social conditions of each society that socialism must arise in. In the US, revolution is impossible due to the extreme power of the state. The most logical plan is trying to transition to some sort of market socialism with UBI for the time being. In other places, revolution. I think the Soviet system is interesting and could have worked well if they actually, you know, let people freely elect representatives from the soviets and if they had had computers to help them plan allocation. They didn't have the technology to overcome the calculation problem. AI should help with that.

Ultimately automation must lead to communism.
 
Completely irrelevant. Most work on open source software is done by for profit companies. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, it's not the science that requires incentive. It's the productization. Google exists for you to search on the internet because of profit. Amazon exists as an online market because of profit. This forum software exists because of profit.

Even if all the libraries that Google, Amazon, and phpbb used to make their software were free open source, that doesn't matter if nobody assembles them together into a product that makes money.

No, it's not irrelevant no matter how much you want it to be. It's an important aspect in making the internet run and function. Just because there are for profit companies working on it and that there exists commerce on the internet doesn't mean it's a requirement for making the internet as we see it today (although as we see it today is solely based on profit at all costs anyway so I guess it's mostly a moot point).

But that part is irrelevant because profit motive is currently the only thing that essentially allows people to actually stay alive.
 

entremet

Member
Regulated Capitalism. Taking an idealogy to an extreme leads to a breaking point. Capitalism is a good idea but it has to be done in moderation

Capitalism doesn't need to exist in isolation. That's a false choice.

Look at Scandinavia, which many GAFfers love to praise. Those countries are very much capitalists in nature. Many have a low corporate tax rate and lower regulation than the US in certain aspects. Yet they also have a robust social safety net.

We need to stop scapegoating Capitalism as this oppressive ideology. It's rather amoral and can be tamed.
 
I'm just against capitalism in that it fucks over the poor. I'd be fine with a basic income (funded by a very progressive tax system and penalties that would keep big businesses in check) that ensures food, water, and shelter and then everything else is essentially still capitalism.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Most people who do great things don't do them for financial reward.

It depends on the kind of great thing. Intellectual/artistic achievement, then sure. Logistical ones, not so much. Technology lies inbetween the two, but much of it leans more toward the latter than the former.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Jobs dont have a future and neither does money. Post scarcity? I'm pretty sure we produce enough food and have enough water for every human being alive right now. We could easily produce enough clothing. Within 20 years we could have proper housing, education, and health services for everyone on the planet. Fucking pack animals though.

We have enough food, water, and medicine, or at least the means to produce such

What we lack is many other forms of resources that aren't quite necessities, not quite luxuries, which is where the thornier problem of non-transactional distribution lies.

I think I support pretty aggressive restructurings of labor and capital towards what we think of as socialism, but what I haven't been able to get on board with, which is putting me at odds with some people lately, is the dissolution of the state. I think stateless socialism is only really possible in which participation in some form of labor is still feasible for the vast majority of the population and its a question of communal labor, but with the advances in automation we are going to need institutional structures to mediate relations between those who labor and those who do not
 
There's other forms of reward then money, and US style capitalism can disincentivise people doing great things. Why try to create artistic masterpieces if it won't give you food in your belly and a roof over your head?

Because people can make money off of art? The whole point of capitalism as a concept is that the market decides the worth of goods and services based on what people are willing to give for them, rather than someone making arbitrary decisions over what things should be worth. It's not a perfect system by any means, and it's obviously tainted by things like greed and human nature, but so are pretty much any other economic systems
 

Cocaloch

Member
It's rather amoral and can be tamed.

Again it's rather amoral under certain subjectivities created by capitalism. That's not true in some platonic ether or anything. A fundemental peice of the puzzle when it comes to leftism is its understanding of property her is the respective understanding of property of the Capitalists, i.e. Lockean/English, Social Democrats, i.e. Scottish Enlightenment, and Socialists, i.e. Marxist. The first and last place a moral judgment on property rights.
 

Foffy

Banned
Capitalism doesn't need to exist in isolation. That's a false choice.

Look at Scandinavia, which many GAFfers love to praise. Those countries are very much capitalists in nature. Many have a low corporate tax rate and lower regulation that the US in certain aspects. Yet they also have a robust social safety net.

We need to stop scapegoating Capitalism as this oppressive ideology. It's rather amoral and can be tamed.

What happens when you live in America and any proposition to tame it is responded with by shunning it?

Neoliberalism has literally allowed nearly half the fuckin' country to believe that social policies are automatically bad. Health care as a right? Let alone education? What about a citizens dividend? All seen as Communism and/or Socialism, and for those labels alone it's denounced almost in full. A country where people will line up for a candidate who has publicly stated they stand against a living wage for people working.

It says a lot that Bernie Sanders comes out for support of UBI when he's talking to people outside of the United States. This statement might kill his career if he said this was the goal we need to aim for -- and it is -- on American television. He instead has to pivot it as a "last resort" response to failing poverty programs when talking about it stateside.
 
Because people can make money off of art? The whole point of capitalism as a concept is that the market decides the worth of goods and services based on what people are willing to give for them, rather than someone making arbitrary decisions over what things should be worth. It's not a perfect system by any means, and it's obviously tainted by things like greed and human nature, but so are pretty much any other economic systems

but how much of that art that is created ever sees the light of day? How many artists have died poor or are poor or even people who want to make art but dont have the time and day to do it?

Hell, look at the great art that goes mostly unnoticed. Some of the best movies will lose money, sometimes a fair amount of it.
 

sphagnum

Banned
Capitalism is pretty good!

We're moving millions out of poverty per year. It's unprecendent in terms of human history. Not to mention those being connected to the electrical grid. Capitalism has problems, but those are rooted in human problems--lust for power, greed, etc. Those same human problems affected the implementation of Communism as well.

And no please stop with the goalpost moving saying that the USSR and China didn't implement Communism. Obviously ideals will never be implemented perfectly, but those are rather close. Even Capitalism is tainted with Crony Capitalism and Protectionism. That's not because the ideals are corrupted but because humans will never ever implement an ideology perfectly. It's impossible. I thought we learned that with religion.

However, I'd rather capitalism be implemented with those human foibles in tow than Communism.

It's not "goal post moving", it's understanding what terms mean. Neither the Soviets not Chinese ever said they achieved communism, but they claimed to have implemented socialism. That is debatable (and I would say they were wrong). Marx used the words socialism and communism interchangeably but ever since Lenin we have recognized one as a precursor system requiring labor and one as the system that comes after labor is no longer necessary.

Those nations were desperate to convince their populations that they had achieved socialism and the US was happy to go along with that message since it fit their anti-socialistic propaganda. Meanwhile workers didn't control the means of production.
 

thefil

Member
One thing I'm seeing come up in several of these arguments is that the third world can't live at a similar level to the first world under capitalism. I think I disagree with this. At all times historically, the existing planetary resources could not sustain a top 10-20% standard of living for all people with strict redistribution to the mean. But what this leaves out is constant growth in wealth and technology world-wide. It's the Malthusian argument that we can't feed everyone, blind to the developments in agricultural technology around the corner.

The average and median wealth of people worldwide has been skyrocketing over the last century, because the pool of resources keeps growing. Soon (relatively) we hill have virtually unlimited renewable energy, and after that we will start to learn how to create usable materials from less obvious sources than ore deposits and so on. Even on just Earth, I don't think we are near "saturation" of resources, since the efficiency of production of those resources and the availability of resources keeps increasing.
 

sphagnum

Banned
If it were to conquer the world perhaps.

Which is what Marx said needs to happen and why Trotsky was virulently anti-Stalin, whose Socialism in One Country was meant to protect the USSR from the outside but also intensified the bureaucratization and nationalization of it.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Capitalism itself isn't alleviating poverty. Instead, capitalism crudely allows some capital to flow toward poorer parts of the world. This will never be enough, because our global economy relies on poor people (and poor countries) to do the hard labor.

I really don't buy this thesis that capitalism relies on unskilled and inefficient labour to function, and that it would prefer such over better off, highly skilled workers.

There are a bunch of issues with this rather facile argument. For one it's not very good at suggesting that Capitalism itself is doing most of the work in decreasing policy. For another it's using the value metrics of Capitalism as an answer to whether or not Capitalism is good. That's a tautology of course. It must be good, because they system defines being good as doing what it does.

Capitalism has come with some advantages, but they came at a great cost. Evaluating those benefits and costs is tricky because capitalism has so impacted or subjectivities and culture.

Well, what exactly communists mean by "Capitalism" isn't something that's clear to me. But I'd argue that many of the policies that would seem to me to fall under "Capitalism" are part of this improvement.

If not these metrics than what metrics do you think would be worthwhile for evaluating economic systems? Although I suspect most communists aren't actually much interested in consequentialism.



Anyway, there is a lot of information lost when markets are eliminated, and that it is precisely the information required to efficiently allocate resources. I feel like communists are just slowly reconstructing markets with a much more equitable distribution of wealth.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Do values of a particular time matter to a being that doesn't age, let alone an AI?

Of course, because it wouldn't be able to accurately respond to changes in context. Maybe if we recreated the program every 25 years or so it would work.

For instance, you wouldn't want an AI programmed with the ideas of intellectuals from the 12th century to dispense justice.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Meanwhile workers didn't control the means of production.

I realize that this question is probably well discussed elsewhere, and I'm happy to just read a link instead of a full reply, but what are the "workers" and the "means of production" understood to be in a modern context? Are retail stores and their employees part of the means of production? Service employees, such as car wash operators?
 

Valhelm

contribute something
We have enough food, water, and medicine, or at least the means to produce such

What we lack is many other forms of resources that aren't quite necessities, not quite luxuries, which is where the thornier problem of non-transactional distribution lies.

I think I support pretty aggressive restructurings of labor and capital towards what we think of as socialism, but what I haven't been able to get on board with, which is putting me at odds with some people lately, is the dissolution of the state. I think stateless socialism is only really possible in which participation in some form of labor is still feasible for the vast majority of the population and its a question of communal labor, but with the advances in automation we are going to need institutional structures to mediate relations between those who labor and those who do not

Marxists don't believe that citizens ought to abolish the state in one fell swoop, but instead believed that in the absence of class conflict the state would slowly and organically lose its prominence and cede power to local democratic institutions. This is why Engels used the phrase "wither away".

I realize that this question is probably well discussed elsewhere, and I'm happy to just read a link instead of a full reply, but what are the "workers" and the "means of production" understood to be in a modern context? Are retail stores and their employees part of the means of production? Service employees, such as car wash operators?

Somebody who cuts hair for a wage is just as proletarian as somebody who makes shoes for a wage. A commodity under Marx's definition does not need to be fungible or reproducible.
 
but how much of that art that is created ever sees the light of day? How many artists have died poor or are poor or even people who want to make art but dont have the time and day to do it?

Hell, look at the great art that goes mostly unnoticed. Some of the best movies will lose money, sometimes a fair amount of it.
the problem is that "best movies" is an incredibly subjective term? Who decides which movie is best, and why is there opinion better than anyone elses? None of this would be an issue in a world with infinite resources where anyone could get as much of anything as easily as they wanted, but we don't and so we need some sort of economic structure to determine how we allocate resources. If nobody else wants a person's art, does it have value? We don't live in a society where we can afford for everyone to be an artist, and so the fact that capitalism disincentives people who are confident in their skill and drive to be an artist isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 

entremet

Member
It's not "goal post moving", it's understanding what terms mean. Neither the Soviets not Chinese ever said they achieved communism, but they claimed to have implemented socialism. That is debatable (and I would say they were wrong). Marx used the words socialism and communism interchangeably but ever since Lenin we have recognized one as a precursor system requiring labor and one as the system that comes after labor is no longer necessary.

Those nations were desperate to convince their populations that they had achieved socialism and the US was happy to go along with that message since it fit their anti-socialistic propaganda. Meanwhile workers didn't control the means of production.

My thesis is that humanity will always have these moral hangups--jealousy, greed, lust for power.

What system uses these moral hangups more effectively while mitigating the damage done to humanity as a whole? If true Communism means workers owning the means of production, who is to say some workers won't try to organize themselves is a more powerful entity and rule with an iron fist?

At least capitalism takes that type of sociopathy and harnesses for good. It's far from perfect, I agree. For example, I'm concerned with the environment although as a species we've only learned of environmental destruction in the last 40 years or so. I think we will solve that problem with human ingenuity.

So that's my big beef with Communism. It's too idealistic and rarely factors in these real moral issues that we face as a species.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Marxists don't believe that citizens ought to abolish the state in one fell swoop, but instead believed that in the absence of class conflict the state would slowly and organically lose its prominence and cede power to local democratic institutions. This is why Engels used the phrase "wither away".

I suppose the question is: what do we consider the death of the state/successful anarchism? The two things that people seem to place high priority on are a complete right to free association and an absence of a monopoly on force, but I can't square those with the power of detention required for a system for dispute resolution or general legal proceedings

This may be going quite a ways off topic

EDIT: Also what is local in this context?
 

Cocaloch

Member
One thing I'm seeing come up in several of these arguments is that the third world can't live at a similar level to the first world under capitalism. I think I disagree with this. At all times historically, the existing planetary resources could not sustain a top 10-20% standard of living for all people with strict redistribution to the mean. But what this leaves out is constant growth in wealth and technology world-wide. It's the Malthusian argument that we can't feed everyone, blind to the developments in agricultural technology around the corner.

The average and median wealth of people worldwide has been skyrocketing over the last century, because the pool of resources keeps growing. Soon (relatively) we hill have virtually unlimited renewable energy, and after that we will start to learn how to create usable materials from less obvious sources than ore deposits and so on. Even on just Earth, I don't think we are near "saturation" of resources, since the efficiency of production of those resources and the availability of resources keeps increasing.

I find this deeply deeply problematic. These things might happen, but operating from this standpoint of technological optimism/cornicopianism assumes that they must.

The historical accident is that Malthus was totally right, at least in spirit obviously he was wrong about the geometrical/arithmetic thing, about every time before his own. What industrialization did was jackup the ceiling of production by a massive amount at one time and thus create the illusion that there was no ceiling.
 

Poppy

Member
basically we need to embrace globalism and destroy the institutions that prevent equality on a societal level, and then ensure that each human is assured basic necessities and everyone works towards the greater good of humanity, the idea that everyone is trying to help each other succeed

obviously thats not going to happen within my lifetime and possibly not within anyone else's because maybe we will all just die first, but it would be nice
 
Marxists don't believe that citizens ought to abolish the state in one fell swoop, but instead believed that in the absence of class conflict the state would slowly and organically lose its prominence and cede power to local democratic institutions. This is why Engels used the phrase "wither away".



Somebody who cuts hair for a wage is just as proletarian as somebody who makes shoes for a wage. A commodity under Marx's definition does not need to be fungible or reproducible.

And this is a fundementally absurd idea, because classes developed organically as humanity developed. Humans were originally an egalitarian society and then developed into a class system as some people realized they could get more than others. The idea that you can maintain a world without a class system with no government is absolutely ludicrous, because if that was the case a class system would never have developed, and yet it did literally everywhere
 

Valhelm

contribute something
My thesis is that humanity will always have these moral hangups--jealousy, greed, lust for power.

What system uses these moral hangups more effectively while mitigating the damage done to humanity as a whole? If true Communism means workers owning the means of production, who is to say some workers won't try to organize themselves is a more powerful entity and rule with an iron fist?

At least capitalism takes that type of sociopathy and harnesses for good. It's far from perfect, I agree. For example, I'm concerned with the environment although as a species we've only learned of environmental destruction in the last 40 years or so. I think we will solve that problem with human ingenuity.

So that's my big beef with Communism. It's too idealistic and rarely factors in these real moral issues that we face as a species.

While many people benefit from capitalism, suggesting that our economy harnesses greed "for good" is a lot more idealistic than any socialist philosophy. Capitalism is killing people, and it's dishonest to say there can't be an alternative.
 

entremet

Member
And this is a fundementally absurd idea, because classes developed organically as humanity developed. Humans were originally an egalitarian society and then developed into a class system as some people realized they could get more than others. The idea that you can maintain a world without a class system with no government is absolutely ludicrous, because if that was the case a class system would never have developed, and yet it did literally everywhere

Right.

Unless people want to return to hunter/gatherer bands, but then we forego the benefits of civilization.
 

PSqueak

Banned
The weakest arguments for capitalism concern fairness. It pretty obviously is the least fair system by several metrics. The argument for capitalism is that it's been beneficial to society as a whole. There is some truth to that, and it has certainly been a positive on specific issues. The question is about how one weighs varies metrics that we can use to examine society. Fairness, both economic and political, are a point against, not for, Capitalism.

I mean, that's my point, but you chose to erase the last bit of my post.

Capitalism is NOT fair, yet and paradoxically, it is still the most "fair" system we have because it's one based on the idea free trade market, rather than one completely controlled by an easily corruptible power.

That's the whole point of the phrase, Capitalism sucks donkey balls, but all the other systems are even worse, Capitalism at least is based on the idea that anybody can become an economic powerhouse but the system is incredibly flawed and oppressive.

We are at point where a total reset of the economy based on a different system that would be fair in theory AND practice is basically unthinkable..
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The weakest arguments for capitalism concern fairness. It pretty obviously is the least fair system by several metrics. The argument for capitalism is that it's been beneficial to society as a whole. There is some truth to that, and it has certainly been a positive on specific issues. The question is about how one weighs varies metrics that we can use to examine society. Fairness, both economic and political, are a point against, not for, Capitalism.

I mean, least fair compared to what? Its pretty obviously less fair than communism in which each receives according to their needs, but its quite a lot fairer than feudalism in which both horizontal and vertical movement for the serfs is literally impossible
 

pigeon

Banned
It depends on the kind of great thing. Intellectual/artistic achievement, then sure. Logistical ones, not so much. Technology lies inbetween the two, but much of it leans more toward the latter than the former.

No, I think this is mostly false. I would argue that most major technological achievements were created by people not primarily interested in financial gain. Many were then commercialized, but that doesn't mean the people who commercialized them created those achievements.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Well, what exactly communists mean by "Capitalism" isn't something that's clear to me.

What academics mean when they say Capitalism isn't often clear to me, and they certainly tend to be far clearer than anyone else on the matter. It's a poorly defined word.

But I'd argue that many of the policies that would seem to me to fall under "Capitalism" are part of this improvement.

Industrialization, but probably not the Industrial Revolution itself, can clearly happen under non-capitalistic systems, see the USSR.

If not these metrics than what metrics do you think would be worthwhile for evaluating economic systems? Although I suspect most communists aren't actually much interested in consequentialism.

That's the rub that makes this, and all large scale social discussions, difficult right? Also of course most communists are interested in consequentialism. Have you read Capital?

Anyway, there is a lot of information lost when markets are eliminated, and that it is precisely the information required to efficiently allocate resources. I feel like communists are just slowly reconstructing markets with a much more equitable distribution of wealth.

If you're just defining capitalism as markets, then the ancient Greeks were capitalists. That clearly isn't a very good definition because markets exists pretty much everywhere and alongside systems we clearly identify as not capitalist.

No, I think this is mostly false. I would argue that most major technological achievements were created by people not primarily interested in financial gain. Many were then commercialized, but that doesn't mean the people who commercialized them created those achievements.

Historically this seems to be very untrue. I'd recommend Merton's seminal work on the subject.
 

Laiza

Member
It depends on the material and social conditions of each society that socialism must arise in. In the US, revolution is impossible due to the extreme power of the state. The most logical plan is trying to transition to some sort of market socialism with UBI for the time being. In other places, revolution. I think the Soviet system is interesting and could have worked well if they actually, you know, let people freely elect representatives from the soviets and if they had had computers to help them plan allocation. They didn't have the technology to overcome the calculation problem. AI should help with that.

Ultimately automation must lead to communism.
Pretty much where I stand on this.

Communism needs automation to function properly, and it actually needs to be, y'know, communism and not fascism by another name (the state owning all means of production is de facto fascism). This means the democratization of technology and, by extension, the means of production. It involves allowing every citizen a certain minimum level of autonomy in terms of energy and food production.

Regardless, the transition period is really the most important thing here. We need to take steps, however minute they might be, towards a future where we're less reliant on the constant exchange of goods and services to keep things moving. A steady-state economy is the antithesis of the kind of capitalism we're running on today, but it's where we need to head since the infinite growth paradigm is inherently unsustainable - even moreso with AI threatening to overtake all the remaining jobs we have.

At first I believe we'll see things moving in an ever-so-slightly more socialist fashion with UBI playing a huge role in this (since it's attractive to conservatives as well as liberals and actual leftists like myself), and eventually we'll have to excise the whole debt pyramid thing as we move towards 100% sustainable development and resource usage.

I suspect the economy, such as it is, is not going to even resemble our current-day standard in 15 years or so. Sounds outlandish, but it will take less time than that for human-level AI to become ubiquitous, and when that happens everything we know goes out the window. We'll adapt as we always have, but it will come with a lot of pain and suffering in the process. It's just one of those things.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
I mean, that's my point, but you chose to erase the last bit of my post.

Capitalism is NOT fair, yet and paradoxically, it is still the most "fair" system we have because it's one based on the idea free trade market, rather than one completely controlled by an easily corruptible power.

That's the whole point of the phrase, Capitalism sucks donkey balls, but all the other systems are even worse, Capitalism at least is based on the idea that anybody can become an economic powerhouse but the system is incredibly flawed and oppressive.

We are at point where a total reset of the economy based on a different system that would be fair in theory AND practice is basically unthinkable..

Sounds like Capitalist Realism: "[...]the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it."
 

entremet

Member
While many people benefit from capitalism, suggesting that our economy harnesses greed "for good" is a lot more idealistic than any socialist philosophy. Capitalism is killing people, and it's dishonest to say there can't be an alternative.

Unless you're talking about a violent revolution, which will kill many as well both via warfare and trade disruption, will the tradeoff be worth it? Not to mention maintaining this new system?
 
I mean, that's my point, but you chose to erase the last bit of my post.

Capitalism is NOT fair, yet and paradoxically, it is still the most "fair" system we have because it's one based on the idea free trade market, rather than one completely controlled by an easily corruptible power.

That's the whole point of the phrase, Capitalism sucks donkey balls, but all the other systems are even worse, Capitalism at least is based on the idea that anybody can become an economic powerhouse but the system is incredibly flawed and oppressive.

We are at point where a total reset of the economy based on a different system that would be fair in theory AND practice is basically unthinkable..

Socialism is NOT the government doing things. It is workers owning the means of production.

Democratic Socialism is infinitely more fair than capitalism.
 

Cocaloch

Member
And this is a fundementally absurd idea, because classes developed organically as humanity developed. Humans were originally an egalitarian society and then developed into a class system as some people realized they could get more than others. The idea that you can maintain a world without a class system with no government is absolutely ludicrous, because if that was the case a class system would never have developed, and yet it did literally everywhere

Class systems did not emerge everywhere.
 
You can see how the lifestyle of minimalists is kind of frowned upon in these cultures. While not everyone who is a minimalist is a meditator, I am quite sure monks are minimalists to the purest sense, especially renunciates. Just look at how the Millennial generation is being attacked by not being consumers of baby boomer industries! They're given shit for being decoupled from the system. Heaven forbid you choose to be a non joiner.

Of course it's detrimental, because this culture focuses on consumerism for two central reasons. First, the system is designed in perpetual short-term gains: every quarter must surpass the last, and if it doesn't it is doomsday. Nowhere are we asking the issues of consistently passing Ecological Debt Day, which if we are to assume trends of past years is anything, we would have wasted the annual "carrying capacity" of the Earth's resources by the start of August.

The other reason is far more sinister. By being a jobs cult culture, many people are likely doing things they see no value in -- what they do is "empty" in a genuinely dark sense, not the liberating "nonself" sense -- so they consume to fill the voids in their lives. This can be seen as an issue even beyond consumption but how people use their off time: how often are people just recharging after work, on days off, or even on vacation simply because what they do is so wasteful and draining to their lives? I don't simply mean people relaxing by a pool, I mean people who don't want to do anything, that they're burnt out. Days off in this sense or more like being in a social hospital room, for the sole goal is to recuperate enough health, primarily mental health, to get back out there.

This system absolutely emphasizes a sense of lack as its modus operandi from the end of the business to the people living in the society. And its in this manufacturing lack that we face profound issues: how many realize by being an American today they are part of the most prosperous period of human history? This is not seen in the lives of the majority, so something's gone wrong, and it's much more nuanced than the Great Decoupling, the creation of a precariat class once neoliberalism became the norm, but how we've truly, even in a material sense, concocted a society of emptiness, of voidness, both in personal lack and even material lack. One honest look at the world and you see these are mental and policy problems, and not a true, materialistic lack.

One look at technology is proof of this. In what culture can the idea of robots "taking our jobs" be seen as a normal thought to have? Where the response is genuine fear, hostility, and concern? What's gone wrong in a culture where the creation of better abundance is somehow a forced social death for tens of millions of people?

May I ask what your major is? ;)
 
Unless you're talking about a violent revolution, which will kill many as well both via warfare and trade disruption, will the tradeoff be worth it? Not to mention maintaining this new system?

How many people will capitalism kill?

The US is looking at several million on its own with the latest administration.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Pretty much where I stand on this.

Communism needs automation to function properly, and it actually needs to be, y'know, communism and not fascism by another name (the state owning all means of production is de facto fascism). This means the democratization of technology and, by extension, the means of production. It involves allowing every citizen a certain minimum level of autonomy in terms of energy and food production.

Regardless, the transition period is really the most important thing here. We need to take steps, however minute they might be, towards a future where we're less reliant on the constant exchange of goods and services to keep things moving. A steady-state economy is the antithesis of the kind of capitalism we're running on today, but it's where we need to head since the infinite growth paradigm is inherently unsustainable - even moreso with AI threatening to overtake all the remaining jobs we have.

At first I believe we'll see things moving in an ever-so-slightly more socialist fashion with UBI playing a huge role in this (since it's attractive to conservatives as well as liberals and actual leftists like myself), and eventually we'll have to excise the whole debt pyramid thing as we move towards 100% sustainable development and resource usage.

I suspect the economy, such as it is, is not going to even resemble our current-day standard in 15 years or so. Sounds outlandish, but it will take less time than that for human-level AI to become ubiquitous, and when that happens everything we know goes out the window. We'll adapt as we always have, but it will come with a lot of pain and suffering in the process. It's just one of those things.
What do you mean by "a basic level of autonomy in energy and food production"?
 

Foffy

Banned
I mean, that's my point, but you chose to erase the last bit of my post.

Capitalism is NOT fair, yet and paradoxically, it is still the most "fair" system we have because it's one based on the idea free trade market, rather than one completely controlled by an easily corruptible power.

That's the whole point of the phrase, Capitalism sucks donkey balls, but all the other systems are even worse, Capitalism at least is based on the idea that anybody can become an economic powerhouse but the system is incredibly flawed and oppressive.

We are at point where a total reset of the economy based on a different system that would be fair in theory AND practice is basically unthinkable..

Consider the language of "Capitalism is the best we've had because the rest was worse" remarks. This is what Henry Giroux alludes to as a "disimagination machine" wherein we think this is the best we can do, and the goal is to either normalize what we have or fight away the ghosts of the past.

We seldom examine if the economic system in question has a lifespan, like any body of idea and activity. It very clearly does, because the economic system of the 20th century has entirely broken down.

After all, what's the precariat class doing as not an underclass but an unconscious majority?

May I ask what your major is? ;)

It has little to do with this, but I started out in Computer Information Systems, migrated to Sociology, then became a CNA, and am presently entertaining the monk jazz if being an advocate for the precariat falls through, which is likely.

May I ask why you asked?
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Socialism is NOT the government doing things. It is workers owning the means of production.

Democratic Socialism is infinitely more fair than capitalism.

Under socialism are there still transactions mediated by currency?

These are genuine questions, I've been reading around but a lot of what I find has been written over about a century by a billion different people and piecing together what the current consensus (or fragmentary consensuses) are has been difficult
 

Cocaloch

Member
Capitalism is NOT fair, yet and paradoxically, it is still the most "fair" system we have because it's one based on the idea free trade market, rather than one completely controlled by an easily corruptible power.

I mean this isn't really a good argument. It's the most fair because it relies on the market instead of culture and the state? that could be true, but it doesn't automatically follow.

That's the whole point of the phrase, Capitalism sucks donkey balls, but all the other systems are even worse,

Again, that's possible, but it doesn't follow. You're just stating it.

Capitalism at least is based on the idea that anybody can become an economic powerhouse

Well this just isn't true.
 

Cocaloch

Member
I mean, least fair compared to what? Its pretty obviously less fair than communism in which each receives according to their needs, but its quite a lot fairer than feudalism in which both horizontal and vertical movement for the serfs is literally impossible

That's not necessarily true, and laborers under early capitalism did not understand it that way. The allocation of wealth in feudal society involved a certain understanding of obligation to everyone else. Capitalism severed that sense of obligation.
 

sphagnum

Banned
I realize that this question is probably well discussed elsewhere, and I'm happy to just read a link instead of a full reply, but what are the "workers" and the "means of production" understood to be in a modern context? Are retail stores and their employees part of the means of production? Service employees, such as car wash operators?

Means of production are non-human by nature, just being a other term basically for capital goods/tools of labor/the stuff you use to make stuff. In a service context, they may not be directly producing but they're still operating the wider tools owned by the capitalists that make then their profit, so they're still proletarians (although Maoist-Third Worldists would say they are part of the labor aristocracy which is an interesting take). Obviously Jacobin isn't a socialist journal or anything but this article goes into it. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/precariat-labor-us-workers-uber-walmart-gig-economy/

How that should be handled is going to come down to differences in socialist tendencies. A market socialist will typically saybthat yesx the workers at individusl companies should collectively own the place regardless of their specific function there, moreornless as a co-op, though others might say this should be done on a industry-wide basis with elected regional councils or whatever. A Marxist-Leninist will say itnshoukd all be owned by a democratically elected state with central planners. And so forth.
 
Top Bottom