-
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?
- Thread starter thefil
- Start date
nelsonroyale
Member
Is not an economic system.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Their is a lot of garbage math in economics, I agree with that. The systems currently in place in most developed countries are capitalist, though. Whether the math supports it or not, they work. And the mathematical proofs of this exist and are indeed very complex.
On the other hand, if you completely disregard mathematics, wealth optimization becomes near impossible. What would your proposal be in this regard? How would you optimize policy making without mathematics?
Also, bear in mind that most reputable scholars never really tried to "prove" that one system is better than the other. This is an ideological matters. Models are used to optimize welfare taking into account the ideological system they were intended for.
nelsonroyale
Member
Following up your previous statement, I guess you are from a former communist country then? I have tended to find many of those that have generally focus on the positive gains that they have achieved through conversion to capitalism. Fair enough. Being born in somewhere like the UK often makes you take some of those gains for granted, but it is also can inform you about the historical context of those gains, and also the problems that shadow many of them - particularly when it comes to wealth generation and economic expansion.
Saying modern capitalism works is a pretty broad statement, and perhaps no more than a half-truth given the global crisis that is brewing with ecological collapse and climate change. Anyway, who does it work for? Me? Yes, to some degree. The wealthy in South Kensington terraces? Sure. It doesn't work for everyone who fit into its global supply chains, however. Tell that to the coltain miners in Congo who power the smart phone industry, or the Rohinga fisherman off Thailand who give us our supply of tiger prawns. The Foxconn workers in China, etc. These are essential components of global capitalism that enable the generation of vast wealth in 'developed' countries. My background is in ecology, where the impacts of capitalist mindset have been largley degrading and destructive.
In terms of economic theory, Neoliberalism in the Friedmann mould is conceptual framework with a great deal of shoddy assumptions about basic human social psychology.
Theonik
Member
(the underlying economic system of a real democracy is socialism if I didn't make it clear)
Capitalism with no strong democratic check and balances, naturally trends to feudalism as wealth accumulates. The more government intervention and checks and balances you add, the closer you get to socialism.
Yeah exactly. I think a number of European countries have it pretty right, not perfect but good.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Capitalism doesn't mean free markets. It doesn't even mean markets. 'socialism' and 'capitalism' don't refer to economic systems, at least, not first and foremost. They refer to social systems. The 'mode of production' - the way that the factors of production interact - is the economic system, and dependent on what the mode of production is, you see different social outcomes, such as capitalism and socialism.
For example, when the mode of production sees a class of people who can expropriate excess profits from labour, you end up with a capitalist system - where there are two relatively distinct classes of people, labourers and capitalists. When the mode of production tends to produce a single class of people relatively undifferentiated in terms of their economic standing, you have a socialist society. Capitalism and socialism aren't the modes of production, they're the consequences of the modes of production. It's entirely plausible that a mode of production that produces socialist outcomes would maintain markets, and relatively free markets, in their entirety.
What would characterise a socialist society is not necessarily a state-planned economy, which is not socialism but an attempt at bringing about socialism (and a rather unsuccessful one at that), but something as simple as: take every necessary step to break up monopolies, ensuring an egalitarian education system, making sure consumer information is maximised, taxation based on natural monopolies such as land, peer-to-peer finance, and so on. This should diminish the existence of capitalists as a class, and consequently bring about a socialist society.
For example, when the mode of production sees a class of people who can expropriate excess profits from labour, you end up with a capitalist system - where there are two relatively distinct classes of people, labourers and capitalists. When the mode of production tends to produce a single class of people relatively undifferentiated in terms of their economic standing, you have a socialist society. Capitalism and socialism aren't the modes of production, they're the consequences of the modes of production. It's entirely plausible that a mode of production that produces socialist outcomes would maintain markets, and relatively free markets, in their entirety.
What would characterise a socialist society is not necessarily a state-planned economy, which is not socialism but an attempt at bringing about socialism (and a rather unsuccessful one at that), but something as simple as: take every necessary step to break up monopolies, ensuring an egalitarian education system, making sure consumer information is maximised, taxation based on natural monopolies such as land, peer-to-peer finance, and so on. This should diminish the existence of capitalists as a class, and consequently bring about a socialist society.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Yes, I am from an ex - communist country.
I can see your point of view clearly, coming from an ecological background. Capitalism doesn't really care about that field and I agree with that.
Regarding people in undeveloped countries, I cannot agree. UK, USA and other countries began their rapid economic development long time ago and starting harvesting those results, en masse, post WW2. The countries you described did not. So, here is the question. How can they accumulate wealth the fastest? Through capitalism or some other system. B
Based on historical data, I would say capitalism is the best answer. But capitalism requires institutions, rule of law etc. to work properly. On the other hand, Chinese economic model may be even faster in generating wealth. But it also requires a certain type of a political system to work properly, rule of law etc. So economic systems only work if the environment lets them to work.
I personally dislike the fact that some models are taken as perfect. Just because some countries have generated well-being for a lot of people does not mean you can take their model and replicate it to every other country and expect it to work. Whether it's the US model, Chinese model or the Swedish model. Each country is different, with vast differences in historical circumstances, culture, capital formation, structural issues, work ethic, abidance of law etc.
Theonik
Member
Good post.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I've never understood the Labor Theory of Value TBH
A fisherman can invest the same amount of labor in harvesting two types of fish, but if one type tastes foul and no-one desires it for cooking and the other tastes delicious than the two clearly have vastly different values, regardless of the labor required to "produce" them
EDIT: To clarify further, because I'm reading up further on this now, writing about the labor theory of value seems to universally use it as the foundation of the idea of profits, i.e your employer compensates you for less than the value of your labor, generating profit. But that's not an explanation for why a given form of labor is valuable in the first place. In this sense I think the use of "value" here is actually sort of a deceptive rhetorical slight of hand; what we have is a useful framework for describing labor in terms of effort and resources but what we commonly think of as value is not determined from effort and resources consumed.
It makes no sense to describe labor invested in generating a commodity which is undesirable as "having value proportional to its labor but trading at a price beneath its value" unless you're wedded to using the term value as an abstract marker, without linking it to what people normally think of as "value"
A fisherman can invest the same amount of labor in harvesting two types of fish, but if one type tastes foul and no-one desires it for cooking and the other tastes delicious than the two clearly have vastly different values, regardless of the labor required to "produce" them
EDIT: To clarify further, because I'm reading up further on this now, writing about the labor theory of value seems to universally use it as the foundation of the idea of profits, i.e your employer compensates you for less than the value of your labor, generating profit. But that's not an explanation for why a given form of labor is valuable in the first place. In this sense I think the use of "value" here is actually sort of a deceptive rhetorical slight of hand; what we have is a useful framework for describing labor in terms of effort and resources but what we commonly think of as value is not determined from effort and resources consumed.
It makes no sense to describe labor invested in generating a commodity which is undesirable as "having value proportional to its labor but trading at a price beneath its value" unless you're wedded to using the term value as an abstract marker, without linking it to what people normally think of as "value"
dragonfart28
Banned
As far as I'm concerned - capitalism, socialism, left, right, liberal etc. are all terms that have ceased to have concrete meaning and we should just try to do the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of how we want to get there.
Theonik
Member
People who make kusoge like Mass Effect still get paid you know.
shinra-bansho
Member
It's like you guys read something, get flummoxed and then read no further.
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=239839919
One can both praise and criticise systems that have brought about human progress.
Ironically, what you describe sounds like a reasonable system to me. Perhaps not nationalised but very well regulated.
Personally I support anarcho-socialism - but I'm also aware it runs counter to ownership of certain resources (i.e., land - worth noting, the state doesn't own the land either) and that's generally not something are able to get along well enough to do. Still, assuming sometime in the future people realize that being shits to each other because of money isn't helpful, it's a good system and works on small and large scales.