Support NeoGAF

[smokeandmirrors]

No one works for selfless reasons.

there are a TON of thing I would do if I didn't have to worry about those things needing to bring me money in order for me to be able to exist.

 

[Maedre]

Just look at scandinavia, Benelux or germany. It just works.

 

[The Technomancer]

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.

I mean yes, feudalism was based on "I get to be rich and you get to be poor because I control the army that protects you" and the serfs may have been happy the lord could field an army to protect them but they were still stuck as sustenance farmers

 

[Aaronrules380]

Just look at scandinavia, Benelux or germany. It just works.

All of those still employ capitalism to a large extent

 

[andythinkpad]

Common misconception. America is actually a Mixed Economy, which is already the perfect idea, a mix of capitalism and socialism. The problem is that it needs to be fixed

America is not remotely close to socialism. It's very free capitalism with some narrow domestic sectors heavily regulated. This America is not the war time America.

 

[entremet]

Regulated capitalism akin to Scandinavian countries. Unchecked capitalism has fucked us more than anything.

How is it checked in Scandinavian countries? I don't believe the restrictions anything more than the US?

The difference is that they have a robust social safety net, but that has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[Desperado]

My question always is where does the incentive to do great things come from without reward.

Extrinsic rewards are actually an incredibly poor way to motivate people, relative to intrinsic motivation.

'The surprising truth about what motivates us'
(I highly recommend the book, Drive)

 

[pigeon]

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

I think there are a pretty wide variety of systems that people might class as essentially socialist.

A country with a basically capitalist economy buttressed by a comprehensive and high-value set of social programs to guarantee all basic needs to everybody would be a socialist country according to some -- this is basically the goal of social democrats, to take power peacefully in capitalist countries and democratically evolve the country towards socialism.

Others argue for a society with common ownership or state management of production, which would generally also be socialist systems. But not always! The PRC today demonstrates that heavy state management of production is not incompatible with crony capitalism. So, arguably, does the USSR.

So I think the answer here is "it depends." I would probably use currency in a socialist system because it would be easier, since we already have currency. But that's also a technological question.

 

[Kthulhu]

there are a TON of thing I would do if I didn't have to worry about those things needing to bring me money in order for me to be able to exist.

There would be at least one task that you would expect something in return for. Humans don't do anything unless they're getting something out of it no matter how small. It's fundamental to the species.

 

[Cocaloch]

No one works for selfless reasons.

Tons of people do if you're going by a capitalistic understanding of selfless reasons. Especially large numbers of intellectual figures. People need a certain amount of money to subsist at a specific culturally created level, but after that many aren't actually profit motivated.

Some people see certain work as a good in itself. Others see their work as leading to good for society.

I mean yes, feudalism was based on "I get to be rich and you get to be poor because I control the army that protects you" and the serfs may have been happy the lord could field an army to protect them but they were still stuck as sustenance farmers

And early modern farm laborers in England were still stuck as farm laborers, but without the social and cultural protection of their ancestors. What's your point?

What society's evolved past the hunter gatherer level without class systems emerging?

Plenty of nomads cultures do not have class systems as well. But sure, once you get to cities, classes seem to become historically inevitable to emerge. I wouldn't dispute that. that being said that doesn't mean classes need to exist. It means that certain pressures can bring them into existence, other pressures can dispose of them.

 

[Poppy]

no one works for selfless reasons, however, helping other people or breaking new ground in order to make yourself feel good are probably among the most selfless of all selfish reasons we have for doing something

 

[The Technomancer]

I think there are a pretty wide variety of systems that people might class as essentially socialist.

A country with a basically capitalist economy buttressed by a comprehensive and high-value set of social programs to guarantee all basic needs to everybody would be a socialist country according to some -- this is basically the goal of social democrats, to take power peacefully in capitalist countries and democratically evolve the country towards socialism.

Others argue for a society with common ownership or state management of production, which would generally also be socialist systems. But not always! The PRC today demonstrates that heavy state management of production is not incompatible with crony capitalism. So, arguably, does the USSR.

So I think the answer here is "it depends." I would probably use currency in a socialist system because it would be easier, since we already have currency. But that's also a technological question.

Both of those are basically what I'm behind when it comes to the advancement of socialism, I would say. I suppose my problem really is with getting behind anarcho socialism

 

[Kthulhu]

Tons of people do if you're going by a capitalistic understanding of selfless reasons. Especially large numbers of intellectual figures. People need a certain amount of money to subsist at a specific culturally created level, but after that many aren't actually profit motivated.

Some people see certain work as a good in itself. Others see their work as leading to good for society.



And early modern farm laborers in England were still stuck as farm laborers, but without the social and cultural protection of their ancestors. What's your point?

All actions humans take are a form of selfishness. Selfishness isn't limited to monetary concerns.

 

[pigeon]

Both of those are basically what I'm behind when it comes to the advancement of socialism, I would say. I suppose my problem really is with getting behind anarcho socialism

Me too. The anarcho part is the problem though.

 

[Cocaloch]

Humans don't do anything unless they're getting something out of it no matter how small. It's fundamental to the species.

Maybe, but it doesn't need to be something they are getting from society. I mean this is essentially saying that Humans react to neurotransmitters. It's true, but I don't see how it's relevant.

All actions humans take are a form of selfishness. Selfishness isn't limited to monetary concerns.

You brought up a reward in the context of a discussion of Capitalism. Either you're talking about some sort of reward external to the person, i.e. money or respect, or you're making a totally tangential, and trivial, point for no real reason.

 

[Terrell]

The main part where capitalism fails is how it impedes scientific progress. For example, there are a great many ways we as a society can be free from carbon emissions, but:

a) many of them don't offer the means to pour more money into the economy like the purchase of fossil fuels does

b) it eliminates a workforce that capitalism has come to depend on and gets propped up by governments wanting to keep people employed so that they can maintain the capitalist system

c) the science involved to further develop such technologies is prohibitively expensive and investment into such technology is not well-distributed

Remove the roadblocks to scientific progress made by capitalism and we'd be much better off.

 

[jeenaudx]

No one works for selfless reasons.

Well I'm no one then.

 

[Screaming Meat]

All actions humans take are a form of selfishness. Selfishness isn't limited to monetary concerns.

Not true. There are examples of people committing selfless acts during the two recent terror attacks in Manchester and London.

 

[SentientStone]

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?

Just trying to see if your thoughts relate with your major / career. Hah

 

[entremet]

Well I'm no one then.

You don't build societies on exceptional human behavior. That's not realistic.

 

[pigeon]

All actions humans take are a form of selfishness. Selfishness isn't limited to monetary concerns.

Sure, if you redefine altruism as selfishness and say that all human actions are necessarily selfish, then you can say that any given action is selfish.

But you've also made the word meaningless, so the categorization is also meaningless.

There is a practical distinction between doing something to get rich and doing something to feed kids in Africa, even if you believe the latter option is driven more by self-image than morality. It's useful to have language to reflect that distinction.

 

[WiseguyMVP]

What we need is fair free market capitalism. What we have is corrupt corporate cronie capitalism.

 

[sphagnum]

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 developed because of material conditions, not because some guys at the start of the Holocene suddenly realized they could swindle others. It only came about with the advent of agriculture as humans had to organize for irrigation, distribution, and city building etc. due to the ingrained scarcity that goes hand in hand with agriculture and the subsequent population boom. In small scale societies like the Cucutenni-Trypillian culture they were classless or close to it for thousands of years since they had what they needed.

Communism, being a hypothetical society where scarcity had more or less been taken care of because of the overall development of production and democratization, would therefore lead to a situation where classes no longer made sense, as there would be no need or reason for one group to even be able to hold that power over another. Whether itnisnpossibke to overcome scarcity is the problem. Socialism, at least, does not promise to do that. But itndoea democratize things.

 

[killer rin]

Capitalism with a Mincome or Market Socialism/Capitalism with heavy regulations. Alternatively, communism but robots do all the work

 

[Foffy]

Just trying to see if your thoughts relate with your major / career. Hah

Nah man, I like questioning ideas.

I am interested in the problem of suffering, of mind, and what is society if not a social mind? That our ideas internally and externally create divisions, and wherever divisions exist, conflict arises.

As a precariat I know the idea of careers is a long grasp to a system in decay, which is why I focus on highlighting the decay.

 

[Cocaloch]

All of those still employ capitalism to a large extent

All of them use markets, but they have a fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between, the individual, society, markets, the state, and production than America and to a lesser extent Britain.

 

[Desperado]

You don't build societies on exceptional human behavior. That's not realistic.

How would you classify the actions of the 3 victims of the recent Portland train stabbing?

 

[Giant Panda]

Well I'm no one then.

Just because you say that doesn't actually make it true.

 

[kirblar]

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.

The issue isn't "neoliberalism", it's that the US is way more rural and way more diverse (and thus way more racist and unwilling to provide social benefits to the "other") than in much small, urban, colder and more homogenous countries.

We can see this behavior within the US- States with more black people have less generous welfare benefits, study says

 

[Lime]

Democratic socialism (not social democracy, as that has shown to fail to regulate capitalism as seen in the Scandinavian countries)

 

[Kthulhu]

Not true. There are examples of people committing selfless acts during the two recent terror attacks in Manchester and London.

Those actions were still done for selfish reasons. Those people performed those actions because it satisfied a desire within themselves to do what they perceived was the right thing. All actions humans can take are selfish at a fundamental level.

 

[Cocaloch]

The main part where capitalism fails is how it impedes scientific progress. For example, there are a great many ways we as a society can be free from carbon, but:

a) many of them don't offer the means to pour more money into the economy like the purchase of fossil fuels does

b) it eliminates a workforce that capitalism has come to depend on and gets propped up by governments wanting to keep people employed so that they can maintain the capitalist system

c) the science involved to further develop such technologies is prohibitively expensive and investment into such technology is not well-distributed

Remove the roadblocks to scientific progress made by capitalism and we'd be much better off.

Capitalism and science have historically worked incredibly well together. There's also a capitalistic answer, as long as you're not a full blown free market looney, to the issue of carbon, an emissions tax to adjust for externalities.

You also have a weird idea of scientific progress here that doesn't seem to be about the creation of more knowledge.

Those actions were still done for selfish reasons. Those people performed those actions because it satisfied a desire within themselves to do what they perceived was the right thing. All actions humans can take are selfish at a fundamental level.

So what is the point of what you're getting here? Your statement amounts to people do things for reasons. That's trivial and not particularly relevant to the conversation.

 

[sphagnum]

I think it would be helpful to remember that to socialists the absolute primary focus of capitalism is the ownership of capital by the bourgeoisie. The fact that they use markets for further capital accumulation is part of the problem but secondary to the matter of control. Socialists can argue about whether market socialism is "really socialist" but the thing we all agree on is that the dialectic is between owners and workers not workers and markets specifically. It's about the relationship of control between labor and capital.

 

[Desperado]

Those actions were still done for selfish reasons. Those people performed those actions because it satisfied a desire within themselves to do what they perceived was the right thing. All actions humans can take are selfish at a fundamental level.

pigeon made a comment on this idea:

Sure, if you redefine altruism as selfishness and say that all human actions are necessarily selfish, then you can say that any given action is selfish.

But you've also made the word meaningless, so the categorization is also meaningless.

There is a practical distinction between doing something to get rich and doing something to feed kids in Africa, even if you believe the latter option is driven more by self-image than morality. It's useful to have language to reflect that distinction.

So if we're going to define all human actions as selfish (which I don't disagree with, actually), then perhaps we can move on to a different question, which is: do people need *economic* reasons to do good/work hard/etc.? I would say that, considering the available research on motivation, the answer is no.

 

[Straight Edge]

Profits funneled back to the workers not shareholders.

 

[entremet]

How would you classify the actions of the 3 victims of the recent Portland train stabbing?

Sociopathic of course.

 

[andythinkpad]

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.

Well in theory the 3rd world can archive same level of wealth per capita if they impliment effective population control.

What's this virtually unlimited renewable energy nonsense. You need a lot of resource to create solar panels. Same goes to other renewable energy extraction.

 

[Cocaloch]

The issue isn't "neoliberalism", it's that the US is way more rural and way more diverse (and thus way more racist and unwilling to provide social benefits to the "other") than in much small, urban, colder and more homogenous countries.

We can see this behavior within the US- States with more black people have less generous welfare benefits, study says

As I've said before, you're right to some degree, but you're also wrong to some degree. Economic ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They are embedded in a wider political economy. Neoliberalism, narrow or broad definition, does have a part to play in this.

 

[pigeon]

Those actions were still done for selfish reasons. Those people performed those actions because it satisfied a desire within themselves to do what they perceived was the right thing. All actions humans can take are selfish at a fundamental level.

Let's assume this is true.

Why should I care?

It's the psychosocial equivalent of solipsism.

 

[Poppy]

economic reasons are only important because we are not naturally gifted the right to survive without working for it, so oftentimes that's akin to simply doing something to survive, even if it isn't strictly necessary (meaning people grow up and become accustomed to a certain standard of living and through their unique mindset can see a certain level of economic achievement well above necessity as a baseline)

so no, it definitely isnt required to be economical in nature to make us want to do something, but practically thats how things currently are for many people

 

[Cocaloch]

Well in theory the 3rd world can archive same level of wealth per capita if they impliment effective population control.

Not without other changes. That seems absurd. Malthus doesn't explain the reason underdeveloped parts of the world are underdeveloped just like Wallerstein doesn't.

Both narrative seem to come from some Whiggish economic progressivism. Growth is fundamentally atypical. It only became common fairly recently, and even then it was limited to a very small geographical area, until the 19th century.

The question isn't why is Niger not developed, it's why Britain is.

 

[Desperado]

economic reasons are only important because we are not naturally gifted the right to survive without working for it, so oftentimes that's akin to simply doing something to survive, even if it isn't strictly necessary (meaning people grow up and become accustomed to a certain standard of living and through their unique mindset can see a certain level of economic achievement well above necessity as a baseline)

so no, it definitely isnt required to be economical in nature to make us want to do something, but practically thats how things currently are

Sure, which is why we're talking about post-capitalism

 

[kirblar]

As I've said before, you're right to some degree, but you're also wrong to some degree. Economic ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They are embedded in a wider political economy. Neoliberalism, narrow or broad definition, does have a part to play in this.

Racism isn't an "economic" idea at its core. Yes, it expresses itself through economic actions/outcomes/etc., but it's not intrinsically about economics and emerging through there.

This is the issue w/ trying to fit everything into a "class" paradigm - it blinds you to other axes that are operating independently.

 

[God Dayumm]

Those actions were still done for selfish reasons. Those people performed those actions because it satisfied a desire within themselves to do what they perceived was the right thing. All actions humans can take are selfish at a fundamental level.

Probably "selfish" is not the accurate word. But yes, all human actions are done for the pursuit of pleasure and happiness, and helping others can bring enjoyment to oneself.

 

[Poppy]

Sure, which is why we're talking about post-capitalism

yeah i am not a good enough critical thinker to actually contribute and move the conversation forward so i just sit here and espouse my own ramblings derp

BUT I TRY, AND I HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS

 

[Fuchsdh]

Regulated capitalism, regulation based upon innovation score criteria. I.e., if a large entity (>$100 million in revenue) is innovating, it gets to profit. If it is not, it must sell its products / services at cost.

Given how meaningless and arbitrary people's sense of innovation is, this sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[Cocaloch]

Racism isn't an "economic" idea at its core. Yes, it expresses itself through economic actions/outcomes/etc., but it's not intrinsically about economics and emerging through there.

But Racism is connected to economic ideas and their adoption.

This is the issue w/ trying to fit everything into a "class" paradigm - it blinds you to other axes that are operating independently.

Vulgar Marxism is bad in the same way vulgar applications of any theory are bad. Saying everything is about class all the time is wrong, and not what Marx was even saying. Saying class impacts everything because class will always impact society is probably right. The second one is a lot more nuianced and doesn't mean that class is always the operative or driving factor in developments.

 

[Desperado]

yeah i am not a good enough critical thinker to actually contribute and move the conversation forward so i just sit here and espouse my own ramblings derp

BUT I TRY, AND I HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS

i believe in u

But seriously, you're right, but there are many people who won't acknowledge that there is two-way feedback between human behavior and the systems that humans operate under. That if we changed the status quo and were able to grant people a standard of living that I think should be a right, that would change the way people acted for the better.

 

[Cocaloch]

economic reasons are only important because we are not naturally gifted the right to survive without working for it, so oftentimes that's akin to simply doing something to survive, even if it isn't strictly necessary (meaning people grow up and become accustomed to a certain standard of living and through their unique mindset can see a certain level of economic achievement well above necessity as a baseline)

so no, it definitely isnt required to be economical in nature to make us want to do something, but practically thats how things currently are for many people

So what is your contribution to this thread? Were you just trying to let us know that Capitalism is still a thing?

yeah i am not a good enough critical thinker to actually contribute and move the conversation forward so i just sit here and espouse my own ramblings derp

BUT I TRY, AND I HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS

Fair enough

 

[andythinkpad]

there are a TON of thing I would do if I didn't have to worry about those things needing to bring me money in order for me to be able to exist.

Immigrate to Qntario Canada, live on very frugal means with universal income check.

How good is basic health in Ontario? I haven't checked.