Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[Ares Land]

I'm more than willing to accept than my understanding of the background principle is somewhat shaky.

However, worker's ownership of the means of production polls at about 1 or 2% in elections. So presumably the fundamental principles need to be explained better and I'm apparently not the only one to understand everything.

One particularly sticky point is that how the socialist utopia is supposed to be implemented and how it'll work and which steps will be taken to avoid reinventing the Soviet Union all over again.
(The autarky part is genuinely interesting: if the proposed solution requires worldwide adoption to work... It means it's not a solution at all.)

I think our disagreements stem from elsewhere than my own political naivete.

For instance, I think Marx's analysis, while extraordinary for its time has been proven wrong in many places. Many of his predictions failed to materialized and it is, besides, completely outdated now.
I don't think workers owning the means of production really solves any problem. (A proposition that has never been satisfactorily demonstrated...)
I am also decidedly opposed to the idea of people voting on what gets produced. Generally speaking, what I buy is decidedly my business and the business of whoever makes it, unless said product or the production process hurts anyone.

That said, I'll read your suggested material with pleasure.

[Travis B.]

The left-wing these people can't abide are those who make a big show of, say, getting rid of Richard Stallman for defending Marvin Minsky and pretend that society has become just afterwards.

It is in the interests of small proprietors (petite bourgeoisie) to offer national or racial solidarity as an alternative to any political left that alienates poor people.

This the key thing here - the right has offered, as you say it, national and/or racial solidarity over class solidarity, which liberals have been unable to provide and are only getting less able to provide, as they focus on purism and identitarian battles over unifying the working class and encouraging it to fight for its collective interests, across any racial or national boundaries.

[Ares Land]

Guys. Do you know any far right voters?

I do. Believe me they have no idea of who Stallman and Minsky are and they don't care one bit.
Besides, they just love pedophile witch hunts. They love them so much that they actually invent new one.

Also, abandoning anti racism, or gender equality or LGBTQI would be the end of the left.

Voters, like myself, that care about these will leave in disgust. And racist folks will still be racist, and they'll still prefer Trump / Le Pen / the AFD because these are all better at racism than you are.

[rotting bones]

However, worker's ownership of the means of production polls at about 1 or 2% in elections.

Are you talking about what the Communist party is polling at? I am not a Marxist and I don't support Stalinism. I am a democratic socialist.

One particularly sticky point is that how the socialist utopia is supposed to be implemented and how it'll work and which steps will be taken to avoid reinventing the Soviet Union all over again.

Non-democratic socialism leads to a labor aristocracy. The Dictator's Handbook is particularly good for this one.

(The autarky part is genuinely interesting: if the proposed solution requires worldwide adoption to work... It means it's not a solution at all.)

The world or, you know, whoever chooses to join the collective.

I don't think workers owning the means of production really solves any problem. (A proposition that has never been satisfactorily demonstrated...)

Workers did not own the means of production in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union followed the principle of democratic centralism. Party members voted, but after the vote, no further dissent was allowed. The party then exerted totalitarian control over the people. This presented a perfect opportunity for people like Stalin to build alliances and game the system. Russians went along with it because the Tzar had always been grozny and tishaishii.

I am also decidedly opposed to the idea of people voting on what gets produced.

Why not? They work to produce it, don't they? If the business class gets to decide, they will soon replace us all with robots and let us starve.

[rotting bones]

I do. Believe me they have no idea of who Stallman and Minsky are and they don't care one bit.

They do talk a lot about out of control cancel culture on the internet. Also: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/whit ... ry-racism/

[Travis B.]

This kind of thing is why stuff like "white fragility" really irks me - to beat nationalism and racism we need to include people of all races and nationalities, and yes, believe it or not, all races includes white people. To tell white people, and especially working-class white people, that they are not welcome, that they should be ashamed of being white does not help our chances of successfully beating the right wing at all and rather drives them into the welcoming hands of the right, which tell them that they are superior to people of other races.

[Ares Land]

Are you talking about what the Communist party is polling at? I am not a Marxist and I don't support Stalinism. I am a democratic socialist.

Left-wing parties that favor worker's ownership of the means of production. I don't think there are any remaining Stalinists.

One particularly sticky point is that how the socialist utopia is supposed to be implemented and how it'll work and which steps will be taken to avoid reinventing the Soviet Union all over again.

Non-democratic socialism leads to a labor aristocracy. The Dictator's Handbook is particularly good for this one.[/quote]

Since you're not a Marxist, could you drop the jargon? I have no idea what this means.

I don't think workers owning the means of production really solves any problem. (A proposition that has never been satisfactorily demonstrated...)

Workers did not own the means of production in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union followed the principle of democratic centralism. Party members voted, but after the vote, no further dissent was allowed. The party then exerted totalitarian control over the people. This presented a perfect opportunity for people like Stalin to build alliances and game the system. Russians went along with it because the Tzar had always been grozny and tishaishii.

True, but besides the point. The question isn't whether the Soviet Union was cool or not, but on what problem the workers owning the company is supposed to solve, and if so why, and has the claim been verified ( and if not, why?)

I am also decidedly opposed to the idea of people voting on what gets produced.

Why not? They work to produce it, don't they? If the business class gets to decide, they will soon replace us all with robots and let us starve.

Ok. Say I want to make hand craft widgets. People want to buy them, a tiny minority, it's an acquired taste, but enough to keep me in business. Except the majority vote is, nope, off to COBOL programing with you, the kholkoze needs an accounting program. Is that fair?

Or: it's 1976 in Socialist Utopia and I figured that I can make real tiny computers, toys, really with these new microprocessors thingies. Except that idea was never put to the vote.
Alternatively, it gets puts to the vote, and except for 10% electronics enthusiasts, everyone dismisses it as silly and useless.
Do you see the problem in that scenario?

[Ares Land]

This kind of thing is why stuff like "white fragility" really irks me - to beat nationalism and racism we need to include people of all races and nationalities, and yes, believe it or not, all races includes white people. To tell white people, and especially working-class white people, that they are not welcome, that they should be ashamed of being white does not help our chances of successfully beating the right wing at all and rather drives them into welcoming the hands of the right, which tell them that they are superior to people of other races.

I am likewise annoyed at talk of male or white fragility and I find cancel culture stupud. And yet t I don't vote for white supremacists and it doesn't take any effort.

Plus, if someone turns to white supremacy because people are being stupid on the internet... Yeah. I mean that sort of person should be a little ashamed of themselves...

[zompist]

Ares Land: It doesn't look to me like Jospin secured workers' ownership of the means of production. By left-wing, do you mean capitalism with regulations? By its nature, capitalism pits workers against each other: classes, "races", nationalities, you name it. The majority is incentivized to limit immigration to reduce competition for jobs. The socialist solution would be to implement near-complete employment internationally, producing goods voted for by the people.

Jospin didn't secure worker ownership of the means of production. No one could, because it's a self-contradictory chimera.

Marx starts with a reasonable, compelling approximation: the wrong people are in charge. The rich act as a class for their own benefit. This is not entirely true, for reasons I gave earlier: the rich are not a monolith and do not all have the same values or interests. But it's more true than not, and a good starting point.

So instead, we put the right people in charge, the workers! EZ, good game. Only we can't do this, not (only) because of the evil capitalist class, but because it means nothing. You can't put "the workers" in charge of everything. You have a choice:

* you can put some people in charge of everything.
* Or you can put the workers in charge of something.

You can have the workers run the workshop. The most successful attempt along these lines, to my knowledge, is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. But note, from the outside, Mondragon looks like a company, just with an unusual internal structure. It decides what to make, what to charge. The Spanish voter has no say. The Spanish government has no say. It's a more ethical arrangement, and we should IMHO do more of it. But it's not worker control of the economy; it's Mondragon workers in control of Mondragon.

The thing is, if you attempt to generalize this upward, all you do is create state capitalism. If you work at Mondragon, you have some power over your company. But if you work in the Soviet Union, you have no power. Power is exercised by a central bureaucracy. That bureaucracy will increasingly think and act like a ruling class. Plus, you've handed them an ideology which is perfect for suppressing all dissent. You don't like the system, comrade? You must be bourgeois scum; enjoy the Gulag.

But you want "goods voted for by the people", internationally. So, 7 billion people will decide what you make, what you are paid, what sectors get attention and what ones don't. Logistical problems aside, that means, again, you have no power. You, the worker, don't get to decide how your workplace is run or even what it produces; that decision is made elsewhere by a process you have little hope of influencing.

This is not to run down voting. Voting for a leader makes sense-- mostly because it allows a leader to be voted out. But it is not "control of the means of production." Plus... jeez, look at the leaders some nations elect, including yours and mine. Voting can produce terrible rulers (though kings and dictators are even worse), and can also entrench ugly majority control. (There are ways to protect minorities, but they are "regulations", which you seem to disapprove of.)

I feel a little bad critisizing socialism, because in general we need much more socialism. But it's no longer 1848. We know how naive attempts to implement "worker control" go. We need something that isn't centralized authoritarianism.

[rotting bones]

Left-wing parties that favor worker's ownership of the means of production. I don't think there are any remaining Stalinists.

This doesn't tell me what the people are specifically opposing here.

Since you're not a Marxist, could you drop the jargon? I have no idea what this means.

What jargon? An aristocrat is a person who is superior to other members of some class. Marxist-Leninists say that the working class should be led by the members of the working class with the most developed "class consciousness" (the vanguard party). I'm saying this would create aristocrats out of members of the working class, a labor aristocracy.

True, but besides the point. The question isn't whether the Soviet Union was cool or not, but on what problem the workers owning the company is supposed to solve, and if so why, and has the claim been verified ( and if not, why?)

Workers feel alienated from the work they are doing because they do it for someone else under conditions set by those alien forces and they don't get to decide how the results of their work are reinvested in future projects. Worker ownership is supposed to ensure that workers are working for themselves under their own conditions and they enjoy the full fruits of their work.

Ok. Say I want to make hand craft widgets. People want to buy them, a tiny minority, it's an acquired taste, but enough to keep me in business. Except the majority vote is, nope, off to COBOL programing with you, the kholkoze needs an accounting program. Is that fair?

In this scenario, I'm on your side, but I feel like it is the market that's telling me to enter COBOL programming instead of pursuing my interests. People vote for the interests of minorities all the time. I don't see why the worker's vote would deny you the opportunity to practice your craft. When I say "workers", I mean everyone who works for a living, not just avid fans of monster truck rallies or whatever.

Or: it's 1976 in Socialist Utopia and I figured that I can make real tiny computers, toys, really with these new microprocessors thingies. Except that idea was never put to the vote.
Alternatively, it gets puts to the vote, and except for 10% electronics enthusiasts, everyone dismisses it as silly and useless.
Do you see the problem in that scenario?

Can you explain why it's inconceivable that the people would seek to diversify their portfolio? Microprocessors took off because they helped manufacture products that were in demand among the people.

[Travis B.]

True, but besides the point. The question isn't whether the Soviet Union was cool or not, but on what problem the workers owning the company is supposed to solve, and if so why, and has the claim been verified ( and if not, why?)

Ok. Say I want to make hand craft widgets. People want to buy them, a tiny minority, it's an acquired taste, but enough to keep me in business. Except the majority vote is, nope, off to COBOL programing with you, the kholkoze needs an accounting program. Is that fair?

Or: it's 1976 in Socialist Utopia and I figured that I can make real tiny computers, toys, really with these new microprocessors thingies. Except that idea was never put to the vote.
Alternatively, it gets puts to the vote, and except for 10% electronics enthusiasts, everyone dismisses it as silly and useless.
Do you see the problem in that scenario?

Worker ownership and self-management of the means of production makes sure that production is done so as to suit the interests of the workers doing it, rather than those of petit-bourgeois and capitalist classes or an apparatchik class over the workers. Workers who own and democratically manage their own workplaces will make sure they are paid as decently as the enterprise can afford, will make sure they have as decent working conditions as possible, will make hiring and firing a collective democratic decision of a collective, will not have profits that could otherwise go into workers' wages or investment into the enterprise skimmed off the top, will not deliberately run the enterprise into the ground for the sake of shortsighted goals (e.g. by firing the R&D department just to get a bonus by momentarily increasing next quarter's profits), will favor temporary collective wage decreases or, in the case of larger networks of cooperatives, redistributing workers between different workplaces in leaner times over layoffs, and so on.

[rotting bones]

zompist: I'm taking a call. Brief comment: Capitalists aren't evil. They are incentivized to replace us with robots under the current system. If some of them choose not to, they will lose out to those who do. I am just saying we should re-engineer the system of incentives to put those work for a living in control of their lives. I don't see how putting production to a vote will recreate state capitalism.

[Travis B.]

zompist: I'm taking a call. Brief comment: Capitalists aren't evil. They are incentivized to replace us with robots under the current system. If some of them choose not to, they will lose out to those who do. I am just saying we should re-engineer the system of incentives to put those work for a living in control of their lives. I don't see how putting production to a vote will recreate state capitalism.

Exactly - individuals generally follow their self-perceived self-interest (with some exceptions, such as addiction, where individuals may perceive their own behavior in a negative fashion yet continue to behave in that fashion anyways), and individuals' self-perceived self-interest is a function of the social structures they are in - so to change how people behave those social structures need to be reorganized.

[rotting bones]

Exactly - individuals generally follow their self-perceived self-interest (with some exceptions, such as addiction, where individuals may perceive their own behavior in a negative fashion yet continue to behave in that fashion anyways), and individuals' self-perceived self-interest is a function of the social structures they are in - so to change how people behave those social structures need to be reorganized.

Here's how I see it: If a capitalist doesn't replace us with robots, he will likely be forced to join the ranks of the unemployed. If he does, he can make a tidy profit by paying his robot engineers less than what his competitors pay their work force. Even when workers no longer have the money to pay for his products, the latter can subsequently use his robots to keep himself and his robot technicians fed.

Why I support voting: Voters identify with the government they vote for. A vote is also a bit like money. Currently, products get created by a system that is somewhat similar to voting, except buyers get an unequal number of votes and you are always in danger of running out. No wonder the gamblers at the stock exchange send most of their money to the safest industries with the highest rates of return in purely monetary terms, ignoring externalities like the environment. Now we are asking the people to fix that system by vote. Since we're told that votes are our salvation, it follows that we wouldn't be in this mess if the whole system worked by vote.

Objections:

1. I agree that terrible people are popular. There's a theory which says that's because the government doesn't actually meet poor people's material needs. If all you offer them are "reasonable options" in market terms, desperados will naturally pick the least reasonable option open to them. Many workers said they thought Trump would fight the establishment for them. Many of these people are open to the traditional left.

2. I'm obviously not suggesting that we vote exactly one job into power and then have everyone work at it. I'm suggesting we use votes to measure demand in a manner that is similar to how we use money. This can create perverse incentives that laws must investigate and keep in check. Eg. Craftsmen can't vote for their own BS products and buy bread in exchange for them.

PS. I don't want to argue against worker coops. As I've said before, their hiring is low compared to capitalist corporations. The workers want to keep their profits to themselves for as long as possible. If this trend continues, it will be tough for coops to be a general solution.

[zompist]

Brief comment: Capitalists aren't evil. They are incentivized to replace us with robots under the current system. If some of them choose not to, they will lose out to those who do.

Thinking about incentives is a good tool of analysis. But incentive systems are hard to design. As industrial engineers have realized, when you reward people based on a metric, people will game the system-- they will over-respond to that metric. You get all sorts of unwanted behavior.

Discussing the flaws of "capitalists" is always easy since there are so many. But it misses why liberal capitalism worked and plutocracy doesn't. I don't think it's true that "capitalism" incentivizes "replacing people with robots". I do agree the incentives are messed up though. The smarter capitalists realize that, oh yeah, we need a prosperous citizenry to buy our stuff. But there are an awful lot of non-smart capitalists these days, and plutocracy gave them too much money, so they don't learn.

What bugs me about the Marxist analysis is pretty much what bugs me about libertarianism: by positing a single villain, you have an automatic analysis for every situation, and you miss what's actually going on. For the libertarian it's "government"; for the Marxist it's "capitalists". (And for bonus points, all the workers they disagree with, the "bourgeois".)

It's not entirely wrong to blame capitalists for everything... after all, broadly speaking the people in charge are responsible for what happens, even if they don't understand it. (Not understanding it is often part of the system, as Orwell pointed out.)

But "capitalism" doesn't produce a lot of our evils. It doesn't produce climate change, or Covid, or racism, or nuclear weapons, or deforestation. Murdering all the capitalists does not automatically solve any of those problems. Neither the State Worker's Commissar, nor the voting population at large, knows how to solve these problems or can be trusted to solve them out of the goodness of their hearts. Incentives and externalities happen in non-capitalist systems too, including both authoritarian and democratic socialisms.

[rotting bones]

Discussing the flaws of "capitalists" is always easy since there are so many. But it misses why liberal capitalism worked and plutocracy doesn't. I don't think it's true that "capitalism" incentivizes "replacing people with robots". I do agree the incentives are messed up though. The smarter capitalists realize that, oh yeah, we need a prosperous citizenry to buy our stuff. But there are an awful lot of non-smart capitalists these days, and plutocracy gave them too much money, so they don't learn.

The robots will just build everything they need. They can let the rest of us die off in the climate apocalypse. Again, they aren't evil. If they don't do this, they will die with the rest of us!

But "capitalism" doesn't produce a lot of our evils. It doesn't produce climate change, or Covid, or racism, or nuclear weapons, or deforestation. Murdering all the capitalists does not automatically solve any of those problems. Neither the State Worker's Commissar, nor the voting population at large, knows how to solve these problems or can be trusted to solve them out of the goodness of their hearts. Incentives and externalities happen in non-capitalist systems too, including both authoritarian and democratic socialisms.

1. I'm not a Marxist.

2. I've never hinted that incentives disappear in non-capitalist systems. The whole point is to make the system of incentives work for the people. I've been upfront about the perverse incentives generated by my proposal. See my previous post.

3. How can I be imposing my theory on the world when these people are saying they thought Trump will fight for them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jIpkrelra0

Also, you might have missed:

PS. I don't want to argue against worker coops. As I've said before, their hiring is low compared to capitalist corporations. The workers want to keep their profits to themselves for as long as possible. If this trend continues, it will be tough for coops to be a general solution.

[Travis B.]

I support voting because democratic government makes enterprises beholden to the people through the people's votes, as worker ownership and self-management of the means of production alone does not solve issues with externalities and does not address where investment come from. I used to be partial to workers' councils, but they have the problem that they represent workplaces and not people and thus would not solve many of the issues with externalities and would not sufficiently keep said workplaces in check. I would be partial to structures similar in form to workers' councils, with rotating and instantaneously recallable mandated delegates, except that they would ultimately represent geographic groupings of people rather than workplaces.

[Moose-tache]

Some of the Socialists I know have stopped using the term Socialism and switched to "economic democracy." This is mostly marketing, but it's also an acknowledgement that their goal is more power and equity for individuals, not a state-run plutocracy. I agree that state Capitalism isn't the Utopian ideal some people assume will result from greater progressive change. But let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

For one thing, every economic and political system will have middle men. Saying that state Capitalism will involve someone in a position of administrative power is a pretty weak criticism, because there will always be someone in a privileged position to some extent. And yes, charlatans are frequently elected, but even with the occasional psychopath elected leaders still average out better than unelected leaders. Basically, we have far more control over elected leaders than owners.

For another, whether you call it naive or not, I full-heartedly believe that state Capitalism would be measurably less horrible than rentier Capitalism. State Capitalism allows the system to adjust to different levels of growth, or make coherent climate goals, or invest more in redistribution and long term tech projects. Rentier Capitalism treats the economy as an infinitely large machine for turning human flesh into privilege, and treats every economic hiccup like Jonestown. Again, we have more control over elected leaders than owners.

I've said before that having a government, over which people have electoral oversight, controlling capital investment would be an improvement over the current system. That requires that people actually hold their government accountable at the polls, which is a big if. But it's a big if now. I don't think it's true that having greater public control over capital necessarily leads to a system like the USSR where there are no elections and no oversight. It's frustrating that every time someone talks about progressive change, the Soviet Union comes up as some sort of inevitable end point. Imagine if the only examples we had of Capitalism were places like Yeltsin's Russia or Batista's Cuba. Undoubtedly there would be people saying "I don't want Capitalism because I don't want to inevitably end up living in a favela eating borscht."

[Raphael]

Perhaps the discussion of different economic models could move to a different thread?

[Travis B.]

About state capitalism, the clear argument against state capitalism vis-à-vis private capitalism is that there have been no instances of state capitalism that compare to or surpass the best instances of private capitalism (e.g. social democracy) in quality of life for the people living under it. Regardless of the arguments for state capitalism and against private capitalism, state capitalism in its pure form has always turned out to be authoritarian, while there have been quite a few instances of private capitalism which have been less authoritarian than it. That in itself indicates that it might be ill-advised to repeat pure state capitalism if our goal is something better than private capitalism, not worse.