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

[rotting bones]

If your argument really is that things that are not physically concrete don't exist, "mechanism", "delivery", "agency", "self", "you" "methru" all don't exist either. Most things are a construct of the mind. Even language doesn't have objective meaning. The perception of a constantly changing set of atoms as being a single set together is a construction with no actual basis in purely physical terms, and neither is there any basis in calling it a toothbrush.

I'm not arguing that these things don't exist. I'm arguing that things like "exchange" are part of the delivery system, not natural, autonomous categories.

Value is empirically observable by the way prices change by situation. For an example that doesn't deal with material concerns, advertisements create a desire through suggestion, which then changes the amount people are willing to pay for the item - the utility of the item has increased by power of suggestion, even if the item is just a decorative figurine with no practical use. This is not necessarily capitalist - this phenomenon can be observed in socialist economies with advertisements for entertainment such as theatrical posters for movies.

Value is empirically observable, yes. But the quantity of the value that is observable under capitalism need not be equal to the quantity of the value observable under socialism. In my proposal, I have given reasons to think they won't be.

I think it is bold to assume anyone knows the truly rational, or that rationality is even a real conception rather than another form of bias. Macroeconomists often assume rational actors, but these are rational only in a self-serving way and also more a simplifying assumption for equations than something that is actually true.

I'm assuming that if allowed access to the relevant materials, a majority of rational humans would conclude that climate change is real and work to avoid it.

I think the best way to stop gaming of capitalism is to build a more socialist system without abandoning capitalism. If the people can be convinced to take action against capitalism, then it should be even easier to convince them of reform. If people can't be convinced to end the status quo then we're all screwed anyway. I think the biggest problem is not convincing people that things are bad, it is convicing everyone to oppose the status quo for the same reasons as you do and working to the same solution. I've never encountered a single politically opinionated person, left, right or centre who ever said "things are fine the way they are now" for any given now. At worst they might get nostalgic for a period after it's already over, but not content while living in it.

Maybe. It's just that capitalism applies constant pressure to be irresponsible, and naive youngsters like the past me tend to be overly trusting. That's why I think it would be safer to have a system that people can trust to begin with.

[Travis B.]

Wow. This just makes no sense at all. No problem with a system need be discussed if it occurs in any form in another system?

How about discussing a system without the goddamn defensiveness? You're talking about ordering the lives of millions of people. No criticisms are allowed, no problems will ever occur, anyone who disagrees must be an avid supporter of every evil of the current system.

I keep wanting to dial things down, but seriously, fuck that attitude. You believe in democratic socialism? Then fucking get used to criticism.

My point is as follows - one cannot effectively criticize a system vis-à-vis the status quo by using criticisms of it that can be applied just as readily to the status quo. In this case, the particular criticism is that one could game the system, and the matter is that people game the capitalist status quo all the time. Of course, people may be able to game it in different fashions, but that is a more specific criticism than just saying that people could game the system.

Personally, I do not have any illusions that democratic socialism, as I see it or as rotting bones sees it, will be perfect. For instance, there will almost certainly be office politicking and like in the market socialist system I envision, with an economy based on networks of worker co-ops and a government built on workers' councils. The matter is, though, that we already have lots of office politicking in our current capitalist system as things are. Likewise, one trend that will have to be resisted will to be to turn some portion of the workforce into a managerial class. The matter is, though, that we already have layer upon layer of managerial classes as things are right now.

[Travis B.]

I personally have come to favor market socialist systems because we already know that market systems at least work well enough that they can support decent living standards for most people when combined with liberal democracy, i.e. in the case of social democracy. So then what is needed is to just aim for incremental improvements upon that model that will better serve workers interests while not eroding local control, i.e. replacing capitalist enterprises with networks of worker co-ops. Likewise, to deal with the deficiencies of liberal democracy, i.e. too much top-down and too little bottom-up control and a tendency to waver drastically between different sets of policies, similar models that improve on it, i.e. workers' councils, are needed. For things that a market economy handles poorly, that is where a state based on said workers' councils steps in, to manage externalities and things such as healthcare and insurance.

[rotting bones]

I personally have come to favor market socialist systems because we already know that market systems at least work well enough that they can support decent living standards for most people when combined with liberal democracy, i.e. in the case of social democracy.

What are your examples? Were they reliant on third world materials, labor, etc?

[Travis B.]

I personally have come to favor market socialist systems because we already know that market systems at least work well enough that they can support decent living standards for most people when combined with liberal democracy, i.e. in the case of social democracy.

What are your examples? Were they reliant on third world materials, labor, etc?

My example is Scandinavia under social democracy, which while not perfect in and of itself, has overall achieved better living standards than essentially the rest of the world. I have not done any research on this, but they almost certainly rely on third world materials and labor just like the rest of the First World (and on another note, the Norwegian economy is highly based on fossil fuels). But regardless, if one wants to realistically create a new system better than what anyone has now, it probably it is a good idea to start with the best that has been achieved in reality and go from there rather than just hypothesizing about systems that nothing that has ever existed is remotely related to.

[rotting bones]

My example is Scandinavia under social democracy, which while not perfect in and of itself, has achieved better living standards than essentially the rest of the world. I have not done any research on this, but they almost certainly rely on third world materials and labor just like the rest of the First World (and on another note, the Norwegian economy is highly based on fossil fuels).

Do you think present day Scandinavia would continue to be an improvement over liberal capitalism if their reliance on fossil fuels and the third world were severed? If so, why?

But regardless, if one wants to realistically create a new system better than what anyone has things now, it probably it is a good idea to start with the best that has been achieved in reality and go from there rather than just hypothesizing about systems that nothing that has ever existed is remotely related to.

Why not? Doesn't reality itself take unusual, random turns all the time? Shouldn't we aim for correctness rather than traditional appeal?

[Travis B.]

My example is Scandinavia under social democracy, which while not perfect in and of itself, has achieved better living standards than essentially the rest of the world. I have not done any research on this, but they almost certainly rely on third world materials and labor just like the rest of the First World (and on another note, the Norwegian economy is highly based on fossil fuels).

Do you think present day Scandinavia would continue to be an improvement over liberal capitalism if their reliance on fossil fuels and the third world were severed? If so, why?

I think we are confusing the meaning of "liberal capitalism", because I consider Scandinavia to be an example of it.

You do have a point, though - for socialism to survive its initial revolutionary stages, it needs to be spread to a good portion of the rest of the world, because there is no way that a socialist economy will survive in isolation from the rest of the world. Of course, it could not rely on cheap Third World labor for obvious reasons, but simply to have a functioning economy it needs to not be isolated.

But regardless, if one wants to realistically create a new system better than what anyone has things now, it probably it is a good idea to start with the best that has been achieved in reality and go from there rather than just hypothesizing about systems that nothing that has ever existed is remotely related to.

Why not? Doesn't reality itself take unusual, random turns all the time? Shouldn't we aim for correctness rather than traditional appeal?

It is easy to think up hypothetical systems that may or may not work, and if they fail it will come at great cost (and lost opportunities too, as who knows when the next opportunity will be to bring about a new social order), so it only makes sense to aim for the best system that we can realistically predict as being workable.

[rotting bones]

I think we are confusing the meaning of "liberal capitalism", because I consider Scandinavia to be an example of it.

You do have a point, though - for socialism to survive its initial revolutionary stages, it needs to be spread to a good portion of the rest of the world, because there is no way that a socialist economy will survive in isolation from the rest of the world. Of course, it could not rely on cheap Third World labor for obvious reasons, but simply to have a functioning economy it needs to not be isolated.

Thank you for the clarification.

It is easy to think up hypothetical systems that may or may not work, and if they fail it will come at great cost (and lost opportunities too, as who knows when the next opportunity will be to bring about a new social order), so it only makes sense to aim for the best system that we can realistically predict as being workable.

Is it true that traditional systems have a greater chance of working? Doesn't success usually come from unusual systems that were established by pouring a great deal of time and effort into investigating the facts?

[zompist]

For instance, there will almost certainly be office politicking and like in the market socialist system I envision, with an economy based on networks of worker co-ops and a government built on workers' councils.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with this; in fact I've been arguing for years that the democratic revolution we need now is within the corporation. It's the last refuge of monarchism, and doesn't work in companies any better than it does in states.

[rotting bones]

For instance, there will almost certainly be office politicking and like in the market socialist system I envision, with an economy based on networks of worker co-ops and a government built on workers' councils.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with this; in fact I've been arguing for years that the democratic revolution we need now is within the corporation. It's the last refuge of monarchism, and doesn't work in companies any better than it does in states.

FWIW I'm not opposed to it either, even if it does initially exploit the third world. If it works, it will generate good press for left-wing politics. We can correct other injustices in the next century.

[zompist]

I welcome your criticism. All I'm saying is, if decentralized socialism can be gamed too, then what is the point of saying that democratic socialism can be gamed? To increase the contrast, if I objected that people will die under decentralized socialism, wouldn't you complain that people die under all political systems?

No, because I'm not interested in batting away criticisms like pesky flies. I would concentrate on quantification. How many people die because of such-and-such a system? When you have numbers, you can compare the systems. This is exactly what we do with e.g. Covid deaths. In that case, the difference is pretty spectacular. "All systems have the same problems in the same degree" does not generally turn out to be true.

Better yet, if there are excess deaths, you could find out what causes them and work on that.

What would be perfectly useless is deciding that "deaths happen in any system, therefore my system is not responsible for looking at deaths." But that's your approach to criticisms of your voting system.

Why not spend some time thinking of how to address those problems? Concentrate on one problem to start with-- ecological externalities. Can you modify your voting system so that people are less encouraged to vote for things that destroy the ecosphere? Without resorting to CAPITALISM BAD?

[rotting bones]

No, because I'm not interested in batting away criticisms like pesky flies. I would concentrate on quantification. How many people die because of such-and-such a system? When you have numbers, you can compare the systems. This is exactly what we do with e.g. Covid deaths. In that case, the difference is pretty spectacular. "All systems have the same problems in the same degree" does not generally turn out to be true.

Better yet, if there are excess deaths, you could find out what causes them and work on that.

What would be perfectly useless is deciding that "deaths happen in any system, therefore my system is not responsible for looking at deaths." But that's your approach to criticisms of your voting system.

Okay, so are you arguing that decentralized socialism is less prone to being gamed than democratic socialism?

Why not spend some time thinking of how to address those problems? Concentrate on one problem to start with-- ecological externalities. Can you modify your voting system so that people are less encouraged to vote for things that destroy the ecosphere? Without resorting to CAPITALISM BAD?

Do you understand that I don't want to because that would be undemocratic?

[zompist]

No, because I'm not interested in batting away criticisms like pesky flies. I would concentrate on quantification. How many people die because of such-and-such a system? When you have numbers, you can compare the systems. This is exactly what we do with e.g. Covid deaths. In that case, the difference is pretty spectacular. "All systems have the same problems in the same degree" does not generally turn out to be true.

Better yet, if there are excess deaths, you could find out what causes them and work on that.

What would be perfectly useless is deciding that "deaths happen in any system, therefore my system is not responsible for looking at deaths." But that's your approach to criticisms of your voting system.

Okay, so are you arguing that decentralized socialism is less prone to being gamed than democratic socialism?

I am arguing that your system has flaws that you could address. I don't get why this is hard to understand. If you were writing a computer program, and someone said it had errors in it, would you think it's a useful response to point out that other people's programs have errors too? Why not... fix the errors?

It comes across as you wanting to play an endless game of gotcha. It's tiring.

Look, if I present a political proposal, you are welcome to point out flaws. I will not come back and say "But back in December 2020 you made a proposal with flaws in it." This comparing systems business is a defense mechanism so you can avoid thinking you are wrong in any way.

Why not spend some time thinking of how to address those problems? Concentrate on one problem to start with-- ecological externalities. Can you modify your voting system so that people are less encouraged to vote for things that destroy the ecosphere? Without resorting to CAPITALISM BAD?

Do you understand that I don't want to because that would be undemocratic?

Seriously? Your plan is for humanity to go extinct. This isn't making your proposal sound better.

Maybe you aspire to be a lone genius who proves all science wrong, but come on. There are studies of democracy. There are studies of voting systems. There are studies of plebiscite systems. I shouldn't have to explain that there are things like constitutions, there are examples of democratic systems making bad choices, there are better and worse voting systems.

At some point a few pages ago we were talking about incentives. You seemed to understand the concept then, at least when you could criticize the incentive system offered to capitalists. Now you've created a system that incentivizes bad behavior and you don't care. You're not defending "democracy", you're defending a poorly designed system that you made up and which you could improve instead of trying to stifle criticism.

[rotting bones]

I am arguing that your system has flaws that you could address. I don't get why this is hard to understand. If you were writing a computer program, and someone said it had errors in it, would you think it's a useful response to point out that other people's programs have errors too? Why not... fix the errors?

It comes across as you wanting to play an endless game of gotcha. It's tiring.

Look, if I present a political proposal, you are welcome to point out flaws. I will not come back and say "But back in December 2020 you made a proposal with flaws in it." This comparing systems business is a defense mechanism so you can avoid thinking you are wrong in any way.

I'm sorry if that sounded like I was trying to put you on the spot. I really thought that is what you were implying and I was thinking maybe you had some arguments against the naive democratism I imbibed from The Dictator's Handbook, which argues that democracy is the system that is most robust to being gamed.

Seriously? Your plan is for humanity to go extinct. This isn't making your proposal sound better.

Maybe you aspire to be a lone genius who proves all science wrong, but come on. There are studies of democracy. There are studies of voting systems. There are studies of plebiscite systems. I shouldn't have to explain that there are things like constitutions, there are examples of democratic systems making bad choices, there are better and worse voting systems.

At some point a few pages ago we were talking about incentives. You seemed to understand the concept then, at least when you could criticize the incentive system offered to capitalists. Now you've created a system that incentivizes bad behavior and you don't care. You're not defending "democracy", you're defending a poorly designed system that you made up and which you could improve instead of trying to stifle criticism.

Well, if that's how you feel, I could always say "put environmental safeguards in the constitution". The problem is that the environment is not a voting member of the polity. Nor can it speak for itself. This will create an incentive for people to manipulate the voters into thinking they are more environmentally friendly than their competition. Arguably, this will make the system less robust to being gamed in the long run. I am willing to do that for the sake of survival, but I have an honest question: Have you seen a study or a group of studies which, when taken together, imply that there is no way people will vote to save the environment even if there wasn't money at stake?

Also, why does everyone accuse me of thinking I'm a genius sooner or later? Having bad social skills and wanting to know the truth at the same time is not the same as being as being a genius.

[bradrn]

No, because I'm not interested in batting away criticisms like pesky flies. I would concentrate on quantification. How many people die because of such-and-such a system? When you have numbers, you can compare the systems. This is exactly what we do with e.g. Covid deaths. In that case, the difference is pretty spectacular. "All systems have the same problems in the same degree" does not generally turn out to be true.

Better yet, if there are excess deaths, you could find out what causes them and work on that.

What would be perfectly useless is deciding that "deaths happen in any system, therefore my system is not responsible for looking at deaths." But that's your approach to criticisms of your voting system.

Okay, so are you arguing that decentralized socialism is less prone to being gamed than democratic socialism?

I am arguing that your system has flaws that you could address. I don't get why this is hard to understand. If you were writing a computer program, and someone said it had errors in it, would you think it's a useful response to point out that other people's programs have errors too? Why not... fix the errors?

It comes across as you wanting to play an endless game of gotcha. It's tiring.

Look, if I present a political proposal, you are welcome to point out flaws. I will not come back and say "But back in December 2020 you made a proposal with flaws in it." This comparing systems business is a defense mechanism so you can avoid thinking you are wrong in any way.

I think rotting bones’s argument is that there are flaws in his system — but these flaws are not restricted to that system; exactly the same flaws are present in the system he wants to replace. This doesn’t make the flaws go away; however, it does mean that rotting bones’s system is no worse in this regard than the other system. If these flaws are a huge problem in his system — well, they must be equally problematic in the other system as well. And, if rotting bones’s proposal does turn out to be better in some areas than the existing system, then switching to it at least won’t make this problem any worse, even if it doesn’t solve the problem either.

(As for the details of the various proposals here, I can’t and won’t comment on the details of those. I don’t understand most of them anyway.)

[rotting bones]

I think rotting bones’s argument is that there are flaws in his system — but these flaws are not restricted to that system; exactly the same flaws are present in the system he wants to replace. This doesn’t make the flaws go away; however, it does mean that rotting bones’s system is no worse in this regard than the other system. If these flaws are a huge problem in his system — well, they must be equally problematic in the other system as well. And, if rotting bones’s proposal does turn out to be better in some areas than the existing system, then switching to it at least won’t make this problem any worse, even if it doesn’t solve the problem either.

Yes, that is correct. And just to be clear, I am not agreeing in order to gang up against zompist or anything weird like that. I just think this is an accurate statement of the facts.

[zompist]

I have an honest question: Have you seen a study or a group of studies which, when taken together, imply that there is no way people will vote to save the environment even if there wasn't money at stake?

We can look at what people do, and it's not very encouraging. People have been warning about limited oil for at least half a century, and yet Americans keep buying gaz-guzzling SUVs and building cities based on cars. All countries are cooperating to exhaust one species of fish after another, to cut down all the forests, to pollute the water table, to use land in unsustainable ways. The French rioted when they were asked to pay more for fuel. Nerds are spending as much energy mining bitcoins as is used by the entire nation of Bangladesh. If you ask them, Americans will say that we should protect the environment. But they are not willing to change their lifestyle or do much about it at all.

This doesn't mean things are hopeless; it just means that waiting for an urge to waft up from the electorate is going to be a long, long wait.

Things are not hopeless, but they require leadership, both bottom-up and top-down. When you want people to change their lifestyle, basically, you need to help them out. Offer education and models, subsidize change, make the change as easy as possible, disincentivize the most dangerous activities.

[mèþru]

I'm not arguing that these things don't exist. I'm arguing that things like "exchange" are part of the delivery system, not natural, autonomous categories.

I get the feeling I don't actually understand anything you are saying. I thought I understood what a delivery system meant, but I can't respond to arguments if I don't understand what they are.


I don't think a managerial class is a bad thing in itself, but a natural and necessary outcome of the fact that the modern world is really really complicated. And the managerial class is actually shrinking as more management is being automated.

I agree with zompist that the voting system economy is much more gamable then the status quo.

Also, why does everyone accuse me of thinking I'm a genius sooner or later?

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I know the feeling very well and you have my sympathy.

[Ares Land]

Arguably, this will make the system less robust to being gamed in the long run. I am willing to do that for the sake of survival, but I have an honest question: Have you seen a study or a group of studies which, when taken together, imply that there is no way people will vote to save the environment even if there wasn't money at stake?

There's the rub: there is money at stake. And getting rid of money won't save that problem: think of it in terms of labor, or opportunies lost, but we can't rebuild the whole way we've been using energy at no cost.

[rotting bones]

I get the feeling I don't actually understand anything you are saying. I thought I understood what a delivery system meant, but I can't respond to arguments if I don't understand what they are.

The delivery system is the system that produces and distributes goods according to demand. I claim that the quantity of value will change depending on the mechanism of manufacture and distribution we are using owing to differences in the patterns of scarcity they produce. See my proposal for the details.

I'm sorry if it was confusing of me to say "A doesn't exist. B does." as a means of implying that A is a part of B.

I don't think a managerial class is a bad thing in itself, but a natural and necessary outcome of the fact that the modern world is really really complicated. And the managerial class is actually shrinking as more management is being automated.

I'm not against the existence of managers. However, managers shouldn't manage workers in order to benefit themselves. They should only be allowed to have a managerial style that maximizes utility, and that is something the market doesn't do.

I agree with zompist that the voting system economy is much more gamable then the status quo.

The math says otherwise. I posted this earlier in the thread: https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I know the feeling very well and you have my sympathy.

Thanks.