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

[Travis B.]

The sort of anticapitalism I am for is more like "therefore ownership shall be redefined so that what one owns is by definition what one uses" - a workplace is to be collectively owned by its workers, an apartment building is to be collectively owned by its tenants, while one's personal computing devices are to be owned by oneself, and one's house is to be owned by those who live in it including oneself.

Relevant and amusing: I spotted a libertarian doctor complaining on Twitter that things used to be much better when hospitals were run by physicians.


The sort of capitalism I'm in favor is the barest expression of the idea: people can hold property and exchange stuff. I don't mean that you can't do that and no questions asked. (You can exchange labor for currency but not at rates that amount to slavery, you can own businesses or share or whatever, but you don't get to accumulate these until everybody's clothed, housed and fed, that sort of thing.) I'm also, of course, in favor of as much socialized property as necessary (which amounts to a huge lot!)

What I oppose is people owning something that is used by someone else who does not own it, and have to pay for its use (whether in rent, or in the disparity between one's wages and what profit their employer is making off their work). This applies not just to private capitalism but also to state capitalism, which I see as no different. Note that when it comes to natural resources and the environment, I do believe that they should be owned by the people as a whole, and of course this role is taken in practice by a democratic state, which represents the people.

[MacAnDàil]

The sort of anticapitalism I am for is more like "therefore ownership shall be redefined so that what one owns is by definition what one uses" - a workplace is to be collectively owned by its workers, an apartment building is to be collectively owned by its tenants, while one's personal computing devices are to be owned by oneself, and one's house is to be owned by those who live in it including oneself.

Relevant and amusing: I spotted a libertarian doctor complaining on Twitter that things used to be much better when hospitals were run by physicians.


The sort of capitalism I'm in favor is the barest expression of the idea: people can hold property and exchange stuff. I don't mean that you can't do that and no questions asked. (You can exchange labor for currency but not at rates that amount to slavery, you can own businesses or share or whatever, but you don't get to accumulate these until everybody's clothed, housed and fed, that sort of thing.) I'm also, of course, in favor of as much socialized property as necessary (which amounts to a huge lot!)

That seems to be a more general definition of 'capitalism' than I would give. Capitalism is usually said to come into being in Modern Europe, where trade and ownership were around for millenia before that.

[Travis B.]

That seems to be a more general definition of 'capitalism' than I would give. Capitalism is usually said to come into being in Modern Europe, where trade and ownership were around for millenia before that.

The definition of capitalism that I favor is economic systems where workers do not own the means of production which they use to work, which rather go to capitalists, and do not reap the profits of their work, which instead go to the same capitalists (outside of slavery workers are paid a wage or a salary for their work, but that is only a portion of said profits typically). Said capitalist(s) may be one or more private individuals or may be a state. It is not synonymous with a market economy, which is an entirely separate matter.

[Ares Land]

That seems to be a more general definition of 'capitalism' than I would give. Capitalism is usually said to come into being in Modern Europe, where trade and ownership were around for millenia before that.

I suppose you could call it socialist!
I'm not bothered by investors getting a share of the profits, and landlords getting rent though. I don't mind private property: I got a problem when it's considered sacred.
(As in, for instance, 75% marginal tax rates called 'confiscation', or opposition to any measures aimed at curbing real estate prices or... well, there are countless examples)

[rotting bones]

I couldn't think of much to say that's new.

My objection to both Travis B. and Ares Land: Say the commons are worker owned or privately owned. What happens when consumers require that it be used in ways that are unprofitable in the market?

My outlook is primarily consumer-oriented because consumers are the group that keep getting screwed over under capitalism and even worse under previous attempts at socialism. You work till you're ready to drop, and when you're looking for compensation, paid propagandists of the establishment come out of the woodwork, filling the air with insane justifications for why you can have anything except what you want.

Now for specific objections:

The sort of anticapitalism I am for is more like "therefore ownership shall be redefined so that what one owns is by definition what one uses" - a workplace is to be collectively owned by its workers, an apartment building is to be collectively owned by its tenants, while one's personal computing devices are to be owned by oneself, and one's house is to be owned by those who live in it including oneself.

I think this approach needs more work in laying out reasonable guidelines for how capital should be transferred to the next generation of job seekers. This may sound like an epiphenomenon, but really, inheritance is the essence that this whole problem with capitalism boils down to. The unflattering image of anticapitalists is that we are causing a ruckus because society wrote us out of its will.

I suppose you could call it socialist!
I'm not bothered by investors getting a share of the profits, and landlords getting rent though. I don't mind private property: I got a problem when it's considered sacred.
(As in, for instance, 75% marginal tax rates called 'confiscation', or opposition to any measures aimed at curbing real estate prices or... well, there are countless examples)

Okay, but I don't understand why you want that when it directly contradicts your other goals. If you remember most of what was said so far, you must realize that private property empowers the agents who have the most to gain from events that will surely lead to a tragedy of the commons, and it empowers them to a degree that they become untouchable by ordinary standards. Some of those agents might take an ethical stand against their own class, but many of them would do whatever it takes to liberate the profit motive from all social constraints. They won't do this because they are evil or hold incorrect beliefs, but simply in order to avoid dropping out of the empowered class, whether for their own sake of the sake of their families.*

This is why, to me, your approach sounds like, "I support laying out a bear trap and leaping right into the center, but I take an ethical stand against pain and mutilation." You might say this is not self-contradictory because in epsilon percent of the cases, the trap broke or every limb miraculously escaped getting caught. My response to that is the obvious: Your position may not be logically self-contradictory, but it doesn't "work" from an engineering / material systems point of view.

*BTW we really need to stop thinking of people as standing for positions or identities, and rehabilitate the image of innocents struggling to survive in the face of the world's calamities.

[Travis B.]

I couldn't think of much to say that's new.

My objection to both Travis B. and Ares Land: Say the commons are worker owned or privately owned. What happens when consumers require that it be used in ways that are unprofitable in the market?

My answer to this, as a democratic socialist, is that if a democratic state sees that certain activities (e.g. healthcare and education) are desirable, even though they are not profitable (or should not be profitable, more like), said democratic state would provide funding for those activities, in lieu of it owning them directly.

My outlook is primarily consumer-oriented because consumers are the group that keep getting screwed over under capitalism and even worse under previous attempts at socialism. You work till you're ready to drop, and when you're looking for compensation, paid propagandists of the establishment come out of the woodwork, filling the air with insane justifications for why you can have anything except what you want.

Note that most previous attempts at socialism are really state capitalism, which have much of the same problems as private capitalism, if not moreso. The sort of socialism I envision does not involve working until you drop, because the only people that would be making the workers work until they drop are the workers themselves, and hence it would require them signing onto it themselves (rather than a boss making them do it). Furthermore, workers are compensated based on the profits of where they work, in addition to whatever baseline pay they have agreed to pay themselves (e.g. if they are working in an area where no profit is supposed to be made), rather than the profits being siphoned off to the rich few's pockets.

Now for specific objections:

The sort of anticapitalism I am for is more like "therefore ownership shall be redefined so that what one owns is by definition what one uses" - a workplace is to be collectively owned by its workers, an apartment building is to be collectively owned by its tenants, while one's personal computing devices are to be owned by oneself, and one's house is to be owned by those who live in it including oneself.

I think this approach needs more work in laying out reasonable guidelines for how capital should be transferred to the next generation of job seekers. This may sound like an epiphenomenon, but really, inheritance is the essence that this whole problem with capitalism boils down to. The unflattering image of anticapitalists is that we are causing a ruckus because society wrote us out of its will.

To me, ownership and use would be synonymous, and ownership itself would be having a share in the right to control something (and in the case of a business, a right to a certain portion of the profits). So to become an employee somewhere would inherently make one a part owner (which portion may vary, as it may be determined by what average hours one works, new workers may have a smaller share than established ones, or founders may have a greater share than other workers (but it cannot be a controlling share unto itself, or otherwise one runs into many of the same issues as with capitalism)), and likewise, to leave a company would mean to give up one's share.

[rotting bones]

My answer to this, as a democratic socialist, is that if a democratic state sees that certain activities (e.g. healthcare and education) are desirable, even though they are not profitable (or should not be profitable, more like), said democratic state would provide funding for those activities, in lieu of it owning them directly.

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule? My solution is to make them vote for essential goods and services instead of "taxes".

Note that most previous attempts at socialism are really state capitalism, which have much of the same problems as private capitalism, if not moreso. The sort of socialism I envision does not involve working until you drop, because the only people that would be making the workers work until they drop are the workers themselves, and hence it would require them signing onto it themselves (rather than a boss making them do it). Furthermore, workers are compensated based on the profits of where they work, in addition to whatever baseline pay they have agreed to pay themselves (e.g. if they are working in an area where no profit is supposed to be made), rather than the profits being siphoned off to the rich few's pockets.

Good points. I agree completely.

To me, ownership and use would be synonymous, and ownership itself would be having a share in the right to control something (and in the case of a business, a right to a certain portion of the profits). So to become an employee somewhere would inherently make one a part owner (which portion may vary, as it may be determined by what average hours one works, new workers may have a smaller share than established ones, or founders may have a greater share than other workers (but it cannot be a controlling share unto itself, or otherwise one runs into many of the same issues as with capitalism)), and likewise, to leave a company would mean to give up one's share.

When you get a job, does your share come from small slices of shares owned by other employees? If you leave a job, is your share divided between the rest of the employees? Don't you think this creates an incentive for the co-op to hire as few employees as necessary to get the job done? If the state forces them to hire more people, don't you think this will create an incentive to prevent the government from interfering in co-op business using the language of Freedom^TM?

[Ares Land]

My objection to both Travis B. and Ares Land: Say the commons are worker owned or privately owned. What happens when consumers require that it be used in ways that are unprofitable in the market?

I don't think there's any way to make it work with public / state control, in any case. If you want to keep the drinking water healthy, well, you need an independent body to check the water, and another to enforce sanctions on anyone who throws trash down the river. Which, right now, means state control (I'm sure I could figure out an anarchist solution, but I don't have enough brain cells online right now )
You can hand one or both tasks to a private companies, though if you ask me, that's just asking for trouble.

Okay, but I don't understand why you want that when it directly contradicts your other goals. If you remember most of what was said so far, you must realize that private property empowers the agents who have the most to gain from events that will surely lead to a tragedy of the commons, and it empowers them to a degree that they become untouchable by ordinary standards. Some of those agents might take an ethical stand against their own class, but many of them would do whatever it takes to liberate the profit motive from all social constraints. They won't do this because they are evil or hold incorrect beliefs, but simply in order to avoid dropping out of the empowered class, whether for their own sake of the sake of their families.*

This is why, to me, your approach sounds like, "I support laying out a bear trap and leaping right into the center, but I take an ethical stand against pain and mutilation." You might say this is not self-contradictory because in epsilon percent of the cases, the trap broke or every limb miraculously escaped getting caught. My response to that is the obvious: Your position may not be logically self-contradictory, but it doesn't "work" from an engineering / material systems point of view.

I would agree with you if I thought that capitalism can only exist unrestrained, and that any kind of capitalism automatically leads to 19th Century Victorian London / robber baron America.
But as it happens, in several places, compromises have been worked out, restraints have been put against capitalist abuse, and those restraints have worked. In Western Europe the situation is orders of magnitude better than it was a century ago. Standards of living are higher than they've ever been; inequalities have been seriously reduced. In fact all that unpleeasant business of regulation and compromise gave better results than violent revolution.

The second, and arguably, more serious reasons: owning property, using it as you see fit as long as it harms no one, investment, and other trappings of capitalism are perfectly respectable things to do, and are in fact rights that should be protected.

The problem is, as I said before, we're jumping from 'some people own a disproportionate share of the resources and use their property rights to take advantage of people' to 'no one shall ever be allowed to own anything ever again.' No wonder people aren't interested!
Which again would make sense, if we didn't have some very good evidence that you know, you can allow people to own stuff and prevent them from abusing others, and redistribute wealth.

(Which doesn't mean that France, Italy, Spain, or Germany or Belgium don't suck in many respects, but compared to the 1920s we practically live in Utopia. )

Or, as Frank Zappa said, 'communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff', to which I'd add that wanting to own stuff isn't a moral failing.

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule? My solution is to make them vote for essential goods and services instead of "taxes".

Somebody should explain to the author that 'the people', whoever these may be, aren't entirely dim. Even the most gullible of Trump voters or the most inbred and dim-witted Le Pen voter won't believe a politician that promises him lower taxes.
For that matter, people vote for left-wingers fully aware that this will mean more tax for them. I mean, left-wing voters are kind of a precious commodity these days, but they do exist!

[Travis B.]

My answer to this, as a democratic socialist, is that if a democratic state sees that certain activities (e.g. healthcare and education) are desirable, even though they are not profitable (or should not be profitable, more like), said democratic state would provide funding for those activities, in lieu of it owning them directly.

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule? My solution is to make them vote for essential goods and services instead of "taxes".

But as long as you have an economy that functions based on money, the money to fund such things needs to come from somewhere. You may call it voting for essential goods and services, but as long as there is money it still comes down to the same thing.

To me, ownership and use would be synonymous, and ownership itself would be having a share in the right to control something (and in the case of a business, a right to a certain portion of the profits). So to become an employee somewhere would inherently make one a part owner (which portion may vary, as it may be determined by what average hours one works, new workers may have a smaller share than established ones, or founders may have a greater share than other workers (but it cannot be a controlling share unto itself, or otherwise one runs into many of the same issues as with capitalism)), and likewise, to leave a company would mean to give up one's share.

When you get a job, does your share come from small slices of shares owned by other employees? If you leave a job, is your share divided between the rest of the employees? Don't you think this creates an incentive for the co-op to hire as few employees as necessary to get the job done? If the state forces them to hire more people, don't you think this will create an incentive to prevent the government from interfering in co-op business using the language of Freedom^TM?

Well, yes, the total profits and total voting rights in a company would be the sum of those of all the workers at said company. And yes, the incentive that it promotes is having the least number of workers needed such that all those workers, if they so wish, are fully employed, while at the same time not being overworked. If the workers are being overworked there is an incentive to bring on more workers such that the company comes out as having full employment for all its workers which so seek it without their being overworked. This differs from private capitalism, where in many cases companies hire more people so they can give them fewer hours so they do not count as being fully employed and thus are not required to give them benefits.

[rotting bones]

I don't think there's any way to make it work with public / state control, in any case. If you want to keep the drinking water healthy, well, you need an independent body to check the water, and another to enforce sanctions on anyone who throws trash down the river. Which, right now, means state control (I'm sure I could figure out an anarchist solution, but I don't have enough brain cells online right now )
You can hand one or both tasks to a private companies, though if you ask me, that's just asking for trouble.

My state is not monolithic. It is a cluster of independent enterprises that collectively own government property, and jobs may be created in any of them by vote. Private enterprises exist too.

I would agree with you if I thought that capitalism can only exist unrestrained, and that any kind of capitalism automatically leads to 19th Century Victorian London / robber baron America.
But as it happens, in several places, compromises have been worked out, restraints have been put against capitalist abuse, and those restraints have worked. In Western Europe the situation is orders of magnitude better than it was a century ago. Standards of living are higher than they've ever been; inequalities have been seriously reduced. In fact all that unpleeasant business of regulation and compromise gave better results than violent revolution.

First World capitalists bail themselves out whenever they hit a crisis. They foster faith in the system by all manner of unjust exploitation. Eg. By ensuring the flow of cheap raw materials from the Third World, etc.

The second, and arguably, more serious reasons: owning property, using it as you see fit as long as it harms no one, investment, and other trappings of capitalism are perfectly respectable things to do, and are in fact rights that should be protected.

There is property under my proposal too. Private individuals are just not allowed to own the commons.

The idea of the stock market being a human right blows my mind. I don't know how to answer that. Except maybe to write a story of a dystopia where an orphan girl longs to play the stock market. Until one day, when she can't take her stock-market-deficient life anymore and flees. She gathers a rebels army, toppling the evil lizard people who were suppressing every attempt to build a stock market. And then she breaks into that song Mary Poppins sings, except with no sarcasm at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDbOK_fDu9Y

The problem is, as I said before, we're jumping from 'some people own a disproportionate share of the resources and use their property rights to take advantage of people' to 'no one shall ever be allowed to own anything ever again.' No wonder people aren't interested!
Which again would make sense, if we didn't have some very good evidence that you know, you can allow people to own stuff and prevent them from abusing others, and redistribute wealth.

I challenge you to find any post from me on the internet which says ownership should be abolished.

Somebody should explain to the author that 'the people', whoever these may be, aren't entirely dim. Even the most gullible of Trump voters or the most inbred and dim-witted Le Pen voter won't believe a politician that promises him lower taxes.
For that matter, people vote for left-wingers fully aware that this will mean more tax for them. I mean, left-wing voters are kind of a precious commodity these days, but they do exist!

They exist, but in this context, "votes for" means "constitutes the majority".

[rotting bones]

But as long as you have an economy that functions based on money, the money to fund such things needs to come from somewhere. You may call it voting for essential goods and services, but as long as there is money it still comes down to the same thing.

The government provides essentials and jobs in those industries from commonly owned capital. This is how I'm proposing jobs should be created by votes that, unlike money, replenish themselves.

Well, yes, the total profits and total voting rights in a company would be the sum of those of all the workers at said company. And yes, the incentive that it promotes is having the least number of workers needed such that all those workers, if they so wish, are fully employed, while at the same time not being overworked. If the workers are being overworked there is an incentive to bring on more workers such that the company comes out as having full employment for all its workers which so seek it without their being overworked. This differs from private capitalism, where in many cases companies hire more people so they can give them fewer hours so they do not count as being fully employed and thus are not required to give them benefits.

This presupposes the funding approach. I don't know. For-profit companies have a long history of taking government support and refusing to deliver. Though I didn't follow the story closely, I believe a recent installment would be the case of Trump trying to get General Motors to create jobs in America.

Either way, I would support your proposal as I said before.

[rotting bones]

I have noticed a recurring motif in defenses of capitalism: That I should respect what capitalists do as being morally upstanding, as if capitalism is a way of life whose members want me to grant recognition to their identity.

First of all, I obviously don't think the state has any business policing "immorality" as long as no one else is hurt.

But most importantly, I have never seen a successful capitalist who sees what they do in that way. Those who are open about private matters seem to be pushing themselves to the limit out of some kind of desperation.

Just a side note.

[Ares Land]

First World capitalists bail themselves out whenever they hit a crisis. They foster faith in the system by all manner of unjust exploitation. Eg. By ensuring the flow of cheap raw materials from the Third World, etc.

No disagreement here: I mean the system still sucks. My point is mainly that we managed to make it suck a lot less than it used to. (Again, compare Europe in the 1920s vs the 2020s).

There is property under my proposal too. Private individuals are just not allowed to own the commons.

Then de have no disagreement: that sounds very reasonable!

The idea of the stock market being a human right blows my mind. I don't know how to answer that.

And yet, there you are. You've got a right to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
Say you have a thousand dollars you're not using right now. You can put it under your mattress, or you can do any number of things, including buying stock. It's not very glamorous, but you're not hurting anyone. Indeed you putting that money back into the economy. It's not very glamorous but it's useful. And doesn't hurt anyone -- in fact just keeping the money at home would hurt people.

They exist, but in this context, "votes for" means "constitutes the majority".

And yet, despite all that, people don't vote Libertarian all that much!

[Ares Land]

I have noticed a recurring motif in defenses of capitalism: That I should respect what capitalists do as being morally upstanding, as if capitalism is a way of life whose members want me to grant recognition to their identity.

Yeah, there's the whole 'Randian hero/Bruce Wayne trope.i generally don't believe star CEOs are misunderstood Nietzschean types.

In fact a lot of capitalism, and IMO the most important part of it occurs at a small scale, and is practiced by people who'd be very surprised to hear themselves called capitalism: think of small store owners, restaurants, freelancers, etc.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

...think of small store owners, restaurants, freelancers, etc.

I'm not sure I consider such small-scale things "Capitalism", as small shops (or establishments where a craftsman does a thing) predate Capitalism.

[Ares Land]

...think of small store owners, restaurants, freelancers, etc.

I'm not sure I consider such small-scale things "Capitalism", as small shops (or establishments where a craftsman does a thing) predate Capitalism.

Keeping in mind, though that back then those were run not run under a capitalist system, but under a guild system (with often expensive barriers to entry and guild-enforced monopolies).

(The guild/corporations did come up with many sound practices! But generally the system was exploitative of apprentices, journeymen, non-guild workers so all in all the transition to a freer market was an improvement.)

[Nortaneous]

My answer to this, as a democratic socialist, is that if a democratic state sees that certain activities (e.g. healthcare and education) are desirable, even though they are not profitable (or should not be profitable, more like), said democratic state would provide funding for those activities, in lieu of it owning them directly.

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule?

If people always vote against taxes, why do taxes keep going up?

[zompist]

My answer to this, as a democratic socialist, is that if a democratic state sees that certain activities (e.g. healthcare and education) are desirable, even though they are not profitable (or should not be profitable, more like), said democratic state would provide funding for those activities, in lieu of it owning them directly.

If you look at The Dictator's Handbook, the people everywhere and always vote against taxes. What makes you think workers under democratic socialism would be an exception to this rule?

If people always vote against taxes, why do taxes keep going up?

You mean, the way the top tax rate went up from 92% in the early 1950s to the dizzying heights of 37% today? Down really is up in conservativeland.

[Torco]

Even if people did always vote for less taxes, them not going down wouldn't be surprising: there are many such issues where even though most people agree with something the ruling class won't implement it, and it won't be done. here in the mecca of neoliberalism this is trivially common.

[rotting bones]

No disagreement here: I mean the system still sucks. My point is mainly that we managed to make it suck a lot less than it used to. (Again, compare Europe in the 1920s vs the 2020s).

But this less-suckery is built on socialism-scale bailouts without socialism-scale reach, and uses unjust exploitation to make them work on top of that. Why not just decree the bailouts where the people vote for them? Are humans psychologically incapable of bailing out non-predators?

Then de have no disagreement: that sounds very reasonable!

I have unreasonable ideas too, but no desire to go into them right now. I've posted pretty much all of them previously.

And yet, there you are. You've got a right to do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Regardless of your specific definition, I think human rights are stronger than ordinary rights. They are rights whose illegality is illegitimate in some sense. Eg. You might have the right to walk somewhere without a mask, but if that might legitimately be illegal tomorrow, then it's not a human right.

If the stock market is a human right, that means you rationally affirm that everyone should have the right to use the stock market. Depending on your interpretation, that might even entail a right to free money as long as you don't use it for anything other than gambling on the stock market.

Say you have a thousand dollars you're not using right now. You can put it under your mattress, or you can do any number of things, including buying stock. It's not very glamorous, but you're not hurting anyone. Indeed you putting that money back into the economy. It's not very glamorous but it's useful. And doesn't hurt anyone -- in fact just keeping the money at home would hurt people.

Under today's system, this is partly correct if you ignore productivity-slashing mergers and similar shenanigans driven by profitability. But if there were a better system that, in specific cases, did not require investment and disincentivized those kinds of shenanigans, wouldn't it be legitimate to have those cases be run by a mechanism other than investment?