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

[rotting bones]

The Kesh maintain this low population without coercion

How?

[Nachtswalbe]

The Kesh maintain this low population without coercion

How?

According to wikipedia,

They carry a large accumulation of genetic damage, which leads to fewer successful pregnancies and higher infant mortality. They also have social taboos against multiple siblings and early pregnancies; a third child is considered shameful, and the Dayao's practice of large families is referred to as "incontinence". Abortions are practiced freely.

[Nachtswalbe]

The Kesh maintain this low population without coercion

How?

According to wikipedia,

They carry a large accumulation of genetic damage, which leads to fewer successful pregnancies and higher infant mortality. They also have social taboos against multiple siblings and early pregnancies; a third child is considered shameful, and the Dayao's practice of large families is referred to as "incontinence". Abortions are practiced freely.

Honestly, a Technocratic (as in the ideology of rule by scientists, economists etc.) government would do a better job at keeping birthrates low by injecting abortifacients into the water supply, as suggested by the original movement of the 1930s

[rotting bones]

They carry a large accumulation of genetic damage, which leads to fewer successful pregnancies and higher infant mortality.

If this is sufficient to make it work, then they are effectively an alien species that is incapable of developing an industrial society. Like human societies that were too poor, etc. to develop, they will be ousted by the first colonial empire that comes along.

They also have social taboos against multiple siblings and early pregnancies; a third child is considered shameful, and the Dayao's practice of large families is referred to as "incontinence".

Right, like shaming abortion works in the US. If this is necessary to make it work, it will only lead to a growing population of undesirables.

Abortions are practiced freely.

There will always be people who refuse to abort.

[Nachtswalbe]

They carry a large accumulation of genetic damage, which leads to fewer successful pregnancies and higher infant mortality.

If this is sufficient to make it work, then they are effectively an alien species that is incapable of developing an industrial society. Like human societies that were too poor, etc. to develop, they will be ousted by the first colonial empire that comes along.

They also have social taboos against multiple siblings and early pregnancies; a third child is considered shameful, and the Dayao's practice of large families is referred to as "incontinence".

Right, like shaming abortion works in the US. If this is necessary to make it work, it will only lead to a growing population of undesirables.

Abortions are practiced freely.

There will always be people who refuse to abort.

Yeah, LeGuin's work is pretty much her utopia and social taboos against having too many kids will lead to many of the same problems seen in IRL societies whose states enforced one-child policies (e.g China) especially if gender preferences still come into play

[rotting bones]

Honestly, a Technocratic (as in the ideology of rule by scientists, economists etc.) government would do a better job at keeping birthrates low by injecting abortifacients into the water supply, as suggested by the original movement of the 1930s

This raises more questions than it answers.

If the technocrats work to selflessly benefit society instead of fighting to hold on to their positions, they would be ousted by their more ruthless colleagues.

Who supports the technocrats in the first place in an undeveloped society? Where does their authority come from?

If the society has always been isolated, they would never develop science in the first place.

[rotting bones]

Yeah, LeGuin's work is pretty much her utopia and social taboos against having too many kids will lead to many of the same problems seen in IRL societies whose states enforced one-child policies (e.g China) especially if gender preferences still come into play

Except this society has no government to enforce the taboo.

[rotting bones]

BTW; relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36rjDJ81GK0

[Nachtswalbe]

BTW; relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36rjDJ81GK0

So what you’re saying in the previous posts is that what LeGuin describes the Always Coming Homesociety to be like is materially impossible because a lack of industrial-scale economy means poverty, and socially impossible since the absence of coercive authority means many of the “beneficial” taboos and practices will not be fully carried out

[rotting bones]

So what you’re saying in the previous posts is that what LeGuin describes the Always Coming Homesociety to be like is materially impossible because a lack of industrial-scale economy means poverty, and socially impossible since the absence of coercive authority means many of the “beneficial” taboos and practices will not be fully carried out

There could be special circumstances that make it possible. I just feel like the Wikipedia summary doesn't present enough excuses to make it look particularly realistic, at least from the standpoint of earth in the 21st century.

However, special circumstances that work would come with their own costs. For example, if they don't have enough food to grow a large population, that society would probably look different in other respects, like everyone being malnourished or a larger population exhibiting dwarfism, etc.

[Nachtswalbe]

So what you’re saying in the previous posts is that what LeGuin describes the Always Coming Homesociety to be like is materially impossible because a lack of industrial-scale economy means poverty, and socially impossible since the absence of coercive authority means many of the “beneficial” taboos and practices will not be fully carried out

There could be special circumstances that make it possible. I just feel like the Wikipedia summary doesn't present enough excuses to make it look particularly realistic, at least from the standpoint of earth in the 21st century.

However, special circumstances that work would come with their own costs. For example, if they don't have enough food to grow a large population, that society would probably look different in other respects, like everyone being malnourished or a larger population exhibiting dwarfism, etc.

Wondering how they even make trains without large-scale industry or government or corporations—- artisanal trains?

On a more serious note, what kinds of economic policies would a “degrowthist-green” government pursue?
Here are some concrete proposals
Wikipedia again:

Promotion of local currencies, elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest
Transition to non-profit and small scale companies
Increase of local commons and support of participative approaches in decision-making
Reducing working hours and facilitation of volunteer work
Reusing empty housing and cohousing
Introduction of the basic income and an income ceiling built on a maximum-minimum ratio
Limitation of the exploitation of natural resources and preservation of the biodiversity and culture by regulations, taxes and compensations
Minimize the waste production with education and legal instruments
Elimination of mega infrastructures, transition from a car-based system to a more local, biking, walking-based one.
Suppression of advertising from the public space[63]

The problem with this is how it can adapted to large cities and of course, how the hell all those regulations, elimination and suppression will get passed, and how to get the existing political class onboard

Nevertheless, co-evolving aspects of global capitalism, liberal modernity, and the market society, are closely tied and will be difficult to separate to maintain liberal and cosmopolitan values in a degrowth society.[91]

[rotting bones]

Wondering how they even make trains without large-scale industry or government or corporations—- artisanal trains?

Technology is affordable mostly because it's mass produced.

On a more serious note, what kinds of economic policies would a “degrowthist-green” government pursue?

If a country did this, it would be extremely poor by international standards. Prices are so low only because of economies of scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8 The country could be avoided by large corporations if they don't see a way to profit.

I could be wrong, but I suspect this could only be implemented by the strategy that contemporary leftist philosophers call "subtraction": Ignore mainstream society and build a toy leftist economy inside it like a commune.

If the reactionaries still control the real government, it's unlikely for the commune to both grow very large and last very long. It's likely that a commune which ultimately depends on a capitalist economy will dwindle on its own as newer leftist ideas gain popularity. However, if the commune somehow becomes a real threat, the reactionaries will probably find a way to dismantle it.

I don't understand why the government can't directly arrange mass production by popular vote, which is what I'm proposing.

[zompist]

Evaluating long-shot political proposals is more conwording than activism. But hey, I love conworlding!

On a more serious note, what kinds of economic policies would a “degrowthist-green” government pursue?
Here are some concrete proposals

Promotion of local currencies, elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest
Transition to non-profit and small scale companies
Increase of local commons and support of participative approaches in decision-making
Reducing working hours and facilitation of volunteer work
Reusing empty housing and cohousing
Introduction of the basic income and an income ceiling built on a maximum-minimum ratio
Limitation of the exploitation of natural resources and preservation of the biodiversity and culture by regulations, taxes and compensations production with education and legal instruments
Elimination of mega infrastructures, transition from a car-based system to a more local, biking, walking-based one.
Suppression of advertising from the public space

Overall I think "degrowth" is barmy, not least because it's anti-people. (If you can't get to utopia without genocide, it's no utopia.) But this particular set of policies is interesting; they range from liberal to green to radical. Going over the list in more detail:

"Local currencies" - a good idea but probably not for the reasons they think. Local currencies can encourage a weak economy; without them you need a strong central bank willing to invest in poor regions... something e.g. Europe lacks so far.

"Small-scale companies" - a good idea, though I think oversold. Is Mondragon, the Spanish co-op with 80,000 employees, so big it needs to be chopped up? And I think a lot of small-is-good leftists forget that very small businesses are often highly regressive internally. It's a lot easier to make a car manufacturer treat workers well, than a car dealership.

"Local commons" - maybe this could be done well, maybe it's 19th century nostalgia. Do people really want to give up the right to free movement? Cos if we have that, attachments to the place you live are going to be weak.

"Reducing working hours" - long past due.

"Reusing empty housing" - a remarkably small reform. You can't fix housing shortages by better use of existing properties; you have to build new ones. I guess it'd be hard to admit that while being anti-growth.

"Basic income" - sure, why not. "Income ceiling" - I'm in favor, but good luck.

"Protect natural resources" - yeah, we either do this or our civilization dies.

"Minimize waste" - uh sure, who is against that?

"transition from a car-based system" - sure, the US should catch up with Europe here. Again, good luck.

"Suppression of advertising from the public space" - someone snuck their personal hobbyhorse into the manifesto.

[Nachtswalbe]

Evaluating long-shot political proposals is more conwording than activism. But hey, I love conworlding!

On a more serious note, what kinds of economic policies would a “degrowthist-green” government pursue?
Here are some concrete proposals

Promotion of local currencies, elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest
Transition to non-profit and small scale companies
Increase of local commons and support of participative approaches in decision-making
Reducing working hours and facilitation of volunteer work
Reusing empty housing and cohousing
Introduction of the basic income and an income ceiling built on a maximum-minimum ratio
Limitation of the exploitation of natural resources and preservation of the biodiversity and culture by regulations, taxes and compensations production with education and legal instruments
Elimination of mega infrastructures, transition from a car-based system to a more local, biking, walking-based one.
Suppression of advertising from the public space

Overall I think "degrowth" is barmy, not least because it's anti-people. (If you can't get to utopia without genocide, it's no utopia.) But this particular set of policies is interesting; they range from liberal to green to radical. Going over the list in more detail:

"Local currencies" - a good idea but probably not for the reasons they think. Local currencies can encourage a weak economy; without them you need a strong central bank willing to invest in poor regions... something e.g. Europe lacks so far.

"Small-scale companies" - a good idea, though I think oversold. Is Mondragon, the Spanish co-op with 80,000 employees, so big it needs to be chopped up? And I think a lot of small-is-good leftists forget that very small businesses are often highly regressive internally. It's a lot easier to make a car manufacturer treat workers well, than a car dealership.

"Local commons" - maybe this could be done well, maybe it's 19th century nostalgia. Do people really want to give up the right to free movement? Cos if we have that, attachments to the place you live are going to be weak.

"Reducing working hours" - long past due.

"Reusing empty housing" - a remarkably small reform. You can't fix housing shortages by better use of existing properties; you have to build new ones. I guess it'd be hard to admit that while being anti-growth.

"Basic income" - sure, why not. "Income ceiling" - I'm in favor, but good luck.

"Protect natural resources" - yeah, we either do this or our civilization dies.

"Minimize waste" - uh sure, who is against that?

"transition from a car-based system" - sure, the US should catch up with Europe here. Again, good luck.

"Suppression of advertising from the public space" - someone snuck their personal hobbyhorse into the manifesto.

An authoritarian, radical variant of Degrowth would also have strong anti-urban (since cities are polluting and viewed as unsustainable) and autarkic (because global trade is considered anti-environment) promtendencies with added romanticization of pre-contact indigenous and/or peasant life (e.g the narodniks) as more in tune With The Land and The People. Their focus on degrowth would also increase decentralization, paradoxically since centralization is a byproduct of large cities controlling rural areas.

There would likely be a cap on fertility with sterilization to ensure that and the top-down enforcement (eventually bottom-up) of its interpretation of Sustainable Lifestyles combined with restrictions on the production on certain technologies deemed too wasteful, as well as attempts to make lower-tech versions or substitutes.

Even without explicit authoritarianism, I could see petty dictatorship on the local level emerging rather quickly and all those local currencies and bans on interest creating intra-national black markets and shit

[hwhatting]

Tribalism and people caring more about their immediate in-groups than about people far away and newcomers are as old as humanity. If anything, capitalism tends to break these things down, as it breaks down all loyalties except loyalty towards money. Racism and nationalism are rather reactions against the corrosive effects of capitalism, as people are trying to shield their in-groups and build coalitions against the corrosion. This gets complicated by that capitalists and certain instantations of capitalism can have an interest in using and manipulating ideas like racism and nationalism.

I disagree that most societies behave like family groups. Every society larger than a few hundred individuals is more concerned about internal political splits than conflicts with outsiders. Conflicts with outsiders do matter, but they are one factor that fuels internal power struggles. Whether you look at the Roman Republic or Aryan India, each society fights itself and the others. Some of them emerge victorious regardless.

Where did I say that racism and nationalism are only directed at outsiders? Racism mostly works inside a society, in an attempt to organise and mobilise one group against another. Nationalism is partially an attempt to direct energies outside or towards a common goal in order to deescalate internal conficts, but it can also be used in order to organise and mobilise some groups against other groups that are painted as not sufficienty patriotic or even detrimental to the nation's goals. My point is that you don't need capitalism for that kind of conglict to arise; splitting into groups and fighting over ressources is the natural human state.

What is notable about the 21st century is that it's easy to divide workers by saying things like: "The Chinese are taking your jobs." The classes have been dressed up to look like races/civilizations/pumpkins/whatever the latest fad calls them. When capitalism originated, the classes fighting for power in the system were internal to each nation, not distributed across the globe.

On the other hand, the 21st century is not entirely novel. When capitalism originated, the bitterness of struggles among the various castes within national groups was comparable to what international rivalries are like now. Of course, bigots don't care about historical facts like that.

Well, I disagree with the Marxist analysis in its insistence that it's only the class conflicts that matter objectively and the other conflicts are either a smokescreen or false consciousness. In any case, people will always be in conflict; the only think we can hope for is a state where the conflicts will be mostly violence-free and where losing doesn't mean death or destitution.

The transition to renewable energy is no longer a technical problem, but exclusively one of funding. Replacing existing energy infrastructure with a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear would costs enormous amounts of money. But you know what solves that problem? Enormous amounts of money! At present the USA can scrape together a trillion dollars for the blowing up of individual countries in the Middle East, and that's just one economy representing less than a fifth of the world's GDP. Clearly it is possible to mobilize funds if there is someone powerful who will benefit from it. The current economic landscape of energy being what it is, there aren't enough billionaires who see their fortunes improving by spending trillions on solar panels. But that could change. If, at any point, it becomes profitable for the people in charge to switch to renewables, it will happen. That's all it takes.

The transition has already started, due to a mix of government regulations and technological progress. Investors and regulators are already grilling companies on whether they still will be profitable in a world without fossil fuels - that shows you what the expectations of industry and finance are. Of course, there is resistance, rear-guard actions, and people clinging on to losing business models, like in each transition, and it would be good for the future of the planet if we were moving faster, but the overall direction is clear.

[Ares Land]

Honestly, a Technocratic (as in the ideology of rule by scientists, economists etc.) government would do a better job at keeping birthrates low by injecting abortifacients into the water supply, as suggested by the original movement of the 1930s

That sounds horribly dystopian!

I haven't read Always Coming Home. Generally utopian proposals come off as horribly dystopian to me. To take another example from Le Guin, Anarres in The Left Hand of Darkness seems pretty dreadful. This may or may not have been intended by the author.

Le Guin was an anarcho-syndicalist and it does show up a lot in her work.

On a more serious note, what kinds of economic policies would a “degrowthist-green” government pursue?

I don't think 'degrowth' is a very meaningful word, though it makes for a nice rallying cry.

That's about my one point of disagreement with Greens in general. So looking at that list, the one real point of disagreement I have is the first one:

Promotion of local currencies, elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest

I don't see the point of local currencies to be honest. (Re: zompist's point, I disagree with Krugman on the Eurozone, and I think local devaluation would only make things worse.) That bit about fiat currencies sounds uncomfortably close to goldbug theories.
Interest is nowhere near as simple an issue as people assume. Right now we are extremely close to zero interest in the Eurozone and it turns out to be a serious problem. (Among other things, it drives out real estate prices to insane levels.)

An authoritarian, radical variant of Degrowth would also have strong anti-urban (since cities are polluting and viewed as unsustainable) and autarkic (because global trade is considered anti-environment) promtendencies with added romanticization of pre-contact indigenous and/or peasant life (e.g the narodniks) as more in tune With The Land and The People. Their focus on degrowth would also increase decentralization, paradoxically since centralization is a byproduct of large cities controlling rural areas.

Generally, I'd rather avoid having an authoritarian, radical variant of anything Besides, environmental considerations need nuance.

From an environmental standpoint, cities are a lot more sustainable. (Everything, from transport to logistics to heating is highly energy-efficient in dense cities.)

Global trade is not wrong in itself. The issue is that it's conducted in non-suitable ways. Local production is often better, but not always so. It's probably better to grow certain crops in suitable ecosystems -- is it better to grow tomatoes in the Netherlands or to grow them further south and ship them? You'd need to careful check the energy costs and carbon footprints. There will still remain economic advantages to specialization.

I don't understand why the government can't directly arrange mass production by popular vote, which is what I'm proposing.

There are two isses: data and information flow on one hand, civic liberties on the other.

The government doesn't have information about what and how much can be producing: the producers do. It doesn't have any information on what goods or services are needed either: the consumers do.
The governement can get and centralize that information, but there will necessarily be information loss. Governments will end up making decisions on insufficient data.

The same limitation will apply to the people at large, only more so. Do we expect everyone to wade through pages of dry production reports before voting?

What people produce and what they consume adds up to a large part of their life. Control over grants near-dictatorial powers.
I don't think near-dictatorial measures should be handled by popular vote. (Popular vote is nice and I'm glad we have it, but I live in a country where about 40% of the voters would like a fascist dictatorship, so I'm understandably wary of it.) And besides, a certain amount of the decision-making power would be vested in a bureaucracy. Again, I don't think having bureaucrats with dictatorial power is a great idea.

(Which doesn't mean that government can't plan, arrange production or create vote. Just, it shouldn't take over the whole economy.)

[hwhatting]

To add to Ares's points:
In my opinion, what is worst is to have one mechanism for everything. Entrusting everything to government, or to the market. or to decentralised communes, or to councils, or to corporations, or to technocrats, or to sorted assemblies, or whatever the fashionable solution to the world's problems is, will in the long run always be worse than having different and balanced centers of power and mechanisms. And the balance also needs to change over time. Otherwise, structures will ossify, and uncontrolled and unchallenged power will be abused more and more. This doesn't only apply to centralised structures; decentralised structures that cannot be challenged from the outside can very much deteriorate into a patchwork of tiny tyrannies.

[Moose-tache]

While I acknowledge that there are no simple solutions that will fix all of Capitalism's problems (especially the ones that are features rather than bugs), I think we are sometimes disingenuous in the ways we pretend that government solutions are worse than they really are. For example, the problem of government being incompetent as a producer of goods is certainly true, but who cares when the solution to that problem is so obvious? The government would have no handicap as an investor. The government would invest public funds in enterprises with no less information than what private investors have now. Meanwhile government has the advantage that, unlike private investors, it can be told what to do. The state is not the perfect proxy for the will of the people that it often pretends to be, but certainly an elected committee will be more sensate to the public need than Jeff Bezos. You could split the difference by saying that once a fortune or portfolio reaches a certain size it must be managed by a combination of the owner and the public, with concrete obligations to both.

Another thing we often forget is that state institutions can be better or worse at serving the people based on things like institutional design, the engagement and vigilance of the people, etc. If you heard that the governments of Sweden and North Korea both opened an office to help workers in labor disputes, you'd be right to assume that one of those offices will probably serve the needs of the people better than the other. Why, then, do we assume that well-functioning and poorly-functioning states are equally doomed when they try to direct economic activity? The trust I have in, say, Canada or Eritrea to run a command economy is about the same as the trust I have in them to run an equitable court system (i.e. high and low, respectively). In my opinion, we should get away from the idea that state involvement is bad because the USSR was bad. Even on the left, there are too many people who will conclude a conversation by saying "That reeks of State Capitalism" and then lean back as if they've made some knock-out argument. If the state involved is a good one, then "State Capitalism" could, at least hypothetically, be an improvement on the regular kind.

[zompist]

The government would have no handicap as an investor. The government would invest public funds in enterprises with no less information than what private investors have now. Meanwhile government has the advantage that, unlike private investors, it can be told what to do. The state is not the perfect proxy for the will of the people that it often pretends to be, but certainly an elected committee will be more sensate to the public need than Jeff Bezos. You could split the difference by saying that once a fortune or portfolio reaches a certain size it must be managed by a combination of the owner and the public, with concrete obligations to both.

I agree, with the quibble that it's useful to have some source of private funding, for cases where the government refuses to invest. (There may be a social consensus that some activity-- conlanging? sex work? cigarette making?-- should be legal, without a consensus that the government should fund it.)

Another thing we often forget is that state institutions can be better or worse at serving the people based on things like institutional design, the engagement and vigilance of the people, etc. If you heard that the governments of Sweden and North Korea both opened an office to help workers in labor disputes, you'd be right to assume that one of those offices will probably serve the needs of the people better than the other.

A good point, but these days one has to wonder whether American or British government is capable of running a new business.

(Government is very efficient if it's set up well! One example is the US's Social Security, where admin costs are 0.6% of benefits. But it was set up in an era when Republicans couldn't kneecap a new government program. And the Tories are unable even to manage the Brexit that they engineered themselves.)

Even on the left, there are too many people who will conclude a conversation by saying "That reeks of State Capitalism" and then lean back as if they've made some knock-out argument. If the state involved is a good one, then "State Capitalism" could, at least hypothetically, be an improvement on the regular kind.

If the state involved is good, it can probably implement social democracy pretty well too.

China Mieville makes the point that leftists normally refuse to acknowledge error until decades later, at which point they declare that it's an old moot issue that nobody needs to learn from. Soviet state capitalism failed for complicated reasons; leftists need to understand why before being handed a major country to try it again.

[bradrn]

In my opinion, we should get away from the idea that state involvement is bad because the USSR was bad. Even on the left, there are too many people who will conclude a conversation by saying "That reeks of State Capitalism" and then lean back as if they've made some knock-out argument. If the state involved is a good one, then "State Capitalism" could, at least hypothetically, be an improvement on the regular kind.

Possibly interesting article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/b ... ed-plenty/. This part may be most relevant:

Red Plenty presented the problem with the Soviet economy primarily as one of allocation. You could have a perfectly good factory that could be producing lots of useful things if only you had one extra eensy-weensy part, but unless the higher-ups had allocated you that part, you were out of luck. If that part happened to break, getting a new one would depend on how much clout you (and your superiors) pulled versus how much clout other people who wanted parts (and their superiors) held.

The book illustrated this reality with a series of stories (I’m not sure how many of these were true, versus useful dramatizations). In one, a pig farmer in Siberia needed wood in order to build sties for his pigs so they wouldn’t freeze – if they froze, he would fail to meet his production target and his career would be ruined. The government, which mostly dealt with pig farming in more temperate areas, hadn’t accounted for this and so hadn’t allocated him any wood, and he didn’t have enough clout with officials to request some. A factory nearby had extra wood they weren’t using and were going to burn because it was too much trouble to figure out how to get it back to the government for re-allocation. The farmer bought the wood from the factory in an under-the-table deal. He was caught, which usually wouldn’t have been a problem because everybody did this sort of thing and it was kind of the “smoking marijuana while white” of Soviet offenses. But at that particular moment the Party higher-ups in the area wanted to make an example of someone in order to look like they were on top of their game to their higher-ups. The pig farmer was sentenced to years of hard labor.

… It’s easy to see how all of these problems could have been solved (or would never have come up) in a capitalist economy, with its use of prices set by supply and demand as an allocation mechanism. And it’s easy to see how thoroughly the Soviet economy was sabotaging itself by avoiding such prices.

I think it’s safe to say that some systems work better than others, no matter how competent the implementing party may be.