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

[Travis B.]

This is a local issue if there ever was one -- factory farming or organic farming are matters that can only be decided at the national level, ideally even more locally.

France is mostly prime agricultural land and can most certainly produce more than enough food to feed its population without recourse to more intensive methods. Perhaps more importantly, this is likely to remain true even taking global warming into question. The situation may well be different elsewhere; I know nothing about agriculture in, say, China, and wouldn't presume to comment on what they should do.

One problem with intensive agriculture is the huge cost to the local biosphere and very high fossil fuel use; another is damage to soil and the water table, yet another is quality. What's the point of mass-producing tomatoes when the end result is tasteless balls of water? Again, I'm talking about a rich farming country when producing enough food is a non-issue.

The key thing is every acre of land used to grow crops is an acre of land that is not part of nature. So of course we would want to minimize the number of acres used to grow crops.

[Ares Land]

That's true to a certain extent... But pesticides and fertilizers will have an impact beyond that cultivated acre. Ditto if it is farmed so intensively it depletes or pollutes the water table.

[Travis B.]

That's true to a certain extent... But pesticides and fertilizers will have an impact beyond that cultivated acre. Ditto if it is farmed so intensively it depletes or pollutes the water table.

I did not mean to say that all intensive farming practices are good, of course. Yes, these are all things that need to be taken into account, e.g. effects of herbicides and just general use on the water table, effect of insecticides on pollenizers, and so on. Likewise, things should be grown in environments that lend themselves to their needs, e.g. it is insane to grow water-intensive crops in California, where much of the water needed has to be diverted from rivers in an environment that was dry even before global warming.

[Ares Land]

Various interesting remarks on planned economy

Bringing the discussion over to the Capitalism thread...

The Soviet Union did have severe economic difficulties. The accomplishments you mention are real, of course, and impressive.
I think the Soviet economy always was pretty shaky, but things really went downhill after the 70s. They had serious problems with the food supply. This was in part due to mismanagement, and constant prioritizing of military spending at the expense of pretty much anything else.
I think you'll agree that prioritizing the invasion of Afghanistan over food is kind of a sucky thing to do.

Possibly the issue was one of leadership. Putting in charge a bunch of old, very sick men who've been around since forever and just hate each other's gut is not the optimal way to run a country.

The Soviets "fixed" the problem by exporting oil and importing grain (notably, from the US). That was a crucial economic weakness that allowed the US to bleed them dry.

I've spoken in favor of the market before, and there's no point in repeating myself. That said, I don't think planning should be entirely ruled out. Eastern Bloc-style planning was I think micromanaging way, way too much. But I do think having some kind of five-year or ten-year plan concerning the economy, what it should look like and what should be produced, all with democratic input is essential.
We'd be facing climate change way more confidently with at least planning at the macro level.
(This used to be common in Western countries! In France we even had five-year plans and everything.)

Now, let's assume planned economy does work, even at a lower level, and that it could supplement the market with something smarter and less nasty. That may very well be the case! (I've read encouraging things.)
But the correct approach is to work gradually, in incremental steps and with careful reform. That's frustrating, but it works. Social-democracy achieved a great deal; probably a great deal more than big-c Communism. It kind of stopped there in the 80s, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's a shame it did; but there's really no reason it couldn't move further along.

One reason I insist on reform and gradual steps is that switching to socialism or big-c Communism right now would be a huge shock (and a sudden plunge into a system the nasty details of which have not been worked out or tested). You'd inevitably run into economic problems (simply on account of trying something new) and be opposed from just about any direction. That cannot work.

So, yeah, realistically, you'd have to deal with the market for quite some time still.

[bradrn]

Whenever I hear about planned economies, the article I recommend is Scott Alexander’s review of Red Plenty. It presents some interesting counterexamples for why a planned economy can’t work, for instance:

[Imagine] 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.

(And this isn’t even the first time I’ve linked that quote in this thread, I’ve just realised.)

That being said, he does mention towards the end that they tried to implement some more effective planning methods, and it was foiled by the Soviet leadership. It would be an interesting experiment to try a planned economy again, but using modern technologies and economic theories.

I've spoken in favor of the market before, and there's no point in repeating myself. That said, I don't think planning should be entirely ruled out. Eastern Bloc-style planning was I think micromanaging way, way too much. But I do think having some kind of five-year or ten-year plan concerning the economy, what it should look like and what should be produced, all with democratic input is essential.
We'd be facing climate change way more confidently with at least planning at the macro level.
(This used to be common in Western countries! In France we even had five-year plans and everything.)

Isn’t this basically what China does now? (Except without the democracy.) And they seem to have been fairly successful with it.

[Raphael]

That's frustrating, but it works. Social-democracy achieved a great deal; probably a great deal more than big-c Communism. It kind of stopped there in the 80s, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's a shame it did; but there's really no reason it couldn't move further along.

As I posted somewhere on this forum (in this thread? I'm not sure) before, the problem with social democracy is that it leaves in place a lot of rich people who have both a strong motive to hate the socio-economic policies they live under, and the money to turn their hatred into effective political action opposing social democracy from the right. And I say that as a supporter of social democracy.

[Ares Land]

Isn’t this basically what China does now? (Except without the democracy.) And they seem to have been fairly successful with it.

That's possible. I really don't know that much about China.

As I posted somewhere on this forum (in this thread? I'm not sure) before, the problem with social democracy is that it leaves in place a lot of rich people who have both a strong motive to hate the socio-economic policies they live under, and the money to turn their hatred into effective political action opposing social democracy from the right. And I say that as a supporter of social democracy.

Ah, yes, absolutely. The one positive factor is that right-wingers have a hard time getting the political capital to revert social democrat reforms. (Thatcher's an interesting case study, but even she was unable to do anything about the NHS.)

One problem right now is that the idea that nothing can be done on the social and economic front has been firmly hammered into people's heads over the list thirty years. Voters are not interested in social democracy (they just assume it won't work.) Social democratic candidates and party leaders are themselves convinced social democracy won't work.
Coincidentally editorials have also convinced voters that they can and should do something about foreigners and foreign-looking people. Left-wing people tend to lose at 'I'm more racist than you' games, so currently public debate is between the moderate far-right and the radical far-right.

I'm actually optimistic in the long run. Reaction always causes a powerful counterreaction. As I said, I find it pretty interesting, and probably an encouraging sign, to see many Americans moving left.

[MacAnDàil]

On the other hand, the idea of the death of social democracy is less convincing with SPD going to come to power in Germany and equivalent parties already in power in Iberia and most of Scandinavia.

That's frustrating, but it works. Social-democracy achieved a great deal; probably a great deal more than big-c Communism. It kind of stopped there in the 80s, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's a shame it did; but there's really no reason it couldn't move further along.

As I posted somewhere on this forum (in this thread? I'm not sure) before, the problem with social democracy is that it leaves in place a lot of rich people who have both a strong motive to hate the socio-economic policies they live under, and the money to turn their hatred into effective political action opposing social democracy from the right. And I say that as a supporter of social democracy.

And some of them are mentioned here: AFD : Die Wahrheit.

[Torco]

yeah, even after you get rid of the economic aristocracy -capitalists- getting rid of money and profits and so on is going to be difficult and lengthy.

It would be an interesting experiment to try a planned economy again, but using modern technologies and economic theories.

yeah, we tried to do it here with project cybersyn, but alas the coup happened. I don't see why it wouldn't work in principle, but implementing that is... well, let's just say I have like 10 years of implementing complex software products and it's definitely a lot of work.

[Travis B.]

Whenever I hear about planned economies, the article I recommend is Scott Alexander’s review of Red Plenty. It presents some interesting counterexamples for why a planned economy can’t work, for instance:

[Imagine] 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.

(And this isn’t even the first time I’ve linked that quote in this thread, I’ve just realised.)

I was thinking of this very quote when I wrote my post in the other thread.

That being said, he does mention towards the end that they tried to implement some more effective planning methods, and it was foiled by the Soviet leadership. It would be an interesting experiment to try a planned economy again, but using modern technologies and economic theories.

I've spoken in favor of the market before, and there's no point in repeating myself. That said, I don't think planning should be entirely ruled out. Eastern Bloc-style planning was I think micromanaging way, way too much. But I do think having some kind of five-year or ten-year plan concerning the economy, what it should look like and what should be produced, all with democratic input is essential.
We'd be facing climate change way more confidently with at least planning at the macro level.
(This used to be common in Western countries! In France we even had five-year plans and everything.)

Isn’t this basically what China does now? (Except without the democracy.) And they seem to have been fairly successful with it.

I am not against a democratic government having input in the economy, even though I would be for it incentivizing desired production (through subsidizing it) and deincentivizing less desired production (through taxing it) rather than by sending orders down from on high, because I think that ultimately workplaces should be run democratically by their workers rather than being state capitalist. At the same time, I think that modern economies are too complex to be adequately centrally planned in a Soviet-esque style.

[Nortaneous]

It would be an interesting experiment to try a planned economy again, but using modern technologies and economic theories.

yeah, we tried to do it here with project cybersyn

wasn't cybersyn actually used to, like, break strikes

Putting in charge a bunch of old, very sick men who've been around since forever and just hate each other's gut is not the optimal way to run a country.

gosh, good thing nobody will ever do that again!

The Soviets "fixed" the problem by exporting oil and importing grain (notably, from the US). That was a crucial economic weakness that allowed the US to bleed them dry.

gosh, good thing nobody will ever become reliant on imports from a hostile country again either!

It kind of stopped there in the 80s, and with the benefit of hindsight, it's a shame it did; but there's really no reason it couldn't move further along.

other than that the superpower that the rest of the west takes its cues from decided to become a sprawling commercial empire ruling over labor units rather than a people

Likewise, things should be grown in environments that lend themselves to their needs, e.g. it is insane to grow water-intensive crops in California, where much of the water needed has to be diverted from rivers in an environment that was dry even before global warming.

also insane to grow most crops on the east coast, where everything gets owned by a million blights and rots unless you spike the water supply with cancer. I can't even grow basil without it disappearing in a cloud of spores

("everything" except "herbicide-resistant weeds", of course - in the absence of any coherent economic policy I have to self-fund my Chenopodium berlandieri and Potentilla indica breeding programs by taking a day job)

[Ares Land]

I think I actually agree with what you say aside from the gardening bits, but what exactly is your point?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Let me know if he actually has one.

[Torco]

wasn't cybersyn actually used to, like, break strikes

that famous CIA-funded trucker's strike, yeah.

[Moose-tache]

Oh hey, you guys talkin' about planned economies again? Just thought I'd pop my head in to say the obvious solution again. Maybe someday people will listen.

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments. That way there is no private ownership of the means of production and no ever-growing exploitative capitalist class. But you also have public oversight over investment, and companies are private enterprises run however they see fit, perhaps even operating as Mondagon-style coops if they want. No command economy, no pig farmers sent to gulag.

Possible objection 1: wouldn't the government agencies in charge of investing just become the new capital class?
No. They are your employee. They don't own any of the money they manage. They earn a salary. And if they do a shitty job, you fire them.

Possible objection 2: wouldn't this allow the government to dictate what kinds of products get made by not investing in, say, Bud Light Lime or whatever?
Yes, but only if you let them. Law makers can forbid investment agencies from putting all their eggs in one basket, or investing in socially harmful products, etc.

Possible objection 3: wouldn't the government be incompetent and invest everyone's money in something like internet stocks?
Private investors do that sometimes. Usually they avoid it with diversification and research, two things that would be available to government agencies as well.

Possible objection 4: I'm just philosophically opposed to anything that I can label "state Capitalism," because I don't understand how history, politics, or economics work, and need catchy phrases to tell me how to feel about things.
I can't help you with that. Maybe try playing outside?

[bradrn]

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments.

This is probably my financial and economic inexperience showing, but I’m not totally sure what exactly you mean by this. Could you give some concrete examples please? e.g. of how companies would work under this system.

[Travis B.]

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments.

This is probably my financial and economic inexperience showing, but I’m not totally sure what exactly you mean by this. Could you give some concrete examples please? e.g. of how companies would work under this system.

How this would work is that companies are worker-owned and -managed, but the government would have the sole right to inject capital investments into worker-owned and -managed companies. Therefore companies are democratic but at the same time the government has the right to influence them by funding them as it sees fit (but said government itself is also beholden to the people because it is elected by the people.)

[zompist]

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments. That way there is no private ownership of the means of production and no ever-growing exploitative capitalist class. But you also have public oversight over investment, and companies are private enterprises run however they see fit, perhaps even operating as Mondagon-style coops if they want. No command economy, no pig farmers sent to gulag.

I think there's a not-terrible idea here, but honestly I can't tell which of these contradictory things you want. If government owns everything, how are there "private enterprises"? Are they run "however they see fit", or overseen by the government?

Ownership can be separate from management, but you can have an exploitative and self-perpetuating managerial class.

Possible objection 1: wouldn't the government agencies in charge of investing just become the new capital class?
No. They are your employee. They don't own any of the money they manage. They earn a salary. And if they do a shitty job, you fire them.

Possible objection 2: wouldn't this allow the government to dictate what kinds of products get made by not investing in, say, Bud Light Lime or whatever?
Yes, but only if you let them. Law makers can forbid investment agencies from putting all their eggs in one basket, or investing in socially harmful products, etc.

You have a charming faith in 18th century government.

The Big Idea of the 18C was that the people could throw out the current rulers as a group. It's a big advance on monarchy! But it is... not very granular. The only message voters can send is "You're fired", and it's pretty common for them to fire each of two political parties in turn, election after election.

Under current systems, there's no way for voters to say (e.g.) "We love your management of redistribution, but we hate your foreign policy." And in your proposed system, there's no way for voters to offer any finer-grained advice on investment. They'd just get a choice between two broad investment policies.

I imagine you could cut down on some financial excesses with this system-- fewer booms and busts. On the other hand, making investment a matter of politics means making it as contentious and stupid as politics. The easy thing will be to invest in things everybody likes, and refuse to invest in whatever the party in power hates. And in case you haven't looked at any democracies, there is usually some group that both parties hate.

[rotting bones]

Bribery will be so common that firing people won't change anything. They'll probably call it lobbying or something.

At best, experts could help by smoothing off obvious mistakes resulting from mob mentality; provided they can justify their choices in public. Public justification probably means the experts must be elected too. If they must be politicians, then money will probably still interfere with the elections.

(Similarly, if the people elect a machine learning model instead of human experts, then the problem will be brand advertising.)

This is why I'd really prefer that the proportions invested be directly controlled by democratic vote. Like I said, I'd prefer that hiring and firing be controlled by vote too.

This is not state capitalism because "capitalism" implies a profit motive, which is absent in this system. It's democratic statism, but non-capitalist.

(Regarding non-democratic government generally, please refer to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's Dictator's Handbook or better still, The Logic of Political Survival.)

---

The downside to direct democracy is that man is currently the paranoid animal. For a lot of people, supporting a system seems to imply conceiving whatever they support as being under attack by shadowy cabals.

(To a great extent, that's how Athens collapsed. They put Alcibiades in charge of the Sicilian expedition though he implored them not to until the charges against him had been settled, decided while he was away to try and execute him for conspiring against the democracy, and refused to arrest him to avoid disorder in the Sicilian expedition. Naturally, he ran off to Sparta. Also, Athenians really wanted to be masters of an exploitative empire, inviting everyone else to team up against them, etc.)

I don't know how to fix this or whether it's even possible. I'll only say that this is a major difference between the far right and radical leftism. When disaster strikes, the far right blames scapegoats like foreign countries or native minorities like the Jews. Scientific socialism tries to analyze society as a material system and find flaws in the causal chain.

However, it doesn't matter whether Marxist systems thinking is right or wrong. Everyone will never accept it. It takes thousands of pages to explain those theories. Apocalyptic literature is much pithier.

The question is whether it is possible to make enough people accept it. On the one hand, they will suffer if they don't. On the other hand, neither was 20th century Communist propaganda particularly scientific, nor were its methods of dissemination remotely appropriate.

If humans can't behave rationally in a social setting, it's hardly surprising if human societies undergo a general decline and power passes to Jeff Bezos.

[Ares Land]

Oh hey, you guys talkin' about planned economies again? Just thought I'd pop my head in to say the obvious solution again. Maybe someday people will listen.

Yes, that's pretty much a good idea. I'd suggest the following adjustment:

- You set up a bunch of public-sector investors. You could have sovereign funds, state-owned banks. Some companies could be nationalized outright.

The reason you'd have several investors and several modes of public investment is a) to avoid single points of failure: if you have several public banks, a few of these are bound to be sensibly managed. If you got a single big sovereign fund, if it's currently mismanaged, the whole economy tanks. b) it allow for different strategies. The state should probably micromanage the nuclear fuel company and weapons manufacturers but toy manufacturers can be left to decide things on their own.

- Setting up a government monopoly on investment is kind of hard to take on right away, and raises difficult questions. (How about international investment? If I don't know, France decides to switch to your system, do we kick out all of the American and German investors?)
So no government monopoly. You nationalise some banks and start building sovereign funds (a difficult step already) and start building up from there.

- Ideally government investors should make some money off this, and this should be redistributed. So maybe people put their savings into state banks and collect interest. Sovereign funds could fund social programs. (I think Norway's sovereign funds pays for retirement pensions, which sounds reasonable.)

- On corporate management, again, let's bring different people to the board. Companies should be run by a mix of their investors (public or private), their employees, and possibly with representative from other parties (local/state governments, consumer associations, etc.). This should be defined at least by industrial sector. (I think for instance the toxic waste recycling plant should have some of its neighbours on the board!)