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

[Travis B.]

In reality, while many third world countries are autocratic, they are also incompetent to the extent that it balances out. For example, in India, citizens fear to enter politics because they are afraid of being killed. At the same time, it is much easier to steal things that you need. This is very obvious in the realm of intellectual properties. Copyright laws basically don't exist. If you don't want to steal, many of the local political leaders will really help you out if you ask them by getting you money and jobs. They won't dismiss you as Nietzschean untermensch. They will probably expect you to return the favor by attending their political rallies.

These sorts of things get in the way of attempting to become more advanced economically, though; corruption skims large amounts of money off the economy that could otherwise go into further development and ultimately puts it in the hands of the rich. (Of course the rich skim off money in their own way in developed countries.)

[rotting bones]

No, I haven't; though rereading a summary and zompist's review, there doesn't seem to be anything in Galbraith I disagree with!

If I have the right book, I swear it reads more like this thread than zompist's summary: https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-predator-s ... 61021.html

[rotting bones]

These sorts of things get in the way of attempting to become more advanced economically, though; corruption skims large amounts of money off the economy that could otherwise go into further development and ultimately puts it in the hands of the rich.

I agree completely. This is why I think the focus should be on economics more than cultural goals like decentralization over autocracy.

[Travis B.]

Regarding co-ops: While I support co-ops under democratic socialism, I want to add a reminder that just having a market with co-ops is not sufficient to create jobs by popular demand rather than profitability. There is no reason to think that this won't reproduce many of the other dynamics of capitalist competition including artificial scarcity.

This is why democratic government needs to maintain influence over the economy, in this case by deliberately encouraging the development of worker co-ops and promoting the development of a socialist economy, e.g. through selectively investing in them.

There is also a rhetorical problem with co-ops. Every time you bring up co-ops, the religious right parrots the line that since the Mondragon Corporation was founded by a Catholic priest, this proves that solidarity is only possible on religious terms. Therefore, we must ban abortion and essentially split the world into "civilizational" theocracies if we want to take power back from the wealthy.

I agree that this argument is nonsense, but that doesn't matter. Under capitalism, demand is expressed by the wealthy. If the wealthy want to spread religion, then voting for religion might create more opportunities in the short term even for co-ops. Compare the spread of Islamic fundamentalism from Saudi Arabia.

I have never seen this argument made. If anything, worker co-ops are a wacky left-wing thing to most Americans, if they even realize that they are a possibility in the first place.

Regarding technology: I am in favor of technology. It is a great help if revenue generated by automated production makes everyone richer. Whether it does is a political question, not a scientific, technological or cultural one.

In a market socialist economy, automation would either reduce the amount of work the members of worker co-ops would have to do or enable the worker co-ops to have a greater amount of production for the same number of workers, rather than enable enterprises to lay off workers so as to increase profits, because workers would not lay off themselves just because they have less work to do or can do more work more efficiently.

[rotting bones]

I have never seen this argument made. If anything, worker co-ops are a wacky left-wing thing to most Americans, if they even realize that they are a possibility in the first place.

One place where I heard it was in an old Ben Burgis debate that I once watched to waste time. I wouldn't recommend seeking out examples. I found none of them particularly illuminating. Just be aware that the argument exists and may resurface if co-ops become salient.

I agree with everything else.

[MacAnDàil]

(From an environmental perspective though... I'm not sure we came out ahead. I'm not terribly happy about the way this essentially enabled Chinese authoritarianism to look like The Way of the Future (TM). And of course it essentially destroyed social-democracy, with IMO dire consequences ahead.)

Stuff like this is why I am not fond of Third World-ism. I hear arguments that Third World countries ought to be enabled to continue to destroy the environment while developed countries make some attempt to slow down their destruction of the environment in order to "catch up" with developed countries, arguments to which I am opposed as we need to stop the destruction of the environment ASAP, globally, and I honestly am unsympathetic with any supposed right to "catch up" in that light. Likewise, Third World-ism seems to downplay the importance of liberal democracy, something to which I am opposed, as many of the leading Third World countries are less liberal than most developed countries or are even outright autocratic.

I have heard of this argument but did not get the impression that the argument is associated with Third-World-ism. Instead, I got the impression that it is part of general excuses for not dealing with the climate crisis.

[communistplot]

Yeah, no third-worldism is generally the belief that western, advanced capitalist nations are no longer capable of undergoing socialist revolution and that the global north's workers are more like the capitalist class than the rest of the world's working class.

In a market socialist economy, automation would either reduce the amount of work the members of worker co-ops would have to do or enable the worker co-ops to have a greater amount of production for the same number of workers, rather than enable enterprises to lay off workers so as to increase profits, because workers would not lay off themselves just because they have less work to do or can do more work more efficiently.

This would be true in any socialist society. I'm personally more in favor of a decentralized communism with societal decisions being made centrally. So like, what to produce and how much would be determined at the local level by those who actually do the work. Automation and computing does a great deal to make that a reality.

[Travis B.]

Yeah, no third-worldism is generally the belief that western, advanced capitalist nations are no longer capable of undergoing socialist revolution and that the global north's workers are more like the capitalist class than the rest of the world's working class.

Third world-ism as I understand it seeks to replace viewing the divide as being between capitalist and worker with viewing the divide as being between global north and global south, with both the capitalists and the workers of the global north being seen as exploiting the global south.

[communistplot]

Well yes, but only due to the belief that the global north no longer has revolutionary potential because our workers are too comfortable. Haven't seen a serious one in a long time tho, not since we banned them off r/socialism.

[Travis B.]

Well yes, but only due to the belief that the global north no longer has revolutionary potential because our workers are too comfortable. Haven't seen a serious one in a long time tho, not since we banned them off r/socialism.

See, what we don't need is the workers of the global north and the workers of the global south being turned against one another, which is something that populists do for their own political gain.

[communistplot]

Well yes, but only due to the belief that the global north no longer has revolutionary potential because our workers are too comfortable. Haven't seen a serious one in a long time tho, not since we banned them off r/socialism.

See, what we don't need is the workers of the global north and the workers of the global south being turned against one another, which is something that populists do for their own political gain.

You'll find no argument from me there. The quote was 'Workers of the World unite!' not 'Workers of the Global South unite!' Thirdworldists will never get that.

[mèþru]

I'm starting to feel that there may not be a point in my continued participation in the thread. It feels that it has become a necessary prior that private ownership is evil, firing people is inherently wrong etc.

[Ares Land]

I'm starting to feel that there may not be a point in my continued participation in the thread. It feels that it has become a necessary prior that private ownership is evil, firing people is inherently wrong etc.

Well, I don't think so. I did participate quite a bit after all, even though I'm fairly skeptical of socialism (at least of the Marxist persuasion). Actually I like these kind of debates: I don't think anyone's really going to be convinced, but everyone learns something.

FWIW: I don't think private ownership is evil. But it shouldn't be sacred either, which how it's currently being treated. As for firing: over here it's difficult to fire someone. Like all policies, it has its strong points and its weak ones. On the whole I'd say our system is beneficial.

[mèþru]

I definitely don't agree with how easy it is to fire people in the US. What I meant was that the ability to fire unproductive workers is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I don't think private ownership is evil. But it shouldn't be sacred either, which how it's currently being treated.

I think a great deal of this issue is contextual, too. I often think distributism is at least a hypothetically good idea; concentrated private ownership of the means of production strikes me as harmful, but private ownership of some form of it does not, I think, have to be. I do like the idea of the public owning some stake in it.

I've also, incidentally, come upon the idea that the return on an investment should be finite, rather than hypothetically infinite, as it currently is, changing stocks to work more like government bonds that can reach maturity and be paid out at a certain point, enabling one investing in a successful enterprise to still recoup it, simply not in perpetuity.

As for firing: over here it's difficult to fire someone. Like all policies, it has its strong points and its weak ones. On the whole I'd say our system is beneficial.

Since firing is easy on my end, it's a very powerful tool of control. I wish it were much more difficult than it is. What is a minor headache for the employer is a major hurdle for labour.

[Ares Land]

I definitely don't agree with how easy it is to fire people in the US. What I meant was that the ability to fire unproductive workers is not necessarily a bad thing.

I agree; I work in the public sector where firing people is impossible. One of the consequences is that workplace bullies -- and worse kinds of people(*) -- stick around forever.

[Ares Land]

I don't think private ownership is evil. But it shouldn't be sacred either, which how it's currently being treated.

I think a great deal of this issue is contextual, too. I often think distributism is at least a hypothetically good idea; concentrated private ownership of the means of production strikes me as harmful, but private ownership of some form of it does not, I think, have to be. I do like the idea of the public owning some stake in it.

Another instance of private property being a sacred cow is how a top marginal tax rate of 75% was shot down as unconstitutional over here. The word used was 'confiscation'.
I'm all in favor of the government not showing up and taking your stuff away, but frankly nobody gets a god-given right to being a billionaire when we got people sleeping in the streets and trouble running the hospitals.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

...nobody gets a god-given right to being a billionaire when we got people sleeping in the streets and trouble running the hospitals.

No argument there; I like the idea of everybody having some productive means (provided it's something they can actually use), but the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few — especially on such a rebarbative scale — threatens to take us back to all the problems of the ancien régime, including its disastrous end.

[mèþru]

I don't think billionaires should be allowed to exist, period.

[Travis B.]

About private property, I make the distinction between property and possession - property is defined by title, possession is defined by use. A factory owned by a capitalist is property; a factory owned collectively by the workers who work there is possession. Likewise, an apartment building owned by a landlord is property; an apartment building owned collectively by its tenants is possession.