Zompist Bboard Again

Torco wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:44 pmsee global warming, recycling and foreign aid for a detailed study in the pointlessness of market solutions to problems where the problem is, well capitalism.

Hmm, when it comes to environmental issues, I'd say the problem is not simply capitalism, but more generally, modern technological society, which has historically existed in both capitalist and centrally-planned varieties - and, to put it politely, the centrally-planned varieties weren't known for their strict adherence to environmental standards.

(For the record, I'm open to having non-capitalist societies, but environmental issues have to be tackled separately - "environmentally friendly/environmentally destructive" is an axis orthogonal to the "capitalist/non-capitalist" axis.)

EDIT: For anyone discovering this thread later: it was originally a discussion in the US politics thread that got split into its own thread

I'm very partial myself to the idea of a capitalist economy with some institutions nationalized / run on socialist lines, and a free market regulated through labor laws, sanitary and environmental regulation, and some state investment when needed. It's a fairly bland model, granted, but it gets results.

Torco wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:44 pm Also, I think Moose is right: capitalists are gonna capitalist, and you can't regulate yourself out of the contradictions inherent in the system.

I don't know, in Western Europe, a great deal was achieved that way. Labor laws did a great deal more towards alleviating the exploitation of man by man than any revolution.

It's tempting to throw out the entire system as irredeemably corrupt, but actually the rather simple-minded approach of outlawing problematic situations turns out to work pretty well.

(In other words, in the late 19th century we had kids working in mines. To the communist the solution was dictatorship of the proletariat. The capitalist insisted that you couldn't do mine-working without children, that the children were happy to work there anyway, and that they weren't children at all, just very short coal miners. What really needed to be done was to actually outlaw child labor.)

Also, I think Moose is right: capitalists are gonna capitalist, and you can't regulate yourself out of the contradictions inherent in the system.

I don't know, in Western Europe, a great deal was achieved that way. Labor laws did a great deal more towards alleviating the exploitation of man by man than any revolution.

Yes and no. Within Europe, results are very mixed on wealth inequality, which is what actually matters. What Europe has done well is provide either a high minimum quality of life, or high income equality, or both (i.e. society-wide transfer payments from owners to non-owners). No one would suggest that these things are impossible under Capitalism, because the rich can always choose to be charitable. This is the gilded cage that Communists have been talking about for over a century. The problem is that you're trusting them to stay charitable forever. What happens in the Netherlands when the tiny class that owns everything sees their fortunes fall due to global catastrophe? What obligates them to eat that catastrophe themselves and not hand it off to their serfs?

This is not a case of the rich feeling charitable: the transfers of income are legally enforced!

But I agree with you that wealth inequality is a problem right now. Solutions exist (see Piketty's reasonable proposals for examples).

Right now, though, we're not even at the stage where the rich would resist these... In fact they can feel quite safe, because the problem is that people are, in general, not interested and consistently favor conservative candidates...

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:39 am This is not a case of the rich feeling charitable: the transfers of income are legally enforced!

Or, to paraphrase:
"It's not charity when Susan gives to the Red Cross, because it is demanded by her desire to give to the Red Cross!"
If you give rich people total control over your society, political authority forcing them to do something is just the right hand moving the left. This is more obvious in times of economic distress. In the US, the neoconservative revolution and dismantling of the New Deal took place shortly after the investments of the wealthy took a long-term dip in the form of lowered economic growth relative to inflation in the 70s. If, say, Sweden sees its capital investments stagnate for several years in a row, are you really expecting the small number of individuals who literally own the country to cut their own throat (i.e. bankrupt themselves paying for social programs that they could just defund) because it is "legally enforced" (by themselves)? That is beyond naive.

Here in France the rich are very influential... But they don't run the country. They certainly wish they were, but a quick look at the whining in any right wing rag will tell you they think they're living in a communist hell hole where socialist bureaucrats have absolue power and they are not happy.
They don't have absolute power. If they had, the 35 work week and the five weeks of vacation would have long been repelled, believe me.

I don't know how things are in the US (certainly further along the road to plutocracy), admittedly.

The rich can enforce their agenda when the voters let them do it. Reagan and Thatcher were elected by a majority, not the 1%.
In France left-wing governments ended in electoral humiliation.

Basically inequality is rising, not because it is a Law of Nature or because the rich have absplute power but because currently people tend to vote, knowingly, in favor of more inequality and less money for social programs.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:58 am Here in France the rich are very influential... But they don't run the country. They certainly wish they were, but a quick look at the whining in any right wing rag will tell you they think they're living in a communist hell hole where socialist bureaucrats have absolue power and they are not happy.

My impression is that that kind of whining is common is the US, too.

Raphael: Pre-technological societies suffered from environmental collapse all the time. The environment has never been stable and it wouldn't have reciprocated if we had taken care of it. In general, there is no justice in the world. Whatever happens just happens by the math.

Ares Land: I agree that many people support capitalism. The point is, the incentive structure promoting capitalism against our self-interest is created top-down by capitalism. Instead of "that's what people think", our response, as Moose-tache said, should be to create an educated working class movement to defend our interests against capitalism.

Also, recent "left-wing" governments in France weren't particularly left-wing. Or effective, for that matter. It's hardly surprising that they lost. My impression is that contemporary "leftism" has become so pseudo-ethical that it has lost touch with the facts of material reality. We should turn away from the humanities and return to scientific socialism.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:35 pm Raphael: Pre-technological societies suffered from environmental collapse all the time. The environment has never been stable and it wouldn't have reciprocated if we had taken care of it. In general, there is no justice in the world. Whatever happens just happens by the math.

Ares Land: I agree that many people support capitalism. The point is, the incentive structure promoting capitalism against our self-interest is created top-down by capitalism. Instead of "that's what people think", our response, as Moose-tache said, should be to create an educated working class movement to defend our interests against capitalism.

Also, recent "left-wing" governments in France weren't particularly left-wing. Or effective, for that matter. It's hardly surprising that they lost. My impression is that contemporary "leftism" has become so pseudo-ethical that it has lost touch with the facts of material reality. We should turn away from the humanities and return to scientific socialism.

One thing to remember is that a lot of modern "left-wing" governments still buy into neoliberalism, and so those disaffected with neoliberalism buy into the policies espoused by supposed populists, even when said populists are actually just as neoliberal as the supposed left-wingers. Additionally, modern "liberals" have in many cases become sufficiently tied up in identitarian causes that are liable to alienate those who do not belong to the most oppressed that said liberals claim to champion.

Of course, the solution is to champion socialism. The advantage of socialism over identitarian causes is that it favors the actual interests of the very many rather than the supposed interests of the few, and in doing so, is not liable to alienate those who do not belong to those few. Unfortunately, socialism has come to be associated with either big-C Communism, and thus authoritarianism, on one hand, and watered-down social democracy, which in turn has often become associated with neoliberalism, on the other hand. What is needed is a socialism that is true socialism based on worker ownership and self-management of capital, to protect the workers' interests, and democracy, to protect the interests of consumers, society, and the environment. The problem is that convincing the public of this is easier said than done, because the Soviet period on one hand and European social democracy on the other have done much to convince them of one or the other.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:00 pm One thing to remember is that a lot of modern "left-wing" governments still buy into neoliberalism, and so those disaffected with neoliberalism buy into the policies espoused by supposed populists, even when said populists are actually just as neoliberal as the supposed left-wingers. Additionally, modern "liberals" have in many cases become sufficiently tied up in identitarian causes that are liable to alienate those who do not belong to the most oppressed that said liberals claim to champion.

Of course, the solution is to champion socialism. The advantage of socialism over identitarian causes is that it favors the actual interests of the very many rather than the supposed interests of the few, and in doing so, is not liable to alienate those who do not belong to those few. Unfortunately, socialism has come to be associated with either big-C Communism, and thus authoritarianism, on one hand, and watered-down social democracy, which in turn has often become associated with neoliberalism, on the other hand. What is needed is a socialism that is true socialism based on worker ownership and self-management of capital, to protect the workers' interests, and democratic, to protect the interests of consumers, society, and the environment. The problem is that convincing the public of this is easier said than done, because the Soviet period on one hand and European social democracy on the other have done much to convince them of one or the other.

Does propaganda really make that much of a difference? The media said Trump was terrible, and lots of people loved him for that very reason. The way I see it, capitalism wins because it really has us by the balls. Eg:

1. Irresponsible options are made temporarily cheap by state policy collaborating with the interests of big oil.

2. People go to live in suburbia because they have no other choice.

3. They cling to policies that defend low gas prices. Some go as far as to say they are fighting for their way of life.

Can't we educate people to evaluate the reliability of citations and send them on their own journey? I've consumed all kinds of media produced by "intellectual elitists" (Nazis) to "radical centrists" (neoliberals) to "democratic centralists" (Stalinists). I mechanically checked the facts they cited, and democratic socialism just happens to make the most sense to me by this time.

Fully agree that Capitalism creates its own crises and then offers to sell us the solution to the problem it created. Yellow vests are a great example. Examples from the US are... the entirety of any US history book.

As for the capital class not "running the country," again this is naive. A person who has a knife to your throat doesn't need you to give them power of attorney to be in charge. I already gave the example of the US in the 1980s. Corporate profits relative to inflation dropped in the 1970s. High taxes on capital gains, income, and inheritance, along with government protections for unions, meant that the wealthy were legally obligated to eat a shit sandwich. Guess who ended up eating that sandwich over the following forty years? Sure, the rich winged and moaned about Socialism the whole time, but that was part of the strategy to manipulate poor people. One of them even dressed up as a cowboy to trick poor people, and it worked. There are certainly countries that have weathered economic downturns without becoming neoliberal dystopias, but this is a danger that every country faces when they allow themselves to be literally owned by a small number of private individuals. Why even roll the dice?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:11 am As for the capital class not "running the country," again this is naive.
A person who has a knife to your throat doesn't need you to give them power of attorney to be in charge. I already gave the example of the US in the 1980s.

Very well, cure me of that naivete. How exactly did the capital class force 50% of Americans to vote Reagan twice?

If so, how come France at the time actually elected democratic socialists? (A socialist-communist coalition, even!)? Was it not a capitalist country?
At the time, West Germany elected Helmut Kohl, who granted was a conservative, but at no point a Reaganian. (In fact Schröder was probably more into deregulation, and he was elected in a economic boom...)
Basically the rich got to enact their agenda (*) in some countries, but not all of them. There's obviously something else than just capitalism at work here.

(*) Even then, not entirely so. Thatcher didn't get to do everything she'd have liked to...

Sure, the rich winged and moaned about Socialism the whole time, but that was part of the strategy to manipulate poor people.

Do you have any evidence that it was a strategy, as opposed to sincerely felt?

One of them even dressed up as a cowboy to trick poor people, and it worked. There are certainly countries that have weathered economic downturns without becoming neoliberal dystopias, but this is a danger that every country faces when they allow themselves to be literally owned by a small number of private individuals. Why even roll the dice?

The choice is between trying to regulate capitalism, an imperfect solution -- but one that got results, or trying to get rid of capitalism entirely.
Regulating capitalism indeed runs into a risk of having a neoliberal dystopia on your hands.

Getting rid of capitalism entirely has always ended into the kind of regime that defines dystopia. (And it should be pointed out the neoliberal dystopia prevents people from getting in while socialist dystopia forbid people from leaving...)

Why even roll the dice?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:51 pm 1. Irresponsible options are made temporarily cheap by state policy collaborating with the interests of big oil..

I should add that capitalism wasn't the only system to make the mistake. Eastern block countries certainly took advantage of cheap oil!
They didn't quite get into cars the way we did, true, but it's hardly something to be proud about: they just weren't very good at building cars...

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:35 pm Ares Land: I agree that many people support capitalism. The point is, the incentive structure promoting capitalism against our self-interest is created top-down by capitalism. Instead of "that's what people think", our response, as Moose-tache said, should be to create an educated working class movement to defend our interests against capitalism.

What exactly is that incentive structure, and how is it created by capitalism?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:00 pm One thing to remember is that a lot of modern "left-wing" governments still buy into neoliberalism, and so those disaffected with neoliberalism buy into the policies espoused by supposed populists, even when said populists are actually just as neoliberal as the supposed left-wingers. Additionally, modern "liberals" have in many cases become sufficiently tied up in identitarian causes that are liable to alienate those who do not belong to the most oppressed that said liberals claim to champion.

Very unpopular opinion: that myth need to be laid down to rest. People vote for racist populists because they find racism congenial. Period.
I know a fair amount of 'disaffected' people. Granted they are alienated by liberalism... but they're mostly single-issue voters, alienated by having to see foreigners and people of the wrong skin color.
They didn't start voting for populists because they were disappointed by the left; they vote for populists because racism has for quite some time now been an acceptable campaign proposal

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:35 pm Also, recent "left-wing" governments in France weren't particularly left-wing. Or effective, for that matter. It's hardly surprising that they lost.

.

Jospin's government from1998 to 2002 was fairly left-wing and effective. It lost due to a host of factors, but ultimately it came down to not being seen as tough enough on crime and immigration. (A right wing concern).
Hollande's presidency was neither left wing nor effective. This came down to an internal power struggle between centrists and left-wingers in the socialist party.
The left-wingers won the party nomination in the primary... and polled at an humiliating 6%.
The centrist followed Macron, who won the election. The second round was a contest between the far-right and the center-right.
It doesn't really look like people were clamoring for dictatorship of the proletariat in 2002.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:35 pm My impression is that contemporary "leftism" has become so pseudo-ethical that it has lost touch with the facts of material reality. We should turn away from the humanities and return to scientific socialism.

The problem is, the contemporary left is divided into factions that are unwilling to compromise, and demands immediate miraculous solution to all the ills in the world anytime a left-winger manages somehow to be elected.
Right wingers are open to all kinds of unholy alliances, are willing to vote even for candidates they personally hate, and hail even the slightest hint of success, or even a particularly funny tweet as exceptional statesmanship unrivaled since Churchill. No wonder one side consistently wins!

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:35 pm Raphael: Pre-technological societies suffered from environmental collapse all the time. The environment has never been stable

No disagreement there; I was responding to Torco's apparent assertion that environmental problems are all caused by capitalism and would go away without it.

and it wouldn't have reciprocated if we had taken care of it.

In this case, I'm not at all sure what you mean. What do you mean?

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:57 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:00 pm One thing to remember is that a lot of modern "left-wing" governments still buy into neoliberalism, and so those disaffected with neoliberalism buy into the policies espoused by supposed populists, even when said populists are actually just as neoliberal as the supposed left-wingers. Additionally, modern "liberals" have in many cases become sufficiently tied up in identitarian causes that are liable to alienate those who do not belong to the most oppressed that said liberals claim to champion.

Very unpopular opinion: that myth need to be laid down to rest. People vote for racist populists because they find racism congenial. Period.
I know a fair amount of 'disaffected' people. Granted they are alienated by liberalism... but they're mostly single-issue voters, alienated by having to see foreigners and people of the wrong skin color.
They didn't start voting for populists because they were disappointed by the left; they vote for populists because racism has for quite some time now been an acceptable campaign proposal

Were that true, then said people would have always voted for racist populists, and never for left-wingers, so how did purportedly left-wing governments get in power in the past in the first place?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:39 am

Were that true, then said people would have always voted for racist populists, and never for left-wingers, so how did purportedly left-wing governments get in power in the past in the first place?

Sorry for speaking about France again... It's likely to be where I can make the best analysis.

Back in 2012 Sarkozy alienated the center because he was a narcissistic asshole. And the right because he wasn't racist enough.
In 1997 the conservatives lost because again, they had alienated the center by reneging on electoral promises.

Former left wing strongholds did turn over to the FN. But that was in the 70s, to some extent the 80s. Later FN voters couldn't vote yet or weren't even born. Besides at the time, racism was a non issue. There weren't enough immigrants to be concerned about, the far right were embarrassing former Waffen SS, everyone could be assumed to be kinda racist by default regardless of their politics.
(for that matter the communist party - then a force to be reckoned with! - was calling for an end to immigration)

In 2017 being fascist was something cool kids did. A fairly surprising development, unimaginable back when people had lived through WWII.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:57 amGranted they are alienated by liberalism... but they're mostly single-issue voters, alienated by having to see foreigners and people of the wrong skin color.

Brother, when you're right you're right.

The question I have is that if most people are a bunch of racists, then why did they vote Obama into office, and then reelect him? Yes, there were the people constantly making noise about him not being a real American etc. etc. etc., but there were not enough of them for him to not get elected then reelected.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 3:42 pm The question I have is that if most people are a bunch of racists, then why did they vote Obama into office, and then reelect him? Yes, there were the people constantly making noise about him not being a real American etc. etc. etc., but there were not enough of them for him to not get elected then reelected.

I don't mean that most people are racist. Only those who buy into populism!

I don't know nearly enough about US politics, but I'm betting there's not a lot of overlap between Obama voters and Trump voters.

(It looks like Trump squeezed by in 2016 on the usual Republican electoral base? Did he actually win over a substantial number of Obama voters? I don't remember hearing he did.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:43 pm In 2017 being fascist was something cool kids did. A fairly surprising development, unimaginable back when people had lived through WWII.

That last bit is the key. When people knew actual fascists, had fought them, had been bombed by them, had seen the camps, then they despised fascists. But that generation has pretty much died off.

This is an important pattern in modern history: as soon as a catastrophe recedes from historical memory, we repeat it. When the Napoleonic wars were forgotten, Europe was ready for a new set of wars. When the failure of plutocracy in the 1920s was forgotten, we got Reaganism/Thatcherism. When no one remembered the 1919 flu epidemic, we were left unready for a new global pandemic.

How to solve this one isn't obvious. The usual solution is "education", but most things we teach students don't take. On the other hand, we don't try very hard. In some ways we need a new religion: one of the things religion is good at is preserving a sense of alarm about things that may or may not be happening. That's often been used for regressive purposes, but it could be used for progressive ones. Non-religious alternatives (writing a really incisive blog post/movie/college course) are not as effective.

Raphael: Eg. We wouldn't be safe if we had refrained from altering the environment.

Ares Land: It doesn't look to me like Jospin secured workers' ownership of the means of production. By left-wing, do you mean capitalism with regulations? By its nature, capitalism pits workers against each other: classes, "races", nationalities, you name it. The majority is incentivized to limit immigration to reduce competition for jobs. The socialist solution would be to implement near-complete employment internationally, producing goods voted for by the people.

Your general outlook would have had merit if countries were autarkic entities. In reality, the high standard of living in first world countries is dependent on the third world. In the US, the living standards of the poor are much lower than that of the middle class, making them potential supporters of left-wing policies. That's why laws are framed in such a way that only a fraction of the US population is receives the opportunity to vote and it always disenfranchises the poor. Eg. Registering to vote requires a home address in some states, and many Indian reservations have only PO boxes. In many poor areas, the local rich people disproportionately have a greater opportunity to vote.

While it is admittedly difficult to hold the majority accountable to minorities in a democracy, many of the populations that serve as a base of support for racists vote for the old left too. This leads me to suspect that these reactions are, to an extent, failed revolutions. The left-wing these people can't abide are those who make a big show of, say, getting rid of Richard Stallman for defending Marvin Minsky and pretend that society has become just afterwards. It is in the interests of small proprietors (petite bourgeoisie) to offer national or racial solidarity as an alternative to any political left that alienates poor people.

Of course, at this level of detail, what I've written is inevitably a mixture of facts, theory and speculation. Parts of it are almost certainly wrong. However, this is the general direction I'm coming from.

I've explained capitalist incentive structures, accountability problems in totalitarian regimes and the broad nature of democracy in rants many pages long and the thought of rehashing it all makes me queasy. Forgive me if this sounds presumptuous, but it looks to me like either 1. there is a disagreement somewhere in the presuppositions or 2. your understanding of the background needed to grasp this material is a bit shaky. Either way, here's a somewhat naive right-wing source that provides an accessible introduction to the fundamentals: https://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/The ... ndbook.pdf For a more advanced framework, mechanism design is the formal study of setting the rules of a competition to produce predetermined outcomes (often represented as maximizing profit in an auction of arbitrary complexity): https://www.pdfdrive.com/search?q=game+ ... rchin=&em=