5 ms·

A lot of good food for thought here, but then it goes off the rails: > But capitalism needs to keep everyone working at a manic pace, boosting productivity end

A lot of good food for thought here, but then it goes off the rails: > But capitalism needs to keep everyone working at a manic pace, boosting productivity endlessly and recouping none of it in real wage growth, and that requires the concept of the loser. I am no great cheerleader of capitalism, I could go on and on about the way people worship at the alter of "free markets" as if a market is inherently virtuous, but this is utter hogwash. Capitalism does not require the concept of a loser. It's the base human instinct of comparison to ones neighbor that requires the concept of a loser. Making everyone happy and prosperous beyond ones immediate tribe is just not an instinctive goal in large-scale humanity.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Its fairly ironic that the biggest criticism I've seen of continuing education is that academics get really out of touch with the status quo and academia becomes its own weird echo chamber of near nonsense, especially outside the hard sciences. The fact that this guy ended his little essay with a "tear down capitalism and replace it with $failed_communist_lite_ideas" fulfills that prediction. Everyone I know who went to grad school had a "meh, I dont have anything else to do and being a student beats working" attitude as opposed to some cutthroat "fuck you losers" attitude the writer is suggesting. This is a bizarre essay unless you're to the far left and casually blaming everything on capitalism is the only card in your intellectual deck (which is often the case on the internet I'm afraid).
jackcosgrove 11y ago
If everyone's basic needs are covered, and they are free to pursue artistic or otherwise unnecessary pursuits to fulfill themselves, they will fast begin to compete with each other about who is the most artistic, or free-spirited, or creative. Then it will become a game to be gamed, and the sheen will wear off for a lot of people.
- beambot 11y ago
  Aren't artistic endeavors already plagued by this... at least to some extent? Any small microcosm will ultimately generate heated, competitive spirit -- even when the reward is minuscule and virtually meaningless. In other words: people love to compete over stupid shit.
  - ekr 11y ago
    Whether it is minuscule or meaningless is isomorphically equivalent to the question of whether reproduction itself is meaningless. I'd say the meaning in this case is in the eye of the beholder. The physical reality is one and only.
    - beambot 11y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
      - T-A 11y ago
        I guess parent is suggesting the competition over stupid shit is really about signaling reproductive fitness, like a peacock's tail etc.
        svensken 11y ago
        Cool interpretation! I like that concept. But grandparent was definitely trying to deconstruct the word "meaningless", getting a little existential in the process.
- Futurebot 11y ago
  I don't know if this was intended as a criticism or agreement with the person you replied to. Either way, competing on levels that are far removed from the bottom hierarchy of needs is something we should consider a good thing, whether or not the sheen wears off for some people. The problems with our hypercompetition for many of the basics are that it produces cheating because there's such intense pressure to stay/get ahead ("The Cheating Culture"), and that failure can leave you with absolute, rather than just relative, levels of privation. As far as the sheen wearing off, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In extant communities that have no rewards outside of their status hierarchy, people continue to participate, often with great gusto: gaming, stamp collecting, meme creation, drawing, etc. People do them for both intrinsic rewards, and for status rewards only within that hierarchy or in "nearby" hierarchies. Even Trotsky thought "the powerful force of competition which, in bourgeois society, has the character of market competition, will not disappear in a socialist society, but, to use the language of psychoanalysis, will be sublimated, that is, will assume a higher and more fertile form" "individual competition will have the widest scope." In the cases where the sheen does wear off, people can always switch, as they do now, to other areas (get bored of WoW, start playing Dark Souls, or go to a completely different hierarchy [games -> painting].)
fghrthtb 11y ago
"Capitalism does not require the concept of a loser. It's the base human instinct of comparison to ones neighbor that requires the concept of a loser." I would say that both benefit from the concept of a loser. In fact capitalism and this instinct go hand in hand. Capitalism is a frame work which works with this instinct. Having said that it is also true that children have a natural instinct to play with their own faeces. Both this preoccupation with poo and the desire to elevate self at the expense of other should be discouraged. Capitalism sucks, for the reasons eloquently outlined in this article.
- teekert 11y ago
  Capitalism, at it's core, is the freedom to offer people a deal and at the same time the freedom to reject deals. If you create something of value, you are free to ask something of value in return. Anybody is free to pay your price, to try to negotiate or to say no. Capitalism is a system where created value is distributed with the least amount of compromise to freedom. Anything else I feel is sick capitalism, Banks repackaging unsustainable mortgages, hiding their inherent risks is not capitalism, it is lying, obfuscating and misleading. It is crime. Capitalism is someone creating value and others willingly giving up their time and money (their create value) to get that value. Capitalism a beautiful system but it is ill and wrongly labeled in the current world.
  - whateveridunno 11y ago
    The fundamental issue with that line of thinking is that deal-making only works when one of the parties is not under duress. If your life is on the line, you will take terrible deals, because you have no choice. Capitalism is a system where the companies hold all the power and labor holds none- because if labor doesn't take the deal, labor will die. You can't negotiate a fair deal under those circumstances. Which is why you need the government- social safety nets give power back to labor. So do unions. But both have been severely cut back in the past few decades.
    - chrisco255 11y ago
      Anyone can start a company under capitalism. You are empowered to create wealth yourself and enrich yourself from that creation. That's a beautiful thing and should not be taken for granted.
draw_down 11y ago
He is talking about how it actually functions, not the theory of capitalism. It does work that way.
reptation 11y ago
It's hard to imagine a modern concept like "unemployment" without Capitalism, which brought with it boom/bust cycles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises There's very little on that list before the Industrial Revolution
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  The historical terms for "unemployment" would have been beggars and paupers. They certainly existed prior to the term and economic philosophy of Capitalism (big-C) being defined.
- chrisco255 11y ago
  Before capitalism, everyone was gainfully employed in just struggling to survive. #FarmLife
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The parts of capitalism that are worth keeping are the least zero sum of any other system. Unfortunately, "capitalism" has come to cover concepts that really don't belong to it. Culturally, mimetic envy of one's neighbor was explicitly proscribed against in Western systems of though - "thou shalt not covet" - until fairly recently. So what changed? Probably TV advertising.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Or "thou salt not covet" was always bullshit no one really followed and used selectively to shame people who went against the church and to shame the people into tithing, shame the rich to giving up their estates to the church, protect markets/vendors that the church has a stake in, etc. As a student of history I find it amusing when people pick some golden period when things were better or when we look at written records uncritically. From what I can tell, human nature doesn't really change and follows the types of algorithms evolution has inserted into other animals like following game theory-like tactics.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    I plead observer bias - I've noticed the difference in my lifetime. It wasn't some halcyon golden era, but I was raised by people who grew up in the Depression, and they had a certain Puritan streak about material possessions. And TV advertising is just a hobby horse. The first practitioners were "retired" OSS officers, principally propagandists. This certainly fits my desire to avoid it for aesthetic reasons. I'd just note that Prosperity Gospel really is a thing, caused (and carried) by Cable TV.
MattyRad 11y ago
I agree. The article describes pretty interesting cultural problems, makes some interesting points, and then out of nowhere suggests radical political change as the solution. Still worth the read, especially in the context of tech industry, where personally I see it at a crossroads of cubicle-farm vs artistic-expression. Maybe just ignore the last paragraph.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Its fairly ironic that the biggest criticism I've seen of continuing education is that academics get really out of touch with the status quo and academia becomes its own weird echo chamber of near nonsense, especially outside the hard sciences. The fact that this guy ended his little essay with a "tear down capitalism and replace it with $failed_communist_lite_ideas" fulfills that prediction. Everyone I know who went to grad school had a "meh, I dont have anything else to do and being a student beats working" attitude as opposed to some cutthroat "fuck you losers" attitude the writer is suggesting. This is a bizarre essay unless you're to the far left and casually blaming everything on capitalism is the only card in your intellectual deck (which is often the case on the internet I'm afraid).

jackcosgrove 11y ago

If everyone's basic needs are covered, and they are free to pursue artistic or otherwise unnecessary pursuits to fulfill themselves, they will fast begin to compete with each other about who is the most artistic, or free-spirited, or creative. Then it will become a game to be gamed, and the sheen will wear off for a lot of people.

beambot 11y ago
Aren't artistic endeavors already plagued by this... at least to some extent? Any small microcosm will ultimately generate heated, competitive spirit -- even when the reward is minuscule and virtually meaningless. In other words: people love to compete over stupid shit.
- ekr 11y ago
  Whether it is minuscule or meaningless is isomorphically equivalent to the question of whether reproduction itself is meaningless. I'd say the meaning in this case is in the eye of the beholder. The physical reality is one and only.
  - beambot 11y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
    - T-A 11y ago
      I guess parent is suggesting the competition over stupid shit is really about signaling reproductive fitness, like a peacock's tail etc.
      - svensken 11y ago
        Cool interpretation! I like that concept. But grandparent was definitely trying to deconstruct the word "meaningless", getting a little existential in the process.
Futurebot 11y ago
I don't know if this was intended as a criticism or agreement with the person you replied to. Either way, competing on levels that are far removed from the bottom hierarchy of needs is something we should consider a good thing, whether or not the sheen wears off for some people. The problems with our hypercompetition for many of the basics are that it produces cheating because there's such intense pressure to stay/get ahead ("The Cheating Culture"), and that failure can leave you with absolute, rather than just relative, levels of privation. As far as the sheen wearing off, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In extant communities that have no rewards outside of their status hierarchy, people continue to participate, often with great gusto: gaming, stamp collecting, meme creation, drawing, etc. People do them for both intrinsic rewards, and for status rewards only within that hierarchy or in "nearby" hierarchies. Even Trotsky thought "the powerful force of competition which, in bourgeois society, has the character of market competition, will not disappear in a socialist society, but, to use the language of psychoanalysis, will be sublimated, that is, will assume a higher and more fertile form" "individual competition will have the widest scope." In the cases where the sheen does wear off, people can always switch, as they do now, to other areas (get bored of WoW, start playing Dark Souls, or go to a completely different hierarchy [games -> painting].)

fghrthtb 11y ago

"Capitalism does not require the concept of a loser. It's the base human instinct of comparison to ones neighbor that requires the concept of a loser." I would say that both benefit from the concept of a loser. In fact capitalism and this instinct go hand in hand. Capitalism is a frame work which works with this instinct. Having said that it is also true that children have a natural instinct to play with their own faeces. Both this preoccupation with poo and the desire to elevate self at the expense of other should be discouraged. Capitalism sucks, for the reasons eloquently outlined in this article.

teekert 11y ago
Capitalism, at it's core, is the freedom to offer people a deal and at the same time the freedom to reject deals. If you create something of value, you are free to ask something of value in return. Anybody is free to pay your price, to try to negotiate or to say no. Capitalism is a system where created value is distributed with the least amount of compromise to freedom. Anything else I feel is sick capitalism, Banks repackaging unsustainable mortgages, hiding their inherent risks is not capitalism, it is lying, obfuscating and misleading. It is crime. Capitalism is someone creating value and others willingly giving up their time and money (their create value) to get that value. Capitalism a beautiful system but it is ill and wrongly labeled in the current world.
- whateveridunno 11y ago
  The fundamental issue with that line of thinking is that deal-making only works when one of the parties is not under duress. If your life is on the line, you will take terrible deals, because you have no choice. Capitalism is a system where the companies hold all the power and labor holds none- because if labor doesn't take the deal, labor will die. You can't negotiate a fair deal under those circumstances. Which is why you need the government- social safety nets give power back to labor. So do unions. But both have been severely cut back in the past few decades.
  - chrisco255 11y ago
    Anyone can start a company under capitalism. You are empowered to create wealth yourself and enrich yourself from that creation. That's a beautiful thing and should not be taken for granted.

draw_down 11y ago

He is talking about how it actually functions, not the theory of capitalism. It does work that way.

reptation 11y ago

It's hard to imagine a modern concept like "unemployment" without Capitalism, which brought with it boom/bust cycles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises There's very little on that list before the Industrial Revolution

Jtsummers 11y ago
The historical terms for "unemployment" would have been beggars and paupers. They certainly existed prior to the term and economic philosophy of Capitalism (big-C) being defined.
chrisco255 11y ago
Before capitalism, everyone was gainfully employed in just struggling to survive. #FarmLife

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

The parts of capitalism that are worth keeping are the least zero sum of any other system. Unfortunately, "capitalism" has come to cover concepts that really don't belong to it. Culturally, mimetic envy of one's neighbor was explicitly proscribed against in Western systems of though - "thou shalt not covet" - until fairly recently. So what changed? Probably TV advertising.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Or "thou salt not covet" was always bullshit no one really followed and used selectively to shame people who went against the church and to shame the people into tithing, shame the rich to giving up their estates to the church, protect markets/vendors that the church has a stake in, etc. As a student of history I find it amusing when people pick some golden period when things were better or when we look at written records uncritically. From what I can tell, human nature doesn't really change and follows the types of algorithms evolution has inserted into other animals like following game theory-like tactics.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I plead observer bias - I've noticed the difference in my lifetime. It wasn't some halcyon golden era, but I was raised by people who grew up in the Depression, and they had a certain Puritan streak about material possessions. And TV advertising is just a hobby horse. The first practitioners were "retired" OSS officers, principally propagandists. This certainly fits my desire to avoid it for aesthetic reasons. I'd just note that Prosperity Gospel really is a thing, caused (and carried) by Cable TV.

MattyRad 11y ago

I agree. The article describes pretty interesting cultural problems, makes some interesting points, and then out of nowhere suggests radical political change as the solution. Still worth the read, especially in the context of tech industry, where personally I see it at a crossroads of cubicle-farm vs artistic-expression. Maybe just ignore the last paragraph.