3 ms·

What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it w

by Tharre 10y ago

What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it would change anything.

blowski 10y ago
There are a lot of different political systems - it's not a binary choice between unregulated capitalism and communism dictatorship. For example - democratic socialism, regulatory capitalism, state capitalism, etc. I have no idea how it will happen, but I hope we won't need a bloody revolution to reduce the influence of finance and economic markets on modern life.
- Tharre 10y ago
  You misunderstood me. I don't argue that there is a binary choice, nor do I argue that unregulated capitalism is what we need. I'm merely arguing that corruption isn't inherently tied to capitalism or any other economic system. That Governments will always be corrupt. Meaning that blaming capitalism for being "corrupt" is about as productive as blaming people for being selfish.
  - blowski 10y ago
    Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. But the current version of capitalism dominant in the world is corrupt, and desperately needs radical change. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many well-thought out alternatives with good leaders - so we end up with Trump and Farage peddling demagoguery.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally the corruption of government to organize society and basic law (especially property relations) to favor the narrow, capitalist class, which is the fact for which critics of capitalism coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system corrupted in that way.
      - blowski 10y ago
        You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism. It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
        blowski 10y ago
        You sound quite interested and interesting on this topic. Any recommended reading? I'm a bit of a lefty, but don't see any particular innovation - the fight is between those who prioritise 'being electable' (Clinton, Blair) because you can't change anything if you're not in power, and those who focus on emphasising the genuine problems (Sanders, Corbyn) but are unlikely to gain power. Neither seem to have any real solutions, it's just a matter how much they tap into the anger and frustration of the non-elites. Trump, Farage, Le Pen mine that frustration much deeper but don't seem to have any wide-ranging agenda beyond protecting the elites while pretending to do the opposite.
      - 10y ago
siavosh 10y ago
If you look at the post-war period, from 1946 till 1970s/early 1980s, the US has a much more progressive tax rate, and there was more bank regulation. It was also coincidentally the golden age of American economics. Since the 1980's, taxes have become more and more regressive and regulation on all fronts against corporate excess and distortion of markets has increased. Government has a very important role in capitalism (bust monopolies, ensure companies compete fairly etc). Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises. Many would argue that capitalism has been corrupted through a corruption of politics.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  >Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises There were some pretty deep recessions in the 50's and 70's. With the very important exception of the great recession, this doesn't really hold up against inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...

by Tharre 10y ago

What is the opposite then? You can imagine a lot, but I don't see how telling the very same people that were supposedly corrupted by capitalism to regulate it would change anything.

blowski 10y ago

There are a lot of different political systems - it's not a binary choice between unregulated capitalism and communism dictatorship. For example - democratic socialism, regulatory capitalism, state capitalism, etc. I have no idea how it will happen, but I hope we won't need a bloody revolution to reduce the influence of finance and economic markets on modern life.

Tharre 10y ago
You misunderstood me. I don't argue that there is a binary choice, nor do I argue that unregulated capitalism is what we need. I'm merely arguing that corruption isn't inherently tied to capitalism or any other economic system. That Governments will always be corrupt. Meaning that blaming capitalism for being "corrupt" is about as productive as blaming people for being selfish.
- blowski 10y ago
  Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. But the current version of capitalism dominant in the world is corrupt, and desperately needs radical change. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many well-thought out alternatives with good leaders - so we end up with Trump and Farage peddling demagoguery.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Capitalism is not inherently corrupt, nor is it the only system which can be corrupted. I think we can both agree on that. Capitalism is inherently and fundamentally the corruption of government to organize society and basic law (especially property relations) to favor the narrow, capitalist class, which is the fact for which critics of capitalism coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system corrupted in that way.
    - blowski 10y ago
      You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? That begs the question of the natural form of government that would exist without capitalism. It seems to me that once societies are big enough to need government, they first reach for something like feudalism, then capitalism. That's a simplified version of Marx. I don't see capitalism as inherently corrupt, but I can see how it has a tendency to become corrupt without tight regulation. It does favour the ruling class, but that's the inherent nature of government - those who put it in place put something that suits their interests.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're saying that capitalism corrupts government by its very definition? No, I'm saying "capitalism" is a name for a particular manner of corruption of government. Or, more fully, a particular-but-still-quite-corrupt stage in the evolution of government away from the perfectly corrupt state of public power unified with the personal interest of the ruler or members of the ruling class with no distinction, wherein the structure of property rights established by government creates and maintains a ruling class which still has disproportionate and dominant power over the formal public power, but in which nevertheless (unlike preceding stages) there exists a formal, if often misleading, distinction between the formal institutions of public power and the members of the ruling class.
        blowski 10y ago
        You sound quite interested and interesting on this topic. Any recommended reading? I'm a bit of a lefty, but don't see any particular innovation - the fight is between those who prioritise 'being electable' (Clinton, Blair) because you can't change anything if you're not in power, and those who focus on emphasising the genuine problems (Sanders, Corbyn) but are unlikely to gain power. Neither seem to have any real solutions, it's just a matter how much they tap into the anger and frustration of the non-elites. Trump, Farage, Le Pen mine that frustration much deeper but don't seem to have any wide-ranging agenda beyond protecting the elites while pretending to do the opposite.
    - 10y ago

siavosh 10y ago

If you look at the post-war period, from 1946 till 1970s/early 1980s, the US has a much more progressive tax rate, and there was more bank regulation. It was also coincidentally the golden age of American economics. Since the 1980's, taxes have become more and more regressive and regulation on all fronts against corporate excess and distortion of markets has increased. Government has a very important role in capitalism (bust monopolies, ensure companies compete fairly etc). Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises. Many would argue that capitalism has been corrupted through a corruption of politics.

throwaway729 10y ago
>Since 1980's there have been steadily greater and greater economic crises There were some pretty deep recessions in the 50's and 70's. With the very important exception of the great recession, this doesn't really hold up against inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#/media/File:GDP_growth_1923-2009.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...