6 ms·

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 corrupti

by 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.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    You seem to be ignoring the lives lead by those not in the elite ruling class prior to capitalism. There is more wealth, distributed more evenly (though still unequally) now then there ever was under various forms of fuedalism, etc. And communism has a well established track record of lowering quality of life for the lower classes while serving to consolidate more wealth and power to the few, as evidenced by the 20th century. I look forward to the day we take the next step in human organization, but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. The dominant system of the developed west in the 19th Century for which the term "capitalism" was coined was certainly an improvement in most respects over its predecessors, as was recognized by its critics who named it. The modern mixed economy, which has generally displaced that system in the developed west (and much of the rest of the world), which incorporates significant elements of the program of the socialist critics who named "capitalism" without, as those critics would generally have preferred, replacing entirely it's fundamental structure of property, is, while certainly far from ideal, I would say much better than capitalism, though it constantly seems to want to slide back into capitalism (or, rather, powerful interests want to force it back to that state).
      - r_smart 10y ago
        Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.

by Tharre 10y ago

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.
- r_smart 10y ago
  You seem to be ignoring the lives lead by those not in the elite ruling class prior to capitalism. There is more wealth, distributed more evenly (though still unequally) now then there ever was under various forms of fuedalism, etc. And communism has a well established track record of lowering quality of life for the lower classes while serving to consolidate more wealth and power to the few, as evidenced by the 20th century. I look forward to the day we take the next step in human organization, but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. The dominant system of the developed west in the 19th Century for which the term "capitalism" was coined was certainly an improvement in most respects over its predecessors, as was recognized by its critics who named it. The modern mixed economy, which has generally displaced that system in the developed west (and much of the rest of the world), which incorporates significant elements of the program of the socialist critics who named "capitalism" without, as those critics would generally have preferred, replacing entirely it's fundamental structure of property, is, while certainly far from ideal, I would say much better than capitalism, though it constantly seems to want to slide back into capitalism (or, rather, powerful interests want to force it back to that state).
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.