5 ms·

I think at the heart of the 2016 US elections is this panic over the decline of capitalism. It'll be interesting to see what the alt-right does when the world d

I think at the heart of the 2016 US elections is this panic over the decline of capitalism. It'll be interesting to see what the alt-right does when the world doesn't need the old systems of manufacturing and military to sustain societies.

rpeden 10y ago
Maybe just the decline of capitalism as we know it? As others have pointed out, if people are still making things and providing services, and there are markets in which people exchanges those goods and services, that's still capitalism. But not capitalism as we know it right now. Our current system puts a lot of power in the hands of big corporations and governments. That's worked pretty well (for the Western world, at least) for a long time, in terms of quality of life. So I understand the widespead desire to maintain what we've got right now. I just wonder how long it'll be possible to do that for. Technology that enables people and small groups to create things for themselves offers the opportunity to put more power back in the hands on individuals. But technology also enables groups that are currently powerful to consolidate their power. I suspect that we'll eventually reach a point where individuals have more control over their circumstances, but not before we go through a period where powerful governments and companies becomes even more powerful.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >As others have point it out, if people are still making things and providing services, and there are markets in which people exchanges those goods and services, that's still capitalism. Capitalism: the means of production are controlled by private individuals, and operated by wage-laborers, to accumulate profit. Anything other than that is not capitalism. Personal trade and markets in goods preexisted capitalism by thousands of years. They will probably survive well after capitalism is dead and gone, if anyone at all is alive at that point. Capitalism itself, though, is teetering now as it did in 1930. There were ways to save it then: break up overlarge firms, enforce competition with the hand of the state, use the welfare state to prop up the working class's standard of living. Frankly, I think those can still work, but it's also much more desirable to shift to codetermination, socialized finance, and worker cooperatives in the first place.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    The problem with that solution is that it's kicking the can down the road for another generation to reset the system once it returns to the gigantism of old. The best solution, the hardest one because it will hurt the most, is to place all ownership of capital in a common trust. No more Bill Gateses. No more George Soroses. Just everyone having a common share in the same pool of capital from which to subsist. This doesn't mean you can't have personal property, it just means you can't plant a flag on some land and declare "I am the king of my own kingdom" as it were.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Capital is not a pool of objects that, once made, forever provide a return. All machines wear out or are obsoleted, buildings require maintenance or become badly located, people change throughout their lives, products and preferences change, making old capital lose value and new capital emerge. Making a "common trust" of capital changes none of this, and it cannot be comprehensibly divided into shares. And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's the most total gigantism, the ultimate monopoly. Whosoever operates that trust really is the king of all.
      - norea-armozel 10y ago
        >But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again, this doesn't reflect the historicity of the ownership of capital. Today's equivalent to land monopoly would be intellectual property where individuals and firms have effectively monopolized lawful use of labor to produce a wide variety of products. This is especially disastrous when it comes to patents since there's no reasonable justification for such monopolization since it is by definition rent seeking. Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? >And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. No it's not flawed because capital is the means of production itself. Your car isn't a means for production that can be naturally monopolized. But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. The act of demanding a toll for the road crossing is what capitalism does as a whole. It says "I will use force to extract rents on things which clearly are a necessary component to life without adding value in said transaction nor pay for the socialization of the costs/risks of my ventures." >And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  I think capitalism is a social convention and one of the factors of production. Because historically capitalism is a very recent development. Markets in most forms may have existed for thousands of years but they're not one hinged upon the idea that only a few own the means of production be it land (in the old sense of the word) or labor. Today it makes little sense to say Bill Gates or Warren Buffett should control the means of production anymore. Sure, they're shrewd investors but investing isn't about producing anything. It's about making a judgment of risk vs reward. Essentially it's own kind of skilled labor but it's one based on personal preferences and not whether the factors of production can sustain themselves for evident demand. Meaning that the means of production could be managed differently such as worker own's businesses or cooperatives (ex. credit unions and utility co-ops). There's no need for the boss hog anymore just as for most of humanity there's no need for a king or a Pope to crown them. So why keep playing a game that continually deprives an ever growing population of their general welfare?

rpeden 10y ago

Maybe just the decline of capitalism as we know it? As others have pointed out, if people are still making things and providing services, and there are markets in which people exchanges those goods and services, that's still capitalism. But not capitalism as we know it right now. Our current system puts a lot of power in the hands of big corporations and governments. That's worked pretty well (for the Western world, at least) for a long time, in terms of quality of life. So I understand the widespead desire to maintain what we've got right now. I just wonder how long it'll be possible to do that for. Technology that enables people and small groups to create things for themselves offers the opportunity to put more power back in the hands on individuals. But technology also enables groups that are currently powerful to consolidate their power. I suspect that we'll eventually reach a point where individuals have more control over their circumstances, but not before we go through a period where powerful governments and companies becomes even more powerful.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>As others have point it out, if people are still making things and providing services, and there are markets in which people exchanges those goods and services, that's still capitalism. Capitalism: the means of production are controlled by private individuals, and operated by wage-laborers, to accumulate profit. Anything other than that is not capitalism. Personal trade and markets in goods preexisted capitalism by thousands of years. They will probably survive well after capitalism is dead and gone, if anyone at all is alive at that point. Capitalism itself, though, is teetering now as it did in 1930. There were ways to save it then: break up overlarge firms, enforce competition with the hand of the state, use the welfare state to prop up the working class's standard of living. Frankly, I think those can still work, but it's also much more desirable to shift to codetermination, socialized finance, and worker cooperatives in the first place.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  The problem with that solution is that it's kicking the can down the road for another generation to reset the system once it returns to the gigantism of old. The best solution, the hardest one because it will hurt the most, is to place all ownership of capital in a common trust. No more Bill Gateses. No more George Soroses. Just everyone having a common share in the same pool of capital from which to subsist. This doesn't mean you can't have personal property, it just means you can't plant a flag on some land and declare "I am the king of my own kingdom" as it were.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Capital is not a pool of objects that, once made, forever provide a return. All machines wear out or are obsoleted, buildings require maintenance or become badly located, people change throughout their lives, products and preferences change, making old capital lose value and new capital emerge. Making a "common trust" of capital changes none of this, and it cannot be comprehensibly divided into shares. And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's the most total gigantism, the ultimate monopoly. Whosoever operates that trust really is the king of all.
    - norea-armozel 10y ago
      >But capital is dynamic and ever-changing. Also, a huge amount of it, quite possibly a majority in how you measure it, is in human skills and knowledge. Again, this doesn't reflect the historicity of the ownership of capital. Today's equivalent to land monopoly would be intellectual property where individuals and firms have effectively monopolized lawful use of labor to produce a wide variety of products. This is especially disastrous when it comes to patents since there's no reasonable justification for such monopolization since it is by definition rent seeking. Therefore, I ask why do you feel it's logical to continue down the path of further monopolizations which inevitably harm the economy as a whole and individuals in their pursuit of material betterment? >And the personal-property/capital distinction is flawed. Is a car personal property? Does it matter if I use it to commute to work, or to deliver pizzas? There's essentially no comprehensible criteria to distinguish personal property from capital property. No it's not flawed because capital is the means of production itself. Your car isn't a means for production that can be naturally monopolized. But if you demanded a toll for a stretch of road that happens to be out front of your house that would be capital and it would be rent seeking since the act of ambulation isn't improved by the mere act of crossing your part of the road. The act of demanding a toll for the road crossing is what capitalism does as a whole. It says "I will use force to extract rents on things which clearly are a necessary component to life without adding value in said transaction nor pay for the socialization of the costs/risks of my ventures." >And I really don't see how "placing all ownership of capital in a common trust" is not gigantism. It's not gigantism because it's not done at a national level. I support radical localism.
norea-armozel 10y ago
I think capitalism is a social convention and one of the factors of production. Because historically capitalism is a very recent development. Markets in most forms may have existed for thousands of years but they're not one hinged upon the idea that only a few own the means of production be it land (in the old sense of the word) or labor. Today it makes little sense to say Bill Gates or Warren Buffett should control the means of production anymore. Sure, they're shrewd investors but investing isn't about producing anything. It's about making a judgment of risk vs reward. Essentially it's own kind of skilled labor but it's one based on personal preferences and not whether the factors of production can sustain themselves for evident demand. Meaning that the means of production could be managed differently such as worker own's businesses or cooperatives (ex. credit unions and utility co-ops). There's no need for the boss hog anymore just as for most of humanity there's no need for a king or a Pope to crown them. So why keep playing a game that continually deprives an ever growing population of their general welfare?