3 ms·

I believe that capitalism is doomed. The sooner the better for humanity because capitalism is more dangerous than communism. The best way to expose the problem

by chmike 10y ago

I believe that capitalism is doomed. The sooner the better for humanity because capitalism is more dangerous than communism. The best way to expose the problem of capitalism is with this joke "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for one day. Learn him to fish, and you destroy a market." Capitalism is also leading people to harm (health) and exploit other people. Communism was clearly a false good idea. Liberalism and capitalism (with competition) clearly provide a motivationnal power for which owe most of the health, technical and scientifical progress. However, it also come with its perversion like the war, junk food and entertainment business and human exploitation as producer or consumer. Humanity is going through a continuous evolution process and capitalism is one stage of it. New models will emerge fixing the problems of previous models and preserving their good properties. It's a long time that I think about this and try to find what could be the next evolution step. My conclusion is that the working model used in science and more recently with open source could be a good candidate because it provides exponential growth which beats capitalism. Some kind of high level control will be needed so that humanity doesn't shoot itself in the foot as would happen soon or later with pure liberalism and capitalism. It already exist today but it is currently frequently corrupted by greeediness of capitalists. The robot revolution will not suppress all human work. So I don't think that it might affect capitalism that much. I believe that it would make trade business more prevalent.

forumuid 10y ago
The capitalism pursuiting money by human labor may be doomed. The Capitalism, which pursues knowledge or a higher level of human nature, may survive or flourish,imagine that all people do not seek money but higher levels of knowledge. Human labor is transformed from a passive machine to a knowledge doctoral worker
- atmosx 10y ago
  Let's make sure we understand the difference between a community where scarcity is inexistent[1] with Communism. Under a Communist regime your choices are forced, thats not a minor detail. [1]: Like a Star Trek community, where you have an accessible machine that can create any material you like, from a glass of wine to a macbook pro.
mantas 10y ago
Quasi capitalism with some kind of cap how big a business can grow might be another step. Yes, it'd be difficult to implement and run. But it'd have the good parts of capitalism - incentive and free market. While without the big corporations that eventually seem to limit both incentive and free market. Yes, free market with a cap is not totally free. But big company capitalism as we see today is far from really free market too.
- chmike 10y ago
  I'm afraid that this will simply move the problem (remove some problem and create new problems). How do you define big, etc. Another problem is that creating a glass cieling may cut motivation which was the biggest defect of communism. My impression is that something relating to the goal needs to be fixed. For many people capitalism boils down to make as much money as possible regardless of the impact on other humans and the world. This is what needs to be fixed. Otherwise capitalism allowing and providing incentive and reward for individual (or collective) initiative to make this world a better place is good. Limitation and repression is the first idea that comes to mind to fix a problem. Education is underated because it needs more time to see the benefit. Considering the demonstration made by terrorists that it is possible to lead someone to commit suicide and mass murdering just for ideas induced by education, my conclusion is that there is a huge leverage in education that has been ignored and wasted. This is the track I would favor. However not as was done in China many decades ago.
  - mantas 10y ago
    I totally agree that capped capitalism would have it's own set of issues. Being from ex-ussr state I'm well aware of communism.. shortcomings. Communism was killing innovation at very low level. Small business? Fuck you. Self-employed? Fuck you. Artist who don't recite gov position? Fuck you. Work in BigCo and have some interesting ideas? Fuck you. Innovation did happen but it was very rare. Well, except military tech etc. The problem with capitalism is that once someone grows big, it's too easy for them to limit innovation. They either buy any innovation that may threaten them (and likely kill and/or damage it like Google) or make sure they have very hard time growing. Education alone won't help there. It may create more attempts to innovate, but the BigCo ceiling would still be there. It'd be great to aim for market where no single player have even double digits of market share. If there were 10 google searches, it'd be much easier to create new google search. Then educated people could push for innovation under their own banner rather than be forced to make their way through google ladder. I've seen somewhat similar development in my country. For example, clothes retailers. Not exactly innovative thing, but hear me out. In 90s, there were a lot of small shops with great (especially after soviet times) variety. In 00s, most of the clothes retail was run by single holding. They have franchises of several well known brands and are biggest renters in most shopping centres. There's not much of variety and pricing is shitty though. Thank god H&M squeezed in. But new small retailers seem to have a hard time. Once some brand/style starts getting popular, the big holding fills that niche too. There seem to be a narrow line between staying afloat and getting bigco interested in your niche.
walrus1066 10y ago
Capitalism is the worst economic system... except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
bassman9000 10y ago
> Some kind of high level control will be needed Here's were all your reasoning is flawed. You're advocating for a tyrant, or a central authority like, guess where/when: Venezuela or Soviet Russia. This has been attempted, and failed, several times before. We're not talking about Python, or the Linux kernel, in which their respective dictators don't even have that much say any more. We're talking about full societies here. And bunch of intelligent people, best case, can't direct full economies. There's nothing more decentralized and self correcting than capitalist free markets. And, yes, with appropriate regulations. Quoting, don't faint, Hayek The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road%20to%20serfdom.pd... Page 46 Capitalism is not endangered by the robot revolution. Capitalism is bringing the robot revolution. And it's going to prune the least productive, challenging, and fulfilling jobs, and we'll be forced to take on the high value jobs that will make humanity advance. It's been like this for millennia, an will be like this for a long time.

by chmike 10y ago

forumuid 10y ago

The capitalism pursuiting money by human labor may be doomed. The Capitalism, which pursues knowledge or a higher level of human nature, may survive or flourish,imagine that all people do not seek money but higher levels of knowledge. Human labor is transformed from a passive machine to a knowledge doctoral worker

atmosx 10y ago
Let's make sure we understand the difference between a community where scarcity is inexistent[1] with Communism. Under a Communist regime your choices are forced, thats not a minor detail. [1]: Like a Star Trek community, where you have an accessible machine that can create any material you like, from a glass of wine to a macbook pro.

mantas 10y ago

Quasi capitalism with some kind of cap how big a business can grow might be another step. Yes, it'd be difficult to implement and run. But it'd have the good parts of capitalism - incentive and free market. While without the big corporations that eventually seem to limit both incentive and free market. Yes, free market with a cap is not totally free. But big company capitalism as we see today is far from really free market too.

chmike 10y ago
I'm afraid that this will simply move the problem (remove some problem and create new problems). How do you define big, etc. Another problem is that creating a glass cieling may cut motivation which was the biggest defect of communism. My impression is that something relating to the goal needs to be fixed. For many people capitalism boils down to make as much money as possible regardless of the impact on other humans and the world. This is what needs to be fixed. Otherwise capitalism allowing and providing incentive and reward for individual (or collective) initiative to make this world a better place is good. Limitation and repression is the first idea that comes to mind to fix a problem. Education is underated because it needs more time to see the benefit. Considering the demonstration made by terrorists that it is possible to lead someone to commit suicide and mass murdering just for ideas induced by education, my conclusion is that there is a huge leverage in education that has been ignored and wasted. This is the track I would favor. However not as was done in China many decades ago.
- mantas 10y ago
  I totally agree that capped capitalism would have it's own set of issues. Being from ex-ussr state I'm well aware of communism.. shortcomings. Communism was killing innovation at very low level. Small business? Fuck you. Self-employed? Fuck you. Artist who don't recite gov position? Fuck you. Work in BigCo and have some interesting ideas? Fuck you. Innovation did happen but it was very rare. Well, except military tech etc. The problem with capitalism is that once someone grows big, it's too easy for them to limit innovation. They either buy any innovation that may threaten them (and likely kill and/or damage it like Google) or make sure they have very hard time growing. Education alone won't help there. It may create more attempts to innovate, but the BigCo ceiling would still be there. It'd be great to aim for market where no single player have even double digits of market share. If there were 10 google searches, it'd be much easier to create new google search. Then educated people could push for innovation under their own banner rather than be forced to make their way through google ladder. I've seen somewhat similar development in my country. For example, clothes retailers. Not exactly innovative thing, but hear me out. In 90s, there were a lot of small shops with great (especially after soviet times) variety. In 00s, most of the clothes retail was run by single holding. They have franchises of several well known brands and are biggest renters in most shopping centres. There's not much of variety and pricing is shitty though. Thank god H&M squeezed in. But new small retailers seem to have a hard time. Once some brand/style starts getting popular, the big holding fills that niche too. There seem to be a narrow line between staying afloat and getting bigco interested in your niche.

walrus1066 10y ago

Capitalism is the worst economic system... except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time

bassman9000 10y ago

> Some kind of high level control will be needed Here's were all your reasoning is flawed. You're advocating for a tyrant, or a central authority like, guess where/when: Venezuela or Soviet Russia. This has been attempted, and failed, several times before. We're not talking about Python, or the Linux kernel, in which their respective dictators don't even have that much say any more. We're talking about full societies here. And bunch of intelligent people, best case, can't direct full economies. There's nothing more decentralized and self correcting than capitalist free markets. And, yes, with appropriate regulations. Quoting, don't faint, Hayek The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Road%20to%20serfdom.pd... Page 46 Capitalism is not endangered by the robot revolution. Capitalism is bringing the robot revolution. And it's going to prune the least productive, challenging, and fulfilling jobs, and we'll be forced to take on the high value jobs that will make humanity advance. It's been like this for millennia, an will be like this for a long time.