5 ms·

Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation. Especially given the current trend in auto

by emt02 10y ago

Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation. Especially given the current trend in automation, the risk that a relatively small group of capitalists will slowly take full control of almost all the means of production is real. Another huge problem of having a world run by corporations is the environmental situation. Personally I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. I don't know what the solution to this problem may be. Alternatives to capitalism have been proposed in the past, and are continuously studied now, but shifting to another economical system would not be easy, if possible at all at this point.

WalterBright 10y ago
> I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it.
- emt02 10y ago
  > Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? No, I'm not sure. But we're talking about private companies now, not governments. Governments and companies in the end are two faces of the same coin: the first aim at power, the latter aim at profit (with some exceptions of course). Moreover, many proposed alternatives to capitalism consider the governments (as we know them today) harmful and unnecessary. I'm not saying I agree, just wanted to point out that removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments. > Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it. Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. And in a world that runs on profit, limiting your local companies may in the end give an advantage to the foreign ones, so this solution may not always be practicable, unless a truly global coordinated action gets taken.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    > Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. There's no reason it cannot reduce pollution to tolerable levels. > removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit?
    - emt02 10y ago
      > Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit? There are several social and economical theories that consider a central government, and thus the state, unnecessary. Historically the anarchism movement is maybe the most known, but recently other schools of thoughts are getting relatively important, such as communalism and democratic confederalism (mostly relevant in the context of the revolution in northern Syria). Even communism in its final form (i.e. past the dictatorship of proletariat transitioning phase) should be a stateless and classless society, however historically "communist" states failed to get past this transitioning phase (due to a refusal to give up power by the State, I guess) and ended up in a State Capitalism system, as in the USSR and in China. However, to be honest I don't know this topic in detail enough to teach anyone, so I can only suggest you to look for more info in case you're interested.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        Those ideas have been around a long time, and no such society has ever managed to be constructed, either voluntarily or forcibly. I'm pretty sure they are completely unworkable. It's like expecting people to not have sex.
        hutzlibu 10y ago
        "It's like expecting people to not have sex." Thats easy, with a bit of surgery ...
        emt02 10y ago
        I guess you're talking about the oldest of those ideas, namely anarchism and communism. Regarding anarchism, it's known that the reason it didn't work out in the attempts so far has not been an inherent flaw in the system, but external ingerence. In the two cases that are most known to the public, i.e. anarchist Catalogna and Free territories of Ukraine, the reason why the revolution finally failed has been in both cases the intervention of Soviet Russia, that in the first case supported an antagonist faction (i.e. communists front in the Spanish Civil War) and in the second case it invaded the free territories. I think in general it's not possible to disregard some ideologies on the basis that they never managed to be implemented, without looking at the context. In today's world, which is dominated by capital, it would be even harder to establish a non-capitalist society, but that doesn't mean that such a society would be less fair, free or just than capitalism.
hutzlibu 10y ago
"Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation" Where to begin ... Well first of, capitalism and global markets are made by people. Then there are very tiny individual nations, like Lichtenstein. Why should they have more power than a voluntarily group(corporation) of much more people than that small state?!? Or do you prefer statecorporations like in socialism? Afaik, they polluted much more, produced less and with shitty work conditions.
- emt02 10y ago
  > Where to begin ... Well first of, capitalism and global markets are made by people. Rather, they are made by the capitalist class. > Then there are very tiny individual nations, like Lichtenstein. > Why should they have more power than a voluntarily group(corporation) of much more people than that small state?!? Because a corporation is not a voluntarily group of people, it is, well, a corporation! The workers have no control on it and its aim is to make the maximum profit, even when this means polluting oceans, exploiting people and doing any kind of unethical action. > Or do you prefer statecorporations like in socialism? Just because I recognize flaws in the capitalist system does not mean that I support other flawed systems. I even clearly stated in my comment: > I don't know what the solution to this problem may be. Alternatives to capitalism have been proposed in the past, and are continuously studied now, but shifting to another economical system would not be easy, if possible at all at this point.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    "Rather, they are made by the capitalist class" So who is part of that class? Everybody who has money on the stock market? That would be anybody who has a bank account.
    - emt02 10y ago
      Giving a precise definition is hard, since it is easy to twist it and point out that pretty much everyone owns at least a bit of capital and could thus be considered part of the class. However, the usual definition of the capitalist class is about owners of capital, or people who earn wealth from the work of others. This includes industrial capitalists, who own the means of production, the land owners and the financial capitalists. The average Joe may have some little money on the stock market, but he doesn't have any influence in corporations or the global market, contrarily to what your previous comment hinted.

by emt02 10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago

> I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it.

emt02 10y ago
> Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? No, I'm not sure. But we're talking about private companies now, not governments. Governments and companies in the end are two faces of the same coin: the first aim at power, the latter aim at profit (with some exceptions of course). Moreover, many proposed alternatives to capitalism consider the governments (as we know them today) harmful and unnecessary. I'm not saying I agree, just wanted to point out that removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments. > Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it. Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. And in a world that runs on profit, limiting your local companies may in the end give an advantage to the foreign ones, so this solution may not always be practicable, unless a truly global coordinated action gets taken.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. There's no reason it cannot reduce pollution to tolerable levels. > removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit?
  - emt02 10y ago
    > Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit? There are several social and economical theories that consider a central government, and thus the state, unnecessary. Historically the anarchism movement is maybe the most known, but recently other schools of thoughts are getting relatively important, such as communalism and democratic confederalism (mostly relevant in the context of the revolution in northern Syria). Even communism in its final form (i.e. past the dictatorship of proletariat transitioning phase) should be a stateless and classless society, however historically "communist" states failed to get past this transitioning phase (due to a refusal to give up power by the State, I guess) and ended up in a State Capitalism system, as in the USSR and in China. However, to be honest I don't know this topic in detail enough to teach anyone, so I can only suggest you to look for more info in case you're interested.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      Those ideas have been around a long time, and no such society has ever managed to be constructed, either voluntarily or forcibly. I'm pretty sure they are completely unworkable. It's like expecting people to not have sex.
      - hutzlibu 10y ago
        "It's like expecting people to not have sex." Thats easy, with a bit of surgery ...
      - emt02 10y ago
        I guess you're talking about the oldest of those ideas, namely anarchism and communism. Regarding anarchism, it's known that the reason it didn't work out in the attempts so far has not been an inherent flaw in the system, but external ingerence. In the two cases that are most known to the public, i.e. anarchist Catalogna and Free territories of Ukraine, the reason why the revolution finally failed has been in both cases the intervention of Soviet Russia, that in the first case supported an antagonist faction (i.e. communists front in the Spanish Civil War) and in the second case it invaded the free territories. I think in general it's not possible to disregard some ideologies on the basis that they never managed to be implemented, without looking at the context. In today's world, which is dominated by capital, it would be even harder to establish a non-capitalist society, but that doesn't mean that such a society would be less fair, free or just than capitalism.

hutzlibu 10y ago

"Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation" Where to begin ... Well first of, capitalism and global markets are made by people. Then there are very tiny individual nations, like Lichtenstein. Why should they have more power than a voluntarily group(corporation) of much more people than that small state?!? Or do you prefer statecorporations like in socialism? Afaik, they polluted much more, produced less and with shitty work conditions.

emt02 10y ago
> Where to begin ... Well first of, capitalism and global markets are made by people. Rather, they are made by the capitalist class. > Then there are very tiny individual nations, like Lichtenstein. > Why should they have more power than a voluntarily group(corporation) of much more people than that small state?!? Because a corporation is not a voluntarily group of people, it is, well, a corporation! The workers have no control on it and its aim is to make the maximum profit, even when this means polluting oceans, exploiting people and doing any kind of unethical action. > Or do you prefer statecorporations like in socialism? Just because I recognize flaws in the capitalist system does not mean that I support other flawed systems. I even clearly stated in my comment: > I don't know what the solution to this problem may be. Alternatives to capitalism have been proposed in the past, and are continuously studied now, but shifting to another economical system would not be easy, if possible at all at this point.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  "Rather, they are made by the capitalist class" So who is part of that class? Everybody who has money on the stock market? That would be anybody who has a bank account.
  - emt02 10y ago
    Giving a precise definition is hard, since it is easy to twist it and point out that pretty much everyone owns at least a bit of capital and could thus be considered part of the class. However, the usual definition of the capitalist class is about owners of capital, or people who earn wealth from the work of others. This includes industrial capitalists, who own the means of production, the land owners and the financial capitalists. The average Joe may have some little money on the stock market, but he doesn't have any influence in corporations or the global market, contrarily to what your previous comment hinted.