5 ms·

I am not sure what you are arguing against. The original post to which I responded argued that homelessness has nothing to do with the 'survival of the fittest

I am not sure what you are arguing against. The original post to which I responded argued that homelessness has nothing to do with the 'survival of the fittest'. I argued two things. First, that it does insofar as capitalism is based, structurally and psychologically, on the transformation of humans into commodified labour to be sold on the market. Second, that the welfare state is an attempt to try and offset the human cost - deprivation, precarity, unemployment, exploitation - of the marketisation of social relations. In response to what you said. (1) 'Competitive impulses are not capitalist'. I never mentioned a 'competitive impulse'. I made the trivial claim that, (a) economics is one sphere of human life among others, and has no necessary priority over them; (b) that humans are moved by more than material self-interest. Both of those claims are compatible with the idea that humans are generally, and to varying degrees across history, 'competitive'. (2) 'There is no evidence or indication that competitive impulses change as a result of changing or eliminating laws that provide people security of property and contract liberty'. You are reifying human psychology. Humans do not possess fixed and determinate 'impulses', apart from for simple objects like food, shelter, water, and sex. Humans are distinguished from other animals by their capacity for non-genetic learning. We create cultural meaning through language, art and social practices. These accumulate over time. Ultimately this dominates human behaviour and history. That means that you can rarely explain complex social behaviour by reference to fixed features of human psychology. We vary over time according to our social conditions. The general idea that humans manifest the same competitive behaviours regardless of social conditions is comprehensively refuted by history. Do you really think pre-historic tribes, fifth century BC Sparta, and feudal Japan instantiated the same competitive dynamics as modern capitalist societies? (3) 'No I'm saying that to the extent that they do try to maximize their own material interests, that will not change by changing the laws relating to private property rights.' This is very vague. 'To the extent to which they do try to maximize their own material interests' leaves unstated how and to what extent humans maximise their material interests. In response to the substance of your statement, let's imagine two scenarios: Scenario 1: 'X' has to work 50 hours a week for the means of survival and, if she fails to do this, becomes unemployed, or suffers health problems, she faces death. Scenario 2: X works 36 hours a week for a legally mandated minimum wage. If she is fired she is entitled to unemployment benefits. If she falls ill she has access to healthcare that is free at the point of use. I take it to be patently obvious that X in scenario 1 is moved by material self-interest to a greater extent that is X in scenario 2. For in the first scenario it is a question of survival, whereas in the second case she has the time, ability and security to significantly give herself to extra-economic activities - culture, politics, morality and religion, society and family. P.S. 'contract liberty' is a wonderful euphemism.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>First, that it does insofar as capitalism is based, structurally and psychologically, on the transformation of humans into commodified labour to be sold on the market. Second, that the welfare state is an attempt to try and offset the human cost - deprivation, precarity, unemployment, exploitation - of the marketisation of social relations. I'm saying that people are always going to be mired in materialist competition with those on the losing end seeing relative deprivation. That is a property of the world, not of capitalism. I didn't even mention the inflammatory slavery-associated characterization of people choosing to sell services as "the transformation of humans into commodified labour to be sold on the market." Welfare doesn't eliminate deprivation, it just changes the avenues through which deprivation emerges. >>(1) 'Competitive impulses are not capitalist'. I never mentioned a 'competitive impulse'. Yes you did, here: >>That statement would only hold if capitalist market relations were a universal feature of every facet of human life, and if humans were driven only and voraciously by self-interest. The self-interest drive is what I'm referring to by "competitive impulse". It contrasts with the communal impulse of working for the common good. That will not go away by virtue of eliminating laws that provide people with security of property and contract liberty (aka "capitalist" laws). >>(2) 'There is no evidence or indication that competitive impulses change as a result of changing or eliminating laws that provide people security of property and contract liberty'. You are reifying human psychology. Humans do not possess fixed and determinate 'impulses', apart from for simple objects like food, shelter, water, and sex. Humans are distinguished from other animals by their capacity for non-genetic learning Humans absolutely do possess innate impulses. Humans share 96% of their DNA of chimpanzees, 90% of cats, and 85% of mice. We are not fundamentally that different from other animals, and numerous studies demonstrate the massive influence that innate traits play on our behaviour. For example, numerous studies have shown that the Big Five personality traits have an approximately 50% hereditary factor. And the other 50% are cultural traits that are not going to be wiped away by some radical social engineering project , since they are passed on through micro-interactions and social dynamics far beyond the reach of the state. You are far more likely to cause havoc in any attempt to socially re-engineer mankind than you are to do any good. Social interventions are generally much more likely to have negative unintended consequences than produce desirable results, because existent social dynamics often exist for good reasons that are not obvious to a superficial analysis like the kind produced by simplistic ideologies. Cultural traits and dynamics emerged over long periods of time through a process of iteration, and it is folly to recklessly try to re-engineer them based on a crude ideological assumption about the world. >>This is very vague. 'To the extent to which they do try to maximize their own material interests' leaves unstated how and to what extent humans maximise their material interests. That's not relevant to my point, and it's not something I can answer anyway, because I, like you, have no way of knowing. My point is that there's no indication that human impulses would be changed by changing economic laws. They are far more deeply ingrained than you give them credit for. To assume otherwise is a reckless form of optimism about any coherent plan to re-engineer a large population's impulses, in order to rationalise very radical social engineering project that could and likely would cause terrible suffering. >>I take it to be patently obvious that X in scenario 1 is moved by material self-interest to a greater extent that is X in scenario 2. For in the first scenario it is a question of survival, whereas in the second case she has the time, ability and security to significantly give herself to extra-economic activities - culture, politics, morality and religion, society and family. That's overly simplistic. You don't raise wages by increasing the minimum wage. If it were that simple, we could make everyone wealthy with absurdly high price floors on labour. Price floors harm the economy for reasons economists have exhaustively detailed. You will also pay a price in per capita GDP from taxing and redistributing income. If reducing income inequality were as simple as redistributing income, reducing poverty would be trivial: just tax and redistribute 100% of income. A higher income country with less redistribution can provide a higher quality of life to the very poor than a lower income country with high levels of redistribution. That's why reducing poverty over longer time frames is not as simple as redistributing income. The effect of redistribution on income growth has to be factored in. The empirical data suggests that the best way to raise per capita GDP is with free markets not interfered with by disruptive government interventions like price floors (minimum wage) and income redistribution programs. And how long do you think your welfare programs are going to work for the poor? Highly productive people will find ways to escape the clutches of your redistribution program. A social system in which the producers are coerced to giving up a massive share of what they produce is not sustainable. You run the real risk of training your hypothetical woman to become dependent on the government, have children as a simple mother on the assumption that she will receive child benefits, and then see the economy implode, the government cut back services, and she and her children be left without the means to take care of themselves. As for contract liberty being a euphemism, you wouldn't be saying that if the state imprisoned you for entering into a contract with another consenting adult.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>First, that it does insofar as capitalism is based, structurally and psychologically, on the transformation of humans into commodified labour to be sold on the market. Second, that the welfare state is an attempt to try and offset the human cost - deprivation, precarity, unemployment, exploitation - of the marketisation of social relations. I'm saying that people are always going to be mired in materialist competition with those on the losing end seeing relative deprivation. That is a property of the world, not of capitalism. I didn't even mention the inflammatory slavery-associated characterization of people choosing to sell services as "the transformation of humans into commodified labour to be sold on the market." Welfare doesn't eliminate deprivation, it just changes the avenues through which deprivation emerges. >>(1) 'Competitive impulses are not capitalist'. I never mentioned a 'competitive impulse'. Yes you did, here: >>That statement would only hold if capitalist market relations were a universal feature of every facet of human life, and if humans were driven only and voraciously by self-interest. The self-interest drive is what I'm referring to by "competitive impulse". It contrasts with the communal impulse of working for the common good. That will not go away by virtue of eliminating laws that provide people with security of property and contract liberty (aka "capitalist" laws). >>(2) 'There is no evidence or indication that competitive impulses change as a result of changing or eliminating laws that provide people security of property and contract liberty'. You are reifying human psychology. Humans do not possess fixed and determinate 'impulses', apart from for simple objects like food, shelter, water, and sex. Humans are distinguished from other animals by their capacity for non-genetic learning Humans absolutely do possess innate impulses. Humans share 96% of their DNA of chimpanzees, 90% of cats, and 85% of mice. We are not fundamentally that different from other animals, and numerous studies demonstrate the massive influence that innate traits play on our behaviour. For example, numerous studies have shown that the Big Five personality traits have an approximately 50% hereditary factor. And the other 50% are cultural traits that are not going to be wiped away by some radical social engineering project , since they are passed on through micro-interactions and social dynamics far beyond the reach of the state. You are far more likely to cause havoc in any attempt to socially re-engineer mankind than you are to do any good. Social interventions are generally much more likely to have negative unintended consequences than produce desirable results, because existent social dynamics often exist for good reasons that are not obvious to a superficial analysis like the kind produced by simplistic ideologies. Cultural traits and dynamics emerged over long periods of time through a process of iteration, and it is folly to recklessly try to re-engineer them based on a crude ideological assumption about the world. >>This is very vague. 'To the extent to which they do try to maximize their own material interests' leaves unstated how and to what extent humans maximise their material interests. That's not relevant to my point, and it's not something I can answer anyway, because I, like you, have no way of knowing. My point is that there's no indication that human impulses would be changed by changing economic laws. They are far more deeply ingrained than you give them credit for. To assume otherwise is a reckless form of optimism about any coherent plan to re-engineer a large population's impulses, in order to rationalise very radical social engineering project that could and likely would cause terrible suffering. >>I take it to be patently obvious that X in scenario 1 is moved by material self-interest to a greater extent that is X in scenario 2. For in the first scenario it is a question of survival, whereas in the second case she has the time, ability and security to significantly give herself to extra-economic activities - culture, politics, morality and religion, society and family. That's overly simplistic. You don't raise wages by increasing the minimum wage. If it were that simple, we could make everyone wealthy with absurdly high price floors on labour. Price floors harm the economy for reasons economists have exhaustively detailed. You will also pay a price in per capita GDP from taxing and redistributing income. If reducing income inequality were as simple as redistributing income, reducing poverty would be trivial: just tax and redistribute 100% of income. A higher income country with less redistribution can provide a higher quality of life to the very poor than a lower income country with high levels of redistribution. That's why reducing poverty over longer time frames is not as simple as redistributing income. The effect of redistribution on income growth has to be factored in. The empirical data suggests that the best way to raise per capita GDP is with free markets not interfered with by disruptive government interventions like price floors (minimum wage) and income redistribution programs. And how long do you think your welfare programs are going to work for the poor? Highly productive people will find ways to escape the clutches of your redistribution program. A social system in which the producers are coerced to giving up a massive share of what they produce is not sustainable. You run the real risk of training your hypothetical woman to become dependent on the government, have children as a simple mother on the assumption that she will receive child benefits, and then see the economy implode, the government cut back services, and she and her children be left without the means to take care of themselves. As for contract liberty being a euphemism, you wouldn't be saying that if the state imprisoned you for entering into a contract with another consenting adult.