5 ms·

So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I

So I’m a leftist. So I sympathize with what you are saying. But you have to be careful using the term “capitalism”. It’s a highly overloaded term. For example I’ve come to realize that libertarians use the term quite differently from leftists. So if you use the term in mixed company you will find a lot of confusion results. It can be helpful to use other terminology which is less confusing. For example, Marxist economist Richard Wolff describes “capitalism” as the mode of production where a small elite own and control the means of production, inevitably shifting the focus of production to satisfy the needs of that small elite (endless growth being one). But libertarians describe “capitalism” as free economic exchange through markets. Richard Wolff was recently in a debate with a prominent libertarian and the man agreed with Wolff on almost everything. And Wolff is not opposed to markets, he’s opposed to elite control of the means of production. So it’s best not to use “capitalism” in the leftist sense and expect people to understand you. I also think there is a very serious and legitimate concern over the power of the state. The US state killed the leader of the Black Panthers, for example. We need regulatory control in the hands of the people. You may do well to study leftist critiques of the state. Mikhail Bakunun was active at the same time as Marx and was a critic of Marxism. Bakunin famously said in 1873: When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick"

blotter_paper 7y ago
Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct for these problems on a long enough time scale -- if people value the lives of their families enough they'll stop buying tickets for flights on planes made by this clearly inept entity, and if they don't value the lives of their families that much then that's another tradeoff they're free to make. (Yes, some people are too poor to exercise choice between options of varying cost, but that's a problem with poverty rather than choice -- regulating single engine Cessnas out of existence won't mean that radically impoverished people have access to better planes, it will just take away their freedom to bet their lives on flying in the first place.)
- speedplane 7y ago
  > your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. One purpose of regulation is to improve the situation. If the FAA certifies a plane as safe, then consumers can rely on that certification and don't need to do their own safety research. They still don't have "perfect information", but it's a lot better than without it. Good regulation is not "antithetical" to capitalism, it is often necessary for it.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    Intended by whom? I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        > Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.

blotter_paper 7y ago

Anarchist here, used to identify as a communist. I'd argue that both of your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco, but that the latter ("free economic exchange through markets") seems more in line with what GP was wanting to, err, correct; I read GP as wanting more regulation for airplanes, which is antithetical to free exchange. I feel like the market itself will correct for these problems on a long enough time scale -- if people value the lives of their families enough they'll stop buying tickets for flights on planes made by this clearly inept entity, and if they don't value the lives of their families that much then that's another tradeoff they're free to make. (Yes, some people are too poor to exercise choice between options of varying cost, but that's a problem with poverty rather than choice -- regulating single engine Cessnas out of existence won't mean that radically impoverished people have access to better planes, it will just take away their freedom to bet their lives on flying in the first place.)

speedplane 7y ago
> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. One purpose of regulation is to improve the situation. If the FAA certifies a plane as safe, then consumers can rely on that certification and don't need to do their own safety research. They still don't have "perfect information", but it's a lot better than without it. Good regulation is not "antithetical" to capitalism, it is often necessary for it.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  Intended by whom? I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      > Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.