3 ms·

I think I overstated my "no profit incentive". I think people need ownership and the potential for profit in order to innovate. I am no advocating for communis

I think I overstated my "no profit incentive". I think people need ownership and the potential for profit in order to innovate. I am no advocating for communism or the removal of private property. I think private property is necessary for all sorts of other human rights. But private property and a profit incentive existed in the middle ages. There were guilds, and trademen, and yeomen, and all sorts of people making a profit and trading in capital. My issue with the industrial revolution is that exploitative capitalism replaced most other forms of exploitation. Yes, you could argue that serfs were exploited. But there were obligations that came with being a landowner and a lord. The industrial revolution paved the way for exploitation without obligations. Can't do the work anymore? Well, say goodbye to a house since you can't pay rent, food because you don't have money, etc. At least there was a level of security afforded by community living and living off the land. The total output of a household or town was enough to pay satisfy the year's quota, none of this week to week rent seeking. I don't think comparing the USSR to the middle ages is accurate then in this sense. And I think that had the industrial revolution not happened, we could very well have seen a similar increase in technological development. But I suppose it's one of those things we'll only ever be able to speculate about. One thing is for sure: the exploitative capitalism that we have today in many countries needs to change. And I believe there are better solutions than communism. Distributism for instance, with elements of Georgism (also posted about on the front page of HN today funnily enough) would be a good place to start.

bad_user 6y ago
> "The industrial revolution paved the way for exploitation without obligations. Can't do the work anymore? Well, say goodbye to a house since you can't pay rent, food because you don't have money, etc." This was Marx's worry and reason for its theory of value. It's not true. Capitalism goes hand in hand with the constant evolution of technology and the competition pressure that companies have, which leads to prices dropping all the time. Food prices have been dropping and I'm pretty sure agriculture will get so efficient that the price of basic food items will be free. The only worrying thing nowadays, the only phenomenon that can disrupt this trend, are the IP laws (copyright, patents, trademark) that are essentially government-granted monopolies, allowing software companies to keep competition at bay and their prices high. But due to the evolution of technology, even software companies need to evolve and to drop the prices on their services, or they die. Maybe in the future this will stop being true, maybe there is a ceiling to what technology can do. But for now Marx's dystopian future isn't here yet. Again, let us look at the results. In 2015 less than 10% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty, compared with over 90% in the 19th century.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I agree that IP law needs an overhaul and I am not a fan of granting IP monopolies. I think the rapid change in poverty levels may actually be due to globalism and off shoring. If the most basic of jobs are now done by overseas workers or immigrants, suddenly the quality of life in countries that are beneficiaries of that work increases. Imported food, mass production of goods on a grand scale. Cheap Walmart products made in China that even people on the poverty line can afford. This would not be possible without globalism. You could argue that capitalism and globalism go hand in hand, but again, I don't think capitalism necessarily leads to globalism.

bad_user 6y ago

> "The industrial revolution paved the way for exploitation without obligations. Can't do the work anymore? Well, say goodbye to a house since you can't pay rent, food because you don't have money, etc." This was Marx's worry and reason for its theory of value. It's not true. Capitalism goes hand in hand with the constant evolution of technology and the competition pressure that companies have, which leads to prices dropping all the time. Food prices have been dropping and I'm pretty sure agriculture will get so efficient that the price of basic food items will be free. The only worrying thing nowadays, the only phenomenon that can disrupt this trend, are the IP laws (copyright, patents, trademark) that are essentially government-granted monopolies, allowing software companies to keep competition at bay and their prices high. But due to the evolution of technology, even software companies need to evolve and to drop the prices on their services, or they die. Maybe in the future this will stop being true, maybe there is a ceiling to what technology can do. But for now Marx's dystopian future isn't here yet. Again, let us look at the results. In 2015 less than 10% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty, compared with over 90% in the 19th century.

Thorentis 6y ago
I agree that IP law needs an overhaul and I am not a fan of granting IP monopolies. I think the rapid change in poverty levels may actually be due to globalism and off shoring. If the most basic of jobs are now done by overseas workers or immigrants, suddenly the quality of life in countries that are beneficiaries of that work increases. Imported food, mass production of goods on a grand scale. Cheap Walmart products made in China that even people on the poverty line can afford. This would not be possible without globalism. You could argue that capitalism and globalism go hand in hand, but again, I don't think capitalism necessarily leads to globalism.