4 ms·

Edit: note that this point is unfair to the original comment it’s responding to, which was repeating the argument of the article—the point should stand against

Edit: note that this point is unfair to the original comment it’s responding to, which was repeating the argument of the article—the point should stand against the article, not the parent. Eh be careful of talking about capitalism in terms of it being “created” it perpetuates one of the old lies of capitalism: that it is an inherently rational system (in your formulation, a designed one). Capitalism grew organically out of evolving practices around markets and trade and redoubled and reinvigorated itself through works of economic theorists like Smith, who argued it was “rational” because of certain of its properties. However it is important we get away from this notion of capitalism being somehow a “rational” thing since it has bred profound economic irrationality through the inequitable distribution of resources, leading to irrationality in other spheres as everything is reduced to abstract exchanges (see climate change) Edit: This criticism also applies to the OP article, which also falls under the spell of representing capitalism as some sort of intentioned system.

dahauns 6y ago
Ah, ah, but this is rational irrationality we're talking about. I wish I'd made that up.
lend000 6y ago
I think your point that most pro "capitalism" folks will take issue with is that while there has never been a system in which all resources are perfectly allocated, it is believed that the information in prices set by a free market can do a much better job of allocating resources in the long run than any other known system, (including communism, socialism, or an autocracy). So sure, free markets are emergent properties of human activity, and therefore are influenced by human traits such as greed and fear, resulting in bubbles and crashes in the stock market. But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  You’re doubtless right about that, and it’s the same defeatist principle that’s let capitalism survive as it long as it has (aside from the natural fact that it concentrates power in such away that those that wield it are incentivized in keeping the structure in place). Any empiricist can’t ignore the brash inequality of modern day late capitalism—thinking that, in spite of the many negative effects of this inequality, that it is simply “the best we can do” is in my mind a fallacy of affirming the present as the only possibility comparing it to failed regimes is also disingenuous in my opinion and a limited view of alternatives—we have novel ideas in play today, e.g UBi—the situation is not “capitalism or soviet era communism” as many capitalist apologists would have you believe.
  - lend000 6y ago
    I suspect if you proposed a superior alternative instead of just decrying capitalism (which to me seems no different than saying 'cancer sucks!' and then leaving it at that), you might get more traction.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Except they never offer much evidence to support this statement. "Capitalism exists therefore it is efficient". While one can point to the proposed historical alternatives, it's not an automatically conclusive argument that "not-capitalism" was the problem in say, Soviet Russia as opposed to the fact that the government was defacto a brutal authoritarian dictatorship (i.e. not democratic) that was also incredibly corrupt (I mean, corruption is essentially pure capitalism in action - monopolize a resource and charge what the market will bear for access). It's a very specific American thinktank led strain of thought that declares America's success is "capitalism" and not robust and responsive democratic institutions which aggressively try and prevent corruption.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    Capitalism inherently resists corruption more than other systems because nobody is expected to work for anyone's interest but their own. Systems like socialism and communism require some central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live. These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power. Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power. Because of course the power-hungry will gain power better than those who want power only to do good; the power hungry are fighting 100% for the goal while the do-gooders are fighting for another goal as well. It's no contest. Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it. A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence. Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority). Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt. There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders. There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect. So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  > But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward Maybe there's something in between communism at one extreme and survival-of-the-fittest-style capitalism on the other?
  - lend000 6y ago
    Sure, but deriding one without suggesting there is a better alternative is unproductive. And capitalism just implies that people are allowed to own property and engage in business freely. Obviously there are still laws under capitalism; for example, laws against murder. So I think for most reasonable and informed people, it comes down to how you want to define what legal business should be. For example, activities that cause pollution produce an externality on society, as do many other things, and in my ideal society such things are penalized. However, I don't consider these added complexities to make society any less capitalist. It still is a system built on free commerce and private property; it just has laws to capture externalities. In order for a society to not be capitalist in the strictest sense, a lot of freedoms would need to be taken away (at least one of the two core tenets: ability to own things and the ability to choose your career). So when anti-capitalists like the OP start tooting their horn, I want to make it clear what that implies. Which of those core tenets is the root of all evil, which you want to take away?
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m responding to the article, which called capitalism: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. That is the article’s argument, not mine. I am not sure why you are responding as if that is a position I personally hold and am willing to defend. If you think I represented the article’s point poorly, say that instead.
- voidhorse 6y ago
  You’re right—I called you out far too quickly, I’ve edited the original comment to point this out . My apologies—that wasn’t a fair response to your comment.

dahauns 6y ago

Ah, ah, but this is rational irrationality we're talking about. I wish I'd made that up.

lend000 6y ago

I think your point that most pro "capitalism" folks will take issue with is that while there has never been a system in which all resources are perfectly allocated, it is believed that the information in prices set by a free market can do a much better job of allocating resources in the long run than any other known system, (including communism, socialism, or an autocracy). So sure, free markets are emergent properties of human activity, and therefore are influenced by human traits such as greed and fear, resulting in bubbles and crashes in the stock market. But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward.

voidhorse 6y ago
You’re doubtless right about that, and it’s the same defeatist principle that’s let capitalism survive as it long as it has (aside from the natural fact that it concentrates power in such away that those that wield it are incentivized in keeping the structure in place). Any empiricist can’t ignore the brash inequality of modern day late capitalism—thinking that, in spite of the many negative effects of this inequality, that it is simply “the best we can do” is in my mind a fallacy of affirming the present as the only possibility comparing it to failed regimes is also disingenuous in my opinion and a limited view of alternatives—we have novel ideas in play today, e.g UBi—the situation is not “capitalism or soviet era communism” as many capitalist apologists would have you believe.
- lend000 6y ago
  I suspect if you proposed a superior alternative instead of just decrying capitalism (which to me seems no different than saying 'cancer sucks!' and then leaving it at that), you might get more traction.
XorNot 6y ago
Except they never offer much evidence to support this statement. "Capitalism exists therefore it is efficient". While one can point to the proposed historical alternatives, it's not an automatically conclusive argument that "not-capitalism" was the problem in say, Soviet Russia as opposed to the fact that the government was defacto a brutal authoritarian dictatorship (i.e. not democratic) that was also incredibly corrupt (I mean, corruption is essentially pure capitalism in action - monopolize a resource and charge what the market will bear for access). It's a very specific American thinktank led strain of thought that declares America's success is "capitalism" and not robust and responsive democratic institutions which aggressively try and prevent corruption.
- jlawson 6y ago
  Capitalism inherently resists corruption more than other systems because nobody is expected to work for anyone's interest but their own. Systems like socialism and communism require some central economic decision authority which controls what people can eat, drive, where they can work and travel and live. These people are expected to do this for the good of others, yet they hold tremendous power. Such power attracts corruption and cannot be defended from it. So socialist systems always become hopelessly corrupt as the do-gooders are instantly outcompeted in the race for power by people who only care about power. Because of course the power-hungry will gain power better than those who want power only to do good; the power hungry are fighting 100% for the goal while the do-gooders are fighting for another goal as well. It's no contest. Worse, since that central authority has both economic and police power over people, there's no practical way to replace it. A corrupt corporation can be peacefully outcompeted or allowed to die, but the government itself cannot be - it must be overthrown with mass violence. Systems like anarchy require that individuals self-organize into collectives and work for the good of the collective instead of the good of themselves. Of course such systems become corrupt 5 minutes after scaling beyond Dunbar's number, because there's no mechanism to punish free-riders (aside from some kind of mob justice, or a hyper-invasive police authority). Unlike socialism, capitalism is decentralized. The government doesn't need to hold so much authority over the details of peoples' lives - where they work, what they eat, where they travel - so there's nothing to corrupt. There is no center of power to corrupt, nowhere for the power-hungry to steal from the do-gooders. There is only the contest to make money; a single goal which is inherently attractive since it brings status and wealth and sex, but when you accomplish this goal you also do good as a side-effect. So it's not democratic institutions preventing corruption in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently resistant to corruption in a way that socialism and anarchism aren't, because the individual incentives are aligned.
UncleOxidant 6y ago
> But I suppose that's better than 3+ years of famine during the Great Leap Forward Maybe there's something in between communism at one extreme and survival-of-the-fittest-style capitalism on the other?
- lend000 6y ago
  Sure, but deriding one without suggesting there is a better alternative is unproductive. And capitalism just implies that people are allowed to own property and engage in business freely. Obviously there are still laws under capitalism; for example, laws against murder. So I think for most reasonable and informed people, it comes down to how you want to define what legal business should be. For example, activities that cause pollution produce an externality on society, as do many other things, and in my ideal society such things are penalized. However, I don't consider these added complexities to make society any less capitalist. It still is a system built on free commerce and private property; it just has laws to capture externalities. In order for a society to not be capitalist in the strictest sense, a lot of freedoms would need to be taken away (at least one of the two core tenets: ability to own things and the ability to choose your career). So when anti-capitalists like the OP start tooting their horn, I want to make it clear what that implies. Which of those core tenets is the root of all evil, which you want to take away?

ashtonkem 6y ago

I’m responding to the article, which called capitalism: > A system devised to nullify human passions by keeping us focused, instead, on our interests. That is the article’s argument, not mine. I am not sure why you are responding as if that is a position I personally hold and am willing to defend. If you think I represented the article’s point poorly, say that instead.

voidhorse 6y ago
You’re right—I called you out far too quickly, I’ve edited the original comment to point this out . My apologies—that wasn’t a fair response to your comment.