4 ms·

this is so anti-social and screwed up. but it's the reality of capitalism.

by smcg 6y ago

commandlinefan 6y ago
This sort of finger-pointing is actually endemic to communist and socialist economies - the only thing you can trade on is your reputation. Capitalism tempers it somewhat because at the end of the day you do still need to make money.
J-dawg 6y ago
It's the reality of bureaucracies, not capitalism. You really think this couldn't happen outside of capitalism?
ravenstine 6y ago
Nothing to do specifically with capitalism. Most bureaucratic politics can be boiled down to game theory, and it doesn't take much imagination to conceive how this same phenomenon can occur in an identical way in a command structure absent of financial incentives.
- chillingeffect 6y ago
  it's to do with competition at the root and capitalism provides an inflated incentive for increased competition. Consider oil extraction, for example: Under more strict capitalism access is reserved for those with large, existing resources, e.g. existing oil producers. But in some contexts, e.g. Alaska under Palin, it's viewed as a natural resource, benefiting every resident. Why does company X get to keep all the oil that was just there naturally? One can say, 'they did the work,' but others were denied the opportunity to do the work bc it requires loans from the government. In a nation better set up to respond to its committments to its citizens to enable them to pursue equality, opportunity, happiness, etc., internal competition isn't as ruthless bc all will benefit from its extraction more equally. There's no fight for the precious resources, so we don't have to pretend that certain people suck at their jobs so we can fire them.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Having read some stories about the intelligence services of the former USSR, I cannot agree. While there wasn't jockeying for monetary comp, there was just as strong effects felt in terms of pure political power in those org structures. If anything, the competition sounded even worse, because losing often meant privation or even death.

this is so anti-social and screwed up. but it's the reality of capitalism.

by smcg 6y ago

this is so anti-social and screwed up. but it's the reality of capitalism.

This sort of finger-pointing is actually endemic to communist and socialist economies - the only thing you can trade on is your reputation. Capitalism tempers it somewhat because at the end of the day you do still need to make money.

J-dawg 6y ago

It's the reality of bureaucracies, not capitalism. You really think this couldn't happen outside of capitalism?

ravenstine 6y ago

Nothing to do specifically with capitalism. Most bureaucratic politics can be boiled down to game theory, and it doesn't take much imagination to conceive how this same phenomenon can occur in an identical way in a command structure absent of financial incentives.

chillingeffect 6y ago
it's to do with competition at the root and capitalism provides an inflated incentive for increased competition. Consider oil extraction, for example: Under more strict capitalism access is reserved for those with large, existing resources, e.g. existing oil producers. But in some contexts, e.g. Alaska under Palin, it's viewed as a natural resource, benefiting every resident. Why does company X get to keep all the oil that was just there naturally? One can say, 'they did the work,' but others were denied the opportunity to do the work bc it requires loans from the government. In a nation better set up to respond to its committments to its citizens to enable them to pursue equality, opportunity, happiness, etc., internal competition isn't as ruthless bc all will benefit from its extraction more equally. There's no fight for the precious resources, so we don't have to pretend that certain people suck at their jobs so we can fire them.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Having read some stories about the intelligence services of the former USSR, I cannot agree. While there wasn't jockeying for monetary comp, there was just as strong effects felt in terms of pure political power in those org structures. If anything, the competition sounded even worse, because losing often meant privation or even death.