4 ms·

Capitalism can't be ended, it just a word for what people do when they are free to generate and exchange value.

Miner49er 6y ago
Not really no, it can be ended by simply changing the idea of land ownership, for example. Land ownership in it's modern form didn't happen in a voluntary way, it was forced through violence.
- tengbretson 6y ago
  Land ownership in it's modern form is the alternative to constant violence.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I was more thinking of the mutualist's idea of land ownership, I don't think it would be any more violent than the current system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Usufruct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Us... Basically you can only "own" land if you personally actually use it, not just rent it (or do nothing with it).
  - hinkley 6y ago
    There were some alternatives presented but not accepted. In the history of warfare, terrain set boundaries because the defenders had substantial advantage over attackers. I own this side of the river, you own that one. But from an ecological policy standpoint, it’s a disaster. Neither of us own the river, but if I dump shit into it and you have a port at the mouth, then my problems become your problems. The alternative proposal was to divide government along watershed boundaries. Spain and France are still divided by the Pyrenees, because ridge lines are the same boundaries on both maps. But the Rhine and the Rhone say that France is divided from Germany, Italy, and Benelux all wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File:Europ%C3%A4ische_Wasserscheiden.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File... The river would instead become the middle of a territory, not the edges. My hamlet “owns” the valley it sits in. The county owns the tributary that flows past my hamlet and into another tributary. The state owns the tributary all the way to the Rhone, our nation or a union owns the entire Rhone, and a regional group oversees the Mediterranean, while the UN oversees the oceans in general, when regions don’t agree with themselves or among each other. Anyone who muddies our water is in a direct chain of accountability to everyone down stream. Logistically this is a nightmare. We’ve wiped out any cultures who might have worked this way, and those that remain won’t move political boundaries except under extreme duress, except to expand them (see point 1). But it does have a very Conway’s Law feel to it.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Getting rid of private land ownership is one of the many reasons I can never get on board with more collectivist ideologies that support that. The idea is flawed in itself and we've seen it doesn't lead to good things when it is tried. Even the soviets came to that conclusion during their existence, starting with adopting leasing and then near the end full ownership for agriculture and then eventually for homes. I still remember a friend from college telling me how his father had to retain his property after the fall of the USSR and new land rights were established in one of the now former satellite states, with a gun and an axe. Not to create a false dichotomy but I'll take a stable slightly coercive economic system over a system that requires me to use violence to keep what is mine.
  - imsofuture 6y ago
    Private property entirely depends on violence -- that's not hyperbole, there's ultimately no other compelling force to enforce societal norms and rules (see: police). It's only our familiarity and compliance with the system that prevents us from encountering that violence.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      Economic transactions are a mediation in place of violence.
      - guscost 6y ago
        Exactly. It is the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried. “Business is war.”
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    That is very much a false dichotomy - and obviously so, because it simply means you have no idea of what Capitalism can cost you, and even less idea of what it has cost you already. For example your axe and gun won't help you when your health insurance company decides that your pre-existing condition is too expensive to insure and your medical costs are now 100% your own responsibility - which is something that causes the bankruptcy of around 500,000 Americans every year. Or when there's a major financial crash and a bank decides that it needs to steal your home from under you, whether or not you're underwater on your mortgage. These are not hypotheticals. These are all things that have happened, are happening, and are likely to continue happening. GDP is not the issue, but a political and economic system which increases personal selfishness at the expense of others is. You can argue that collectivist solutions have the same problem, and to an extent you'll be right. But it's a long way from there to pretending that this is the best of all possible worlds, because there are economies which prove that isn't true.
- sumtechguy 6y ago
  Capitalism always exists. It is the management of scarce resources. Usually we use money to control the flow of very scarce resources. But it does not have to be money. A quota system is nothing more than a form of money but itemized.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    I believe you are confusing markets with capitalism.
    - guscost 6y ago
      Capitalism depends entirely on the existence of functioning markets. It is the philosophy that recognizes their value and promotes them.
      - Miner49er 6y ago
        Yes, but you can have socialism with markets too.
- golemotron 6y ago
  > Not really no, it can be ended by simply changing the idea of land ownership, for example. That's a very narrow view of capitalism.

Not really no, it can be ended by simply changing the idea of land ownership, for example. Land ownership in it's modern form didn't happen in a voluntary way, it was forced through violence.

tengbretson 6y ago
Land ownership in it's modern form is the alternative to constant violence.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I was more thinking of the mutualist's idea of land ownership, I don't think it would be any more violent than the current system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Usufruct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#Us... Basically you can only "own" land if you personally actually use it, not just rent it (or do nothing with it).
- hinkley 6y ago
  There were some alternatives presented but not accepted. In the history of warfare, terrain set boundaries because the defenders had substantial advantage over attackers. I own this side of the river, you own that one. But from an ecological policy standpoint, it’s a disaster. Neither of us own the river, but if I dump shit into it and you have a port at the mouth, then my problems become your problems. The alternative proposal was to divide government along watershed boundaries. Spain and France are still divided by the Pyrenees, because ridge lines are the same boundaries on both maps. But the Rhine and the Rhone say that France is divided from Germany, Italy, and Benelux all wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File:Europ%C3%A4ische_Wasserscheiden.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_watershed#/media/File... The river would instead become the middle of a territory, not the edges. My hamlet “owns” the valley it sits in. The county owns the tributary that flows past my hamlet and into another tributary. The state owns the tributary all the way to the Rhone, our nation or a union owns the entire Rhone, and a regional group oversees the Mediterranean, while the UN oversees the oceans in general, when regions don’t agree with themselves or among each other. Anyone who muddies our water is in a direct chain of accountability to everyone down stream. Logistically this is a nightmare. We’ve wiped out any cultures who might have worked this way, and those that remain won’t move political boundaries except under extreme duress, except to expand them (see point 1). But it does have a very Conway’s Law feel to it.
Grimm1 6y ago
Getting rid of private land ownership is one of the many reasons I can never get on board with more collectivist ideologies that support that. The idea is flawed in itself and we've seen it doesn't lead to good things when it is tried. Even the soviets came to that conclusion during their existence, starting with adopting leasing and then near the end full ownership for agriculture and then eventually for homes. I still remember a friend from college telling me how his father had to retain his property after the fall of the USSR and new land rights were established in one of the now former satellite states, with a gun and an axe. Not to create a false dichotomy but I'll take a stable slightly coercive economic system over a system that requires me to use violence to keep what is mine.
- imsofuture 6y ago
  Private property entirely depends on violence -- that's not hyperbole, there's ultimately no other compelling force to enforce societal norms and rules (see: police). It's only our familiarity and compliance with the system that prevents us from encountering that violence.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Economic transactions are a mediation in place of violence.
    - guscost 6y ago
      Exactly. It is the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried. “Business is war.”
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That is very much a false dichotomy - and obviously so, because it simply means you have no idea of what Capitalism can cost you, and even less idea of what it has cost you already. For example your axe and gun won't help you when your health insurance company decides that your pre-existing condition is too expensive to insure and your medical costs are now 100% your own responsibility - which is something that causes the bankruptcy of around 500,000 Americans every year. Or when there's a major financial crash and a bank decides that it needs to steal your home from under you, whether or not you're underwater on your mortgage. These are not hypotheticals. These are all things that have happened, are happening, and are likely to continue happening. GDP is not the issue, but a political and economic system which increases personal selfishness at the expense of others is. You can argue that collectivist solutions have the same problem, and to an extent you'll be right. But it's a long way from there to pretending that this is the best of all possible worlds, because there are economies which prove that isn't true.
sumtechguy 6y ago
Capitalism always exists. It is the management of scarce resources. Usually we use money to control the flow of very scarce resources. But it does not have to be money. A quota system is nothing more than a form of money but itemized.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I believe you are confusing markets with capitalism.
  - guscost 6y ago
    Capitalism depends entirely on the existence of functioning markets. It is the philosophy that recognizes their value and promotes them.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      Yes, but you can have socialism with markets too.
golemotron 6y ago
> Not really no, it can be ended by simply changing the idea of land ownership, for example. That's a very narrow view of capitalism.