3 ms·

There’s no denying that capitalism is “grow or die”, but so is socialism. Like capitalism, socialism needs working adults to outnumber both retired seniors and

There’s no denying that capitalism is “grow or die”, but so is socialism. Like capitalism, socialism needs working adults to outnumber both retired seniors and non working age children. The only way socialism can avoid the constant growth requirement is if they have a “you only eat if you work” rule. Historically, socialism’s rate of pollution is on par with capitalism

jerojero 4y ago
There are a lot of people proposing models of economic development that don't necessarily rely on growth. There's a lot of work done on degrowth and similar modes of production. Though I haven't really read too much into it (just getting into this topic recently) a lot of the authors are staunch critics of capitalism so it leads me to believe that there are other systems out there that aren't necessarily capitalists and probably align with socialism much more. Just to give a brief example, think about private ownership of a firm versus worker ownership of it and how it would change the way that firm approaches pollution. In the first it is very easy for the owners to be detached from the pollution they produce as they can simply move to another city without the firm really be affected in any way. Whereas in the second one it wouldn't be possible for workers to move as they would be unable to continue working, so pollution affects them and their families directly in which case there are much stronger incentives for them to cut profits in order to greenify their production. First is a capitalist mode of production, second is a socialist one.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Imo co-ops aren’t socialist because it’s not directly controlled by a government. They also already exist and thrive in modern mixed capitalist economies
  - jerojero 4y ago
    The government controlling production is not all there is to socialism, at all. Markets are not an exclusive feature of capitalism. In very simple terms, the economy from a leftist perspective can be separated into two areas: distribution and ownership. If you have private ownership and markets then you have the current system; capitalism, if you have state ownership and markets then you have the system that China has. If you have worker ownership (co-ops) and markets then you have a system that actually has a name: market socialism. Of course every economic system has lots of pockets of different things inside it, the economies of walmart and amazon for example work, internally, through planning. So even in our market system we still have pockets of central-planning. But to me at least, the fundamental characteristic of the capitalist system is precisely ownership and the power relationships that come with ownership. So although co-ops exist in capitalism, imo, they're the seeds of new forms to come.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      China does not currently have a socialist system. Socialist systems do not feature either markets or private ownership. Both markets and private ownership of property are features of capitalism. At best China has a mixed system which primarily features capitalism despite some centralized planning
jay_kyburz 4y ago
I think its important to recognize that right at the top of the capitalist pyramid, where the money is all ultimately flowing, is people. And people, unlike companies, can do whatever they like with their money. They don't need to grow or die at all. They can choose to spend it on fixing our societies problems, or they can piss it away on Champagne and Caviar.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  That’s not true due to the system and its forces like inflation. Mix in our social safety nets and you’ll realize that our mixed economies are highly reliant on growth unless you want to end social security, Medicare, and (for non-US developed nations) universal healthcare. You still need growth even if you’re not “pissing it all away on champagne and caviar” ie the proportion of working, taxable adults needs to greatly outnumber retired senior citizens who keep living longer and longer, while couples keep having less and less children
epistasis 4y ago
> There’s no denying that capitalism is “grow or die”, but so is socialism. I think it's important to specify about what individual components "grow-or-die" here, because I'm having trouble agreeing that capitalism or socialism, as systems, are such. Individual entities in capitalism, embodied in the concept of the firm, are not necessarily grow-or-die. A growing firm has a much easier life, as there is more slack in all parts of the system, and they can be less efficient in their allocation of resources. But a stagnant firm does not necessarily die. An accountant that is growing, or even shrinking, is not doomed to be replaced by another, growing accountant. Large firms can be stagnant for generations without dying. IBM is still around, right? And similarly, even if a firm is growing massively, accumulating capital and collecting surplus value, that doesn't mean that the GDP as a whole is growing, because so many other large firms could be contracting. The question of how the retired class of people eats, and how to distribute resources between younger workers and elder retirees is solvable in many ways, under socialism and under capitalism. Many of China's problems stem from inadequate retirement distribution, despite supposedly being a socialist or communist country. This is why I feel that these discussions are completely pointless, our abstractions are no longer useful for describing the material reality of people. And we get ridiculous articles like the original post here that cod not even provide an adequate definition of capitalism to describe what they are talking about. Its all monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, IMHO, pointless discussions disconnected from reality.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Your argument is not accounting for factors such as inflation, fiat, and leverage to name a few. No one is going to invest in anything that doesn’t have a decent ROI > Many of China's problems stem from inadequate retirement distribution, despite supposedly being a socialist or communist country. China hasn’t been socialist for decades now. I’m not even sure what your point is. It has “inadequate” retirement distribution because 1. It’s a drag on the economy and growth 2. Like nearly every other country, China has a demographic problem: the proportion of the retired elderly vs the taxable, working population is not sustainable ie there are too many elderly people who are not contributing to both the economy and tax revenue > The question of how the retired class of people eats, and how to distribute resources between younger workers and elder retirees is solvable in many ways, under socialism and under capitalism. I feel that describing the so called “solutions” is important here instead of assuming that it will magically automatically just intuitively work. It’s not an easy or straightforward problem to solve This is only a pointless discussion for people who lack enough knowledge of both history and economics
tim333 4y ago
I'm happy to deny capitalism is "grow or die" because it's basically rubbish. Look at some basically stable capitalist country like Switzerland. I'm sure there is some growth but even if it doesn't grow the trains would still run on time, people have food houses etc.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  1. You’re contradicting yourself ie “sure there is some growth” 2. Stability doesn’t imply that growth isn’t necessary 3. A return on investment requires growth. Otherwise people wouldn’t invest

jerojero 4y ago

There are a lot of people proposing models of economic development that don't necessarily rely on growth. There's a lot of work done on degrowth and similar modes of production. Though I haven't really read too much into it (just getting into this topic recently) a lot of the authors are staunch critics of capitalism so it leads me to believe that there are other systems out there that aren't necessarily capitalists and probably align with socialism much more. Just to give a brief example, think about private ownership of a firm versus worker ownership of it and how it would change the way that firm approaches pollution. In the first it is very easy for the owners to be detached from the pollution they produce as they can simply move to another city without the firm really be affected in any way. Whereas in the second one it wouldn't be possible for workers to move as they would be unable to continue working, so pollution affects them and their families directly in which case there are much stronger incentives for them to cut profits in order to greenify their production. First is a capitalist mode of production, second is a socialist one.

chaostheory 4y ago
Imo co-ops aren’t socialist because it’s not directly controlled by a government. They also already exist and thrive in modern mixed capitalist economies
- jerojero 4y ago
  The government controlling production is not all there is to socialism, at all. Markets are not an exclusive feature of capitalism. In very simple terms, the economy from a leftist perspective can be separated into two areas: distribution and ownership. If you have private ownership and markets then you have the current system; capitalism, if you have state ownership and markets then you have the system that China has. If you have worker ownership (co-ops) and markets then you have a system that actually has a name: market socialism. Of course every economic system has lots of pockets of different things inside it, the economies of walmart and amazon for example work, internally, through planning. So even in our market system we still have pockets of central-planning. But to me at least, the fundamental characteristic of the capitalist system is precisely ownership and the power relationships that come with ownership. So although co-ops exist in capitalism, imo, they're the seeds of new forms to come.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    China does not currently have a socialist system. Socialist systems do not feature either markets or private ownership. Both markets and private ownership of property are features of capitalism. At best China has a mixed system which primarily features capitalism despite some centralized planning

jay_kyburz 4y ago

I think its important to recognize that right at the top of the capitalist pyramid, where the money is all ultimately flowing, is people. And people, unlike companies, can do whatever they like with their money. They don't need to grow or die at all. They can choose to spend it on fixing our societies problems, or they can piss it away on Champagne and Caviar.

chaostheory 4y ago
That’s not true due to the system and its forces like inflation. Mix in our social safety nets and you’ll realize that our mixed economies are highly reliant on growth unless you want to end social security, Medicare, and (for non-US developed nations) universal healthcare. You still need growth even if you’re not “pissing it all away on champagne and caviar” ie the proportion of working, taxable adults needs to greatly outnumber retired senior citizens who keep living longer and longer, while couples keep having less and less children

epistasis 4y ago

> There’s no denying that capitalism is “grow or die”, but so is socialism. I think it's important to specify about what individual components "grow-or-die" here, because I'm having trouble agreeing that capitalism or socialism, as systems, are such. Individual entities in capitalism, embodied in the concept of the firm, are not necessarily grow-or-die. A growing firm has a much easier life, as there is more slack in all parts of the system, and they can be less efficient in their allocation of resources. But a stagnant firm does not necessarily die. An accountant that is growing, or even shrinking, is not doomed to be replaced by another, growing accountant. Large firms can be stagnant for generations without dying. IBM is still around, right? And similarly, even if a firm is growing massively, accumulating capital and collecting surplus value, that doesn't mean that the GDP as a whole is growing, because so many other large firms could be contracting. The question of how the retired class of people eats, and how to distribute resources between younger workers and elder retirees is solvable in many ways, under socialism and under capitalism. Many of China's problems stem from inadequate retirement distribution, despite supposedly being a socialist or communist country. This is why I feel that these discussions are completely pointless, our abstractions are no longer useful for describing the material reality of people. And we get ridiculous articles like the original post here that cod not even provide an adequate definition of capitalism to describe what they are talking about. Its all monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, IMHO, pointless discussions disconnected from reality.

chaostheory 4y ago
Your argument is not accounting for factors such as inflation, fiat, and leverage to name a few. No one is going to invest in anything that doesn’t have a decent ROI > Many of China's problems stem from inadequate retirement distribution, despite supposedly being a socialist or communist country. China hasn’t been socialist for decades now. I’m not even sure what your point is. It has “inadequate” retirement distribution because 1. It’s a drag on the economy and growth 2. Like nearly every other country, China has a demographic problem: the proportion of the retired elderly vs the taxable, working population is not sustainable ie there are too many elderly people who are not contributing to both the economy and tax revenue > The question of how the retired class of people eats, and how to distribute resources between younger workers and elder retirees is solvable in many ways, under socialism and under capitalism. I feel that describing the so called “solutions” is important here instead of assuming that it will magically automatically just intuitively work. It’s not an easy or straightforward problem to solve This is only a pointless discussion for people who lack enough knowledge of both history and economics

tim333 4y ago

I'm happy to deny capitalism is "grow or die" because it's basically rubbish. Look at some basically stable capitalist country like Switzerland. I'm sure there is some growth but even if it doesn't grow the trains would still run on time, people have food houses etc.

chaostheory 4y ago
1. You’re contradicting yourself ie “sure there is some growth” 2. Stability doesn’t imply that growth isn’t necessary 3. A return on investment requires growth. Otherwise people wouldn’t invest