4 ms·

1. I wouldn't say that capitalism, at its core is a government construct. 2.capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. Ther

1. I wouldn't say that capitalism, at its core is a government construct. 2.capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. Now the government could (and should) step in to fix that failure. Their failure to step in is a different failure, the root failure is with capitalism, the governments failure is a failure to step in and fix it. It's like if my house catches on fire and the fire service turns up without any hoses. That is a failure of the fire service. If this becomes a widespread problem and the fire service shows it isn't capable of fixing itself then the govt should step in to fix it. But any failure by the govt to step in is a failure of oversight not of failing to put my fire out.

ericmay 4y ago
I don't know what you mean by construct, but capitalism is an economic system that is regulated and enabled by the government because in order to own private property either you have to defend it yourself or you have the government set rules and act as the enforcement mechanism. Capitalism is one type of economic system that operates with the blessing of the government but there are others. Soviet Russia is an example of a different type of economic system. Capitalism couldn't flourish there because the government decided to not allow it to exist. > capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. I think you are confusing a market pricing mechanic which is a feature of capitalism with the core tenet of capitalism which is the existence of the private ownership of the means of production. > There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. For me the blame will always go to the government (and people) for failure to regulate because a market in a capitalist economy cannot value something that isn't being bought or sold. You point this out yourself by saying "capitalism is about valuing things...". The value is either 0 (until global warming starts getting nasty) or undiscovered. Nobody is buying or selling carbon (so far), so there's nothing for market economies to do with it. That's part of why a carbon tax in my mind seems like a great idea because we can introduce a pricing mechanic into a market economy and then allow efficient allocation of resources.
- greenhearth 4y ago
  Capitalism is not a clear cut binary of "public/private." This is not an essential element of this system, as you have capitalist apparatuses acting in totalitarian/communist states, such as state owned beer companies in China that still act as capitalist entities, i.e. they are invested in in expectations to grow the profits from this company. It is actually speculated by theorists like Althusser that the private/public dynamic doesn't even exist. Maybe you are talking about the definition accepted by market exchange semantics, where anyone can gamble on a company vs. only a specific number of people/one person gambles on it.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I agree that it is not necessarily clear cut, and your example is a good one but we have to start somewhere and I'm not sure that this is material to the conversation at hand anyway except that if the corporations are state-owned then it's just even more the government's fault that they're polluting. Of course new configurations of so-called private and public entities can and will occur and it's more of a shades of gray kind of thing. But to the extent that they become closer to the government (like US defense contractors for example which are publicly traded entities which are privately owned) it just, as in the case with China, becomes more of the government's fault that they're allowed to pollute. In my mind there's no way to escape that the fault of climate change rests squarely on the shoulders of the government and the people. People just don't want to look in the mirror or accept responsibility so it's easy to blame everything on ephemeral billionaires and corporations and then nothing gets done because we can just complain instead of no longer flying, or having to use paper straws or whatever pisses people off these days.
    - greenhearth 4y ago
      Well, I agree that it's people's fault. But "the government" is also an ephemeral entity, as you put it. It is not a monolith, but a sometimes loosely connected collection of organs of power and ideology. Is the president "government?" Are teachers or cops who are government employees "government?" Are the contractors, or air force pilots "government?" If so, how could all these individuals collectively be held responsible for pollution? The discussion on what government actually is is completely outside the scope here, but the lines between whatever government is and capitalist urges, goals and methodologies are usually blurred. Louis Althusser mentioned above explained that state power cannot be had, it can only be used. And it is used in liberal democracies by capitalist agents, just as in totalitarian states by totalitarian agents. But always there is a coalescence of ideologies and apparatuses.

ericmay 4y ago

I don't know what you mean by construct, but capitalism is an economic system that is regulated and enabled by the government because in order to own private property either you have to defend it yourself or you have the government set rules and act as the enforcement mechanism. Capitalism is one type of economic system that operates with the blessing of the government but there are others. Soviet Russia is an example of a different type of economic system. Capitalism couldn't flourish there because the government decided to not allow it to exist. > capitalism is about valuing things to allow / encourage efficient allocation. I think you are confusing a market pricing mechanic which is a feature of capitalism with the core tenet of capitalism which is the existence of the private ownership of the means of production. > There is a cost to pumping co2 into the atmosphere. Capitalism doesn't take that into account. And as that is what it should be doing, failing to do so is a failure of capitalism. For me the blame will always go to the government (and people) for failure to regulate because a market in a capitalist economy cannot value something that isn't being bought or sold. You point this out yourself by saying "capitalism is about valuing things...". The value is either 0 (until global warming starts getting nasty) or undiscovered. Nobody is buying or selling carbon (so far), so there's nothing for market economies to do with it. That's part of why a carbon tax in my mind seems like a great idea because we can introduce a pricing mechanic into a market economy and then allow efficient allocation of resources.

greenhearth 4y ago
Capitalism is not a clear cut binary of "public/private." This is not an essential element of this system, as you have capitalist apparatuses acting in totalitarian/communist states, such as state owned beer companies in China that still act as capitalist entities, i.e. they are invested in in expectations to grow the profits from this company. It is actually speculated by theorists like Althusser that the private/public dynamic doesn't even exist. Maybe you are talking about the definition accepted by market exchange semantics, where anyone can gamble on a company vs. only a specific number of people/one person gambles on it.
- ericmay 4y ago
  I agree that it is not necessarily clear cut, and your example is a good one but we have to start somewhere and I'm not sure that this is material to the conversation at hand anyway except that if the corporations are state-owned then it's just even more the government's fault that they're polluting. Of course new configurations of so-called private and public entities can and will occur and it's more of a shades of gray kind of thing. But to the extent that they become closer to the government (like US defense contractors for example which are publicly traded entities which are privately owned) it just, as in the case with China, becomes more of the government's fault that they're allowed to pollute. In my mind there's no way to escape that the fault of climate change rests squarely on the shoulders of the government and the people. People just don't want to look in the mirror or accept responsibility so it's easy to blame everything on ephemeral billionaires and corporations and then nothing gets done because we can just complain instead of no longer flying, or having to use paper straws or whatever pisses people off these days.
  - greenhearth 4y ago
    Well, I agree that it's people's fault. But "the government" is also an ephemeral entity, as you put it. It is not a monolith, but a sometimes loosely connected collection of organs of power and ideology. Is the president "government?" Are teachers or cops who are government employees "government?" Are the contractors, or air force pilots "government?" If so, how could all these individuals collectively be held responsible for pollution? The discussion on what government actually is is completely outside the scope here, but the lines between whatever government is and capitalist urges, goals and methodologies are usually blurred. Louis Althusser mentioned above explained that state power cannot be had, it can only be used. And it is used in liberal democracies by capitalist agents, just as in totalitarian states by totalitarian agents. But always there is a coalescence of ideologies and apparatuses.