3 ms·

Ironically this is a Marxist argument, more or less. But it lacks the historical dimension. Capitalism is a historical and technological phenomenon. One of t

Ironically this is a Marxist argument, more or less. But it lacks the historical dimension. Capitalism is a historical and technological phenomenon. One of the replies talks about it emerging in the Late Middle Ages. Of course it existed previously, in the form of a landed aristocracy, but the potential for concentration of capital didn't exist. With the industrial revolution concentration of capital created the order we live under today. To describe it as natural is an unhappy choice of words. It is certainly engaged in the large-scale subjugation and destruction of nature. Concentrated capital turns the machine up: it exponentially increases inputs and outputs, ramps up the engine, increases production, consumption, everything. It is a system that may be completely unsustainable. You deal with the benefits of the system: good ideas, smooth returns, sophisticated investors. I don't see any appreciation of the costs: increasing inequality, environmental damage, immiseration of people in developing countries. There may never be a permanent revolution against capitalism: it will simply be impossible to sustain.

monero-xmr 4y ago
Several things to unpack here. Regarding the environment, every single action a human does, from building huts to skyscrapers, affects the environment. I don’t see the earth as a living creature, I see it as a ball of rock. If humanity went extinct, in the blink of an eye all the damage and changes we did to the earth would be meaningless. I want to keep the environment amenable to humans only because I want humans to exist - the earth is not a goddess, it is unthinking and unfeeling matter. Regarding developing countries, more people in the last 100 years were lifted out of poverty than in all time, and that was directly because of capitalism. Marx was a good philosopher and historian. However I fundamentally disagree with the labor theory of value, because all value is subjective. There is no direct mapping between labor cost and value to the consumer, labor is simply an input cost. You can create something with enormous value with very little labor.
goatlover 4y ago
> I don't see any appreciation of the costs: increasing inequality, environmental damage, immiseration of people in developing countries. How is capitalism increasing inequality over what came before? There is more environmental damage now because there are a lot more of us with a lot more powerful technologies. But humans have always altered their environments to make them more suitable. One could argue that we (and our hominid cousins) became an invasive species once we started migrating out of Africa. And if the developing countries are developing, it sounds like the people are becoming less immeserated over time.

monero-xmr 4y ago

Several things to unpack here. Regarding the environment, every single action a human does, from building huts to skyscrapers, affects the environment. I don’t see the earth as a living creature, I see it as a ball of rock. If humanity went extinct, in the blink of an eye all the damage and changes we did to the earth would be meaningless. I want to keep the environment amenable to humans only because I want humans to exist - the earth is not a goddess, it is unthinking and unfeeling matter. Regarding developing countries, more people in the last 100 years were lifted out of poverty than in all time, and that was directly because of capitalism. Marx was a good philosopher and historian. However I fundamentally disagree with the labor theory of value, because all value is subjective. There is no direct mapping between labor cost and value to the consumer, labor is simply an input cost. You can create something with enormous value with very little labor.

goatlover 4y ago

> I don't see any appreciation of the costs: increasing inequality, environmental damage, immiseration of people in developing countries. How is capitalism increasing inequality over what came before? There is more environmental damage now because there are a lot more of us with a lot more powerful technologies. But humans have always altered their environments to make them more suitable. One could argue that we (and our hominid cousins) became an invasive species once we started migrating out of Africa. And if the developing countries are developing, it sounds like the people are becoming less immeserated over time.