4 ms·

The idea that capitalism should go to a point and then be stopped is a pretty standard one from Marx. He greatly admired capitalism but believed once it made pe

The idea that capitalism should go to a point and then be stopped is a pretty standard one from Marx. He greatly admired capitalism but believed once it made people rich it would no longer be needed and the workers would naturally take over through revolution. That’s not to say you’re wrong just because you agree with Marx, but rather you should consider why you are so attached to this idea. Marx’s ideas are a type of religion dressed up to look scientific via “historical materialism”. It’s appealing to believe that time is under humanity’s control rather than something outside of humanity, but there’s strong reasons to believe that is false (the universe will last much longer than humans will).

javajosh 3y ago
I think you need to re-read Marx, then. I'm not a Marxist, at all, mainly because of the empirical evidence that hardcore redistribution of wealth goes very, very poorly. Frankly it annoys me and worries me that some people associate literally any limit on capitalism with socialism. Adam Smith's invisible hand was driven not by self-interest, but enlightened self-interest. Putting a hard, generous upper limit on wealth accumulation is not even close to Marxism.
- simple-thoughts 3y ago
  Admittedly Marx is more generous than you- he didn’t want a hard upper limit in wealth and rather thought wealth would increase further after the transition. So yes you do differ from Marx in that you’re a bit harder on people.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That works as long as there are no limits to the system in which you are working. But the real world is very much a closed system and you can't externalize the results of unbounded growth of wealth within that system. There is nothing to externalize to! So unbounded growth equals unbounded pollution, unbounded resource depletion and ultimately the crash when the boundaries of the system start making themselves be noticed.
    - simple-thoughts 3y ago
      Resource intensity of gdp in developed economies has been decreasing over time. That’s because wealth is not a zero sum game that necessarily requires an exterior to take the negative side of the equation. Rather wealth is created when better options are made available- when actors within the system have superior choices to what they had before. That’s why you see some entertainment media produce outsize returns while others end up failing; it’s not a matter of how much resources are consumed but rather how they’re put together to make a better story (better from the consumer perspective versus their alternatives).
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That's true but it's a quantitative element that won't make a qualitative difference in the long run, in other words the outcome will be exactly the same, but maybe a bit later.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    You're arguing in favor of unbounded personal greed. You're arguing in favor of cancer, which is any cell that ceases to regulate it's own growth to the detriment of the organism. The unreasonable effectiveness of tools means that the old days of "natural regulation" of human growth has been eliminated, and something needs to replace it. Asking people to stop once they have Enough is just about the least bad option we have to stem the tide.

javajosh 3y ago

I think you need to re-read Marx, then. I'm not a Marxist, at all, mainly because of the empirical evidence that hardcore redistribution of wealth goes very, very poorly. Frankly it annoys me and worries me that some people associate literally any limit on capitalism with socialism. Adam Smith's invisible hand was driven not by self-interest, but enlightened self-interest. Putting a hard, generous upper limit on wealth accumulation is not even close to Marxism.

simple-thoughts 3y ago
Admittedly Marx is more generous than you- he didn’t want a hard upper limit in wealth and rather thought wealth would increase further after the transition. So yes you do differ from Marx in that you’re a bit harder on people.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That works as long as there are no limits to the system in which you are working. But the real world is very much a closed system and you can't externalize the results of unbounded growth of wealth within that system. There is nothing to externalize to! So unbounded growth equals unbounded pollution, unbounded resource depletion and ultimately the crash when the boundaries of the system start making themselves be noticed.
  - simple-thoughts 3y ago
    Resource intensity of gdp in developed economies has been decreasing over time. That’s because wealth is not a zero sum game that necessarily requires an exterior to take the negative side of the equation. Rather wealth is created when better options are made available- when actors within the system have superior choices to what they had before. That’s why you see some entertainment media produce outsize returns while others end up failing; it’s not a matter of how much resources are consumed but rather how they’re put together to make a better story (better from the consumer perspective versus their alternatives).
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's true but it's a quantitative element that won't make a qualitative difference in the long run, in other words the outcome will be exactly the same, but maybe a bit later.
- javajosh 3y ago
  You're arguing in favor of unbounded personal greed. You're arguing in favor of cancer, which is any cell that ceases to regulate it's own growth to the detriment of the organism. The unreasonable effectiveness of tools means that the old days of "natural regulation" of human growth has been eliminated, and something needs to replace it. Asking people to stop once they have Enough is just about the least bad option we have to stem the tide.