11 ms·

I have a saying, “Capitalism is the means by which we screw each other over.” But it’s better than the alternative “Communism, the lack of means by which we scr

I have a saying, “Capitalism is the means by which we screw each other over.” But it’s better than the alternative “Communism, the lack of means by which we screw each other over.” I don’t think Socialism is the answer, which is simple Capitalism with bits of Communism sprinkled in to soothe over the more egregious failures (or to pretend to do, which is even worse). We need something truly new.

Conscat 3y ago
I assume what you really mean by socialism is "democratic socialism" or "market socialism", because they kind of fit your description, but not other "socialism"s like anarcho-syndicalism.
seventytwo 3y ago
I’m fond of the idea that capitalism is like fire. You can use it as a tool and for cooking and warmth, but it must be regulated lest it get out of control and consume everything it touches.
- josephg 3y ago
  Yeah; I like to think of capitalism as an eldrich god that we've summoned from beyond the veil and attempted to yoke for our own betterment. Its incredibly powerful, yes. But it fundamentally doesn't care about human flourishing. To use a line from the Economist, we have to tame capitalism's excesses in order to get the most benefit to society.
- eru 3y ago
  It's more like the state that's this creature that engulfs everything. Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Capitalism stays out of stuff just fine. Few people organise their family or friendships or their bowling club along capitalist lines. Even companies themselves are usually structured as quasi-socialist command economies, and the market mostly only is for interaction between companies.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Isn't that just because its an abstraction we view the world through? As an abstraction it often doesn't fully work. E.g. is taiwan a nation state? Are the parts of lebanon that have effectively been taken over by hezbolla really part of the state of lebanon if the state isn't fully in control anymore? Is belarus really an independent state or does russia have so much control that it isn't really anymore? The state abstraction makes for neat boxes but the reality on the ground in many places isn't really that clear cut.
    - eru 3y ago
      You are right about grey areas. However, eg Taiwan and Belarus are still organised and run like nation states, even if their diplomatic status might be a bit wonky. Eg they have an army, they enforce laws, people pay taxes and obey regulations etc. Compare that with the state of eg Europe a thousand years ago, when things were organised differently. Or have a look at most of the rest of the world back then. Historically, one big change was the spread of gun powder. Fielding armies powered by gun powder required a lot more state capacity and organisation but provided huge military advantages. A tribal or feudal society couldn't cut it on the battlefield anymore, so they were outcompeted. (The whole process is a lot messier and complicated, of course.)
briantakita 3y ago
Hopefully it's not "The Great Reset" which uses a derivation of an even older form of governance...Neo-Feudalism...along with "Public-Private Partnerships"...aka Fascism. A culture of bottom up independent & responsible creators would be a freedom-oriented alternative. Perhaps things are not fixed because the majority of the population is nudged & habituated to give up their responsibility to governments, corporations, & "experts". This includes the responsibility to hear all information in a pure uncensored & unnarrated form...And the responsibility to make decisions based on all available information. Also, the responsibility to take action based on the information & decisions. Convenience & irresponsibility comes with a great price. If you let let them take your responsibility away from you, they will have sole determination of your conditions...Feudalism & Fascism has historically not ended well for the subjects, including the subjects that profit from these governance models.
tonymet 3y ago
how did hackernews brew so many well compensated communists.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      I'm talking about classical-liberal economic theory, mostly Austrian and Chicago school.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school. The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization. The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics. But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.

Conscat 3y ago

I assume what you really mean by socialism is "democratic socialism" or "market socialism", because they kind of fit your description, but not other "socialism"s like anarcho-syndicalism.

seventytwo 3y ago

I’m fond of the idea that capitalism is like fire. You can use it as a tool and for cooking and warmth, but it must be regulated lest it get out of control and consume everything it touches.

josephg 3y ago
Yeah; I like to think of capitalism as an eldrich god that we've summoned from beyond the veil and attempted to yoke for our own betterment. Its incredibly powerful, yes. But it fundamentally doesn't care about human flourishing. To use a line from the Economist, we have to tame capitalism's excesses in order to get the most benefit to society.
eru 3y ago
It's more like the state that's this creature that engulfs everything. Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Capitalism stays out of stuff just fine. Few people organise their family or friendships or their bowling club along capitalist lines. Even companies themselves are usually structured as quasi-socialist command economies, and the market mostly only is for interaction between companies.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Nation states have been extremely successful. Nearly every square metre of landmass on earth is claimed by one nation state or another. Isn't that just because its an abstraction we view the world through? As an abstraction it often doesn't fully work. E.g. is taiwan a nation state? Are the parts of lebanon that have effectively been taken over by hezbolla really part of the state of lebanon if the state isn't fully in control anymore? Is belarus really an independent state or does russia have so much control that it isn't really anymore? The state abstraction makes for neat boxes but the reality on the ground in many places isn't really that clear cut.
  - eru 3y ago
    You are right about grey areas. However, eg Taiwan and Belarus are still organised and run like nation states, even if their diplomatic status might be a bit wonky. Eg they have an army, they enforce laws, people pay taxes and obey regulations etc. Compare that with the state of eg Europe a thousand years ago, when things were organised differently. Or have a look at most of the rest of the world back then. Historically, one big change was the spread of gun powder. Fielding armies powered by gun powder required a lot more state capacity and organisation but provided huge military advantages. A tribal or feudal society couldn't cut it on the battlefield anymore, so they were outcompeted. (The whole process is a lot messier and complicated, of course.)

briantakita 3y ago

Hopefully it's not "The Great Reset" which uses a derivation of an even older form of governance...Neo-Feudalism...along with "Public-Private Partnerships"...aka Fascism. A culture of bottom up independent & responsible creators would be a freedom-oriented alternative. Perhaps things are not fixed because the majority of the population is nudged & habituated to give up their responsibility to governments, corporations, & "experts". This includes the responsibility to hear all information in a pure uncensored & unnarrated form...And the responsibility to make decisions based on all available information. Also, the responsibility to take action based on the information & decisions. Convenience & irresponsibility comes with a great price. If you let let them take your responsibility away from you, they will have sole determination of your conditions...Feudalism & Fascism has historically not ended well for the subjects, including the subjects that profit from these governance models.

tonymet 3y ago

how did hackernews brew so many well compensated communists.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. People can succeed under a system and still acknowledge it is a bad one for a big part of the population.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    I'm talking about classical-liberal economic theory, mostly Austrian and Chicago school.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school. The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization. The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics. But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.