5 ms·

The thing 'anti-capitalists' never seem to understand, is that it's not a top down system but bottom up emergent human behaviour. A function of consent/interope

The thing 'anti-capitalists' never seem to understand, is that it's not a top down system but bottom up emergent human behaviour. A function of consent/interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family/tribe unit. Thus hard to see an "end to capitalism". That would be like an end to language. We'd just re-invent it.

ryuhhnn 1y ago
I never understood the anti-capitalist argument to be that it’s a top down system (and thus is why it’s “bad”), I think the critique is more that capitalism will inevitably beget hierarchies and self-reinforces them. And to be fair, some earlier attempts at socialism also begot hierarchies, but now I’m being a little pedantic.
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  I don't hear it referred to as a top down system either, but infer that. People talk about a world without it, or after it, as if it's one thing - which is why I described it as top down. Ie one corner stone you can remove. Like a monarchy, or damn. And indeed, the critiques (that come to mind at least) I've heard of capitalism all seem valid at first, until I realise they also apply to socialism, communism, etc. Thus so far I don't see capitalism as being relevant as people think, and stick with my - temporary - conclusion that it's an emergent behaviour.
  - alxjrvs 1y ago
    Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Capitalism - a system by which the means of production are privately owned - has only been dominant for the last few hundred years, broadly exacerbated by the industrial revolution (where you could easily point to "Guy who owns the big Machine"). It is, at its most fundamental description, a Top-Down system of governance and ownership (I admit, probably not the way you mean, but it did tickle me). Dragons hoarding wealth might be emergent human behavior, but, hey, so are brave knights.
    - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
      > Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Neither. But to pick one, trade. > has only been dominant for the last few hundred years That's hard to falsify, although I'd guess people have had things for much longer, eg spears. Although this get's away from the point, and into something else. Right now if I step out into the street, I can flag a taxi, I can buy a coffee. In each case these are direct peer to peer transactions, where the price is agreed between us based on what we both want out of the exchange. I find it easy to imagine that's how it was hundreds of years ago too, even within tribes. The capital (money, coffee, spear), isn't really the relevant thing. It's a conduit and focal point of behaviour. That was my original point, and why I don't value a top down aspect to it (even though that of course exists in groups with more scale - societies). I would welcome a refute on that point, or if you could frame a different way of looking at it (capitalism) at the level of individuals who want to consentfully interoperate (and don't even know the word capitalism).
      - pram 1y ago
        There is a definition difference. What Marx defined as capitalism is a pattern of post-feudal production after the industrial revolution. It means the transformation of quantities of surplus value from wage labor, and the qualitative transformation of the surplus into capital. People typically respond with “well using money and buying stuff in a market is just natural law” etc which isn’t “capitalism” and indeed the first chapter of Capital is all about commodity-money and primitive markets and production. These things are all pre-capitalism and have existed for as long as civilization has.
        t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
        Thanks. In your view, if people want to get rid of capitalism, or live in post capitalism or whatever, do you think that's possible? I still think you'd need to have consent, and you wouldn't get it as some people want to take risk but some don't so would opt for no risk but fixed - limited - reward. I ask, as just as trading is long standing, so I'd guess would be a risk tolerance (and other tolerances which factor in).
  - thrance 1y ago
    Communism is supposed to be socialized ownership of the means of productions. So yeah, in a communist world capitalism would be gone (duh). In fact, you don't even have to imagine it, just look at pre-agrarian societies. If you're arguing capitalism naturally emerges from large societies, you have to prove it and explain why. You can't just claim it based on your surface level of modern economics. And no, anti-capitalists don't think they can remove a few billionaires from their thrones and be rid of capitalism. Your idea that they do seems most uncharitable to them.
thrance 1y ago
Yeah yeah, markets are a natural phenomenon arising from human nature itself and nothing can be done to fix the issues they cause, so we shouldn't even try. We get your argument, it's as old as humanity itself, and was used to justify feodalism, slavery, etc.
- grg0 1y ago
  I wonder, where was GP during the cold war? Did he sleep through it?
  - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
    What do you mean, can you elaborate?
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  > so we shouldn't even try I haven't said that. Do you have a point or view, which counters mine? I wonder if it's capitalism, or the consent of humans with different values you reject.
  - thrance 1y ago
    I have trouble even understanding your original comment. First, I've yet to meet an "anti-capitalist" who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top. They very much understand the material conditions that led to it. Second, I reject your "function of consent/interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family/tribe unit". Take a look in your history books, societies have been organized in many ways that don't require accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority. So, if your viewpoint is that capitalism is a natural state of things, I completely disagree, and there are many counter-examples throughout history.
    - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
      If it naturally occurs, it's natural. That there are other systems doesn't mean one begets the other. Diversity exists. Thus your counter example point doesn't make the point you're alluding to. It's a straw man. Likewise "who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top" is another strawman.
grg0 1y ago
This is an old, unoriginal argument that is also completely baseless. According to this, people must have been living in tribes until the industrial revolution, right? And then capitalism just naturally emerged, of course. Not a single drop of blood was spilled. Besides, there is nothing wrong with standards or the article, if that is what you are implying. The Internet, for example, along with the many standards that followed, is the result of government funneling money into the Pentagon, universities, and other research institutions. It did not emerge spontaneously. And then private enterprise has flourished on top of that baseline infrastructure, much of which is used unaltered to this day. If anything, we need more and up-to-date standards, not siloed proprietary technology that disappears on the whims of an acquisition or a bankruptcy.
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  > completely baseless Can you say what is baseless? > people must have been living in tribes until the industrial revolution Not sure where you're going with this? > there is nothing wrong with standards I agree. It seems you think capitalism and standards are at odds with each other? I'm trying hard to read points from your sentences.
  - grg0 1y ago
    Your view is baseless, as in not grounded in reality. Abstractions that do not model reality are useless, they are mostly just ideology. > Not sure where you're going with this? I was just stating the corollary of your original statement. I know, it makes no sense, that's precisely my point. > It seems you think capitalism and standards are at odds with each other? Not at all. > I'm trying hard to read points from your sentences. Maybe check your reading comprehension, then. Try again.
    - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
      If you can refute it, do. Otherwise, no merit seen yet.
      - 1y ago
Aunche 1y ago
Indeed even the Soviet Union depended on a proto-capitalist black market to make up for market deficiencies. In order to incentivize the elites to do anything at all, they had to exchange favors with each other, which meant that corruption became an essential part of governance.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
aussieguy1234 1y ago
I've found what's happening in north eastern Syria to be interesting. This area was previously under the religious fundamentalist rule of Islamic State, who were pushed out by a Anarchist/Libertarian socialist milita, around half of whom were women (much to the dislike of ISIS, whose fighters believed if they were killed by a woman, they don't get to go to heaven). Currently it's the first example of a working Anarchist system. No laws means that capitalism isn't illegal, so it still exists there. But most of the economy is based on cooperatives and wages are three times higher than the rest of the country. They smartly played the global power order, letting the Americans develop their oil and the Russians develop their gas. Unlike what many may think, people don't go around killing each other without laws in place - which does happen in the rest of Syria under a statist (State based) system of government.
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  I don't know where to being commenting on this, you've raised quite a few points. I've travelled to both Northern Iraq and Syria. Iraq while ISIS were there, Syria before the conflicts started. I'd be interested if there was a documentary / podcast / etc you could point me to, in order to better understand all that you're presenting. Either way, very glad ISIS was pushed back. I don't have the words to describe how horrible the situation seemed there.

ryuhhnn 1y ago

I never understood the anti-capitalist argument to be that it’s a top down system (and thus is why it’s “bad”), I think the critique is more that capitalism will inevitably beget hierarchies and self-reinforces them. And to be fair, some earlier attempts at socialism also begot hierarchies, but now I’m being a little pedantic.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
I don't hear it referred to as a top down system either, but infer that. People talk about a world without it, or after it, as if it's one thing - which is why I described it as top down. Ie one corner stone you can remove. Like a monarchy, or damn. And indeed, the critiques (that come to mind at least) I've heard of capitalism all seem valid at first, until I realise they also apply to socialism, communism, etc. Thus so far I don't see capitalism as being relevant as people think, and stick with my - temporary - conclusion that it's an emergent behaviour.
- alxjrvs 1y ago
  Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Capitalism - a system by which the means of production are privately owned - has only been dominant for the last few hundred years, broadly exacerbated by the industrial revolution (where you could easily point to "Guy who owns the big Machine"). It is, at its most fundamental description, a Top-Down system of governance and ownership (I admit, probably not the way you mean, but it did tickle me). Dragons hoarding wealth might be emergent human behavior, but, hey, so are brave knights.
  - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
    > Do you mean trade or mercantilism? Neither. But to pick one, trade. > has only been dominant for the last few hundred years That's hard to falsify, although I'd guess people have had things for much longer, eg spears. Although this get's away from the point, and into something else. Right now if I step out into the street, I can flag a taxi, I can buy a coffee. In each case these are direct peer to peer transactions, where the price is agreed between us based on what we both want out of the exchange. I find it easy to imagine that's how it was hundreds of years ago too, even within tribes. The capital (money, coffee, spear), isn't really the relevant thing. It's a conduit and focal point of behaviour. That was my original point, and why I don't value a top down aspect to it (even though that of course exists in groups with more scale - societies). I would welcome a refute on that point, or if you could frame a different way of looking at it (capitalism) at the level of individuals who want to consentfully interoperate (and don't even know the word capitalism).
    - pram 1y ago
      There is a definition difference. What Marx defined as capitalism is a pattern of post-feudal production after the industrial revolution. It means the transformation of quantities of surplus value from wage labor, and the qualitative transformation of the surplus into capital. People typically respond with “well using money and buying stuff in a market is just natural law” etc which isn’t “capitalism” and indeed the first chapter of Capital is all about commodity-money and primitive markets and production. These things are all pre-capitalism and have existed for as long as civilization has.
      - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
        Thanks. In your view, if people want to get rid of capitalism, or live in post capitalism or whatever, do you think that's possible? I still think you'd need to have consent, and you wouldn't get it as some people want to take risk but some don't so would opt for no risk but fixed - limited - reward. I ask, as just as trading is long standing, so I'd guess would be a risk tolerance (and other tolerances which factor in).
- thrance 1y ago
  Communism is supposed to be socialized ownership of the means of productions. So yeah, in a communist world capitalism would be gone (duh). In fact, you don't even have to imagine it, just look at pre-agrarian societies. If you're arguing capitalism naturally emerges from large societies, you have to prove it and explain why. You can't just claim it based on your surface level of modern economics. And no, anti-capitalists don't think they can remove a few billionaires from their thrones and be rid of capitalism. Your idea that they do seems most uncharitable to them.

thrance 1y ago

Yeah yeah, markets are a natural phenomenon arising from human nature itself and nothing can be done to fix the issues they cause, so we shouldn't even try. We get your argument, it's as old as humanity itself, and was used to justify feodalism, slavery, etc.

grg0 1y ago
I wonder, where was GP during the cold war? Did he sleep through it?
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
  What do you mean, can you elaborate?
t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
> so we shouldn't even try I haven't said that. Do you have a point or view, which counters mine? I wonder if it's capitalism, or the consent of humans with different values you reject.
- thrance 1y ago
  I have trouble even understanding your original comment. First, I've yet to meet an "anti-capitalist" who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top. They very much understand the material conditions that led to it. Second, I reject your "function of consent/interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family/tribe unit". Take a look in your history books, societies have been organized in many ways that don't require accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority. So, if your viewpoint is that capitalism is a natural state of things, I completely disagree, and there are many counter-examples throughout history.
  - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
    If it naturally occurs, it's natural. That there are other systems doesn't mean one begets the other. Diversity exists. Thus your counter example point doesn't make the point you're alluding to. It's a straw man. Likewise "who believes its existence is enforced by a secret cabal at the top" is another strawman.

grg0 1y ago

This is an old, unoriginal argument that is also completely baseless. According to this, people must have been living in tribes until the industrial revolution, right? And then capitalism just naturally emerged, of course. Not a single drop of blood was spilled. Besides, there is nothing wrong with standards or the article, if that is what you are implying. The Internet, for example, along with the many standards that followed, is the result of government funneling money into the Pentagon, universities, and other research institutions. It did not emerge spontaneously. And then private enterprise has flourished on top of that baseline infrastructure, much of which is used unaltered to this day. If anything, we need more and up-to-date standards, not siloed proprietary technology that disappears on the whims of an acquisition or a bankruptcy.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
> completely baseless Can you say what is baseless? > people must have been living in tribes until the industrial revolution Not sure where you're going with this? > there is nothing wrong with standards I agree. It seems you think capitalism and standards are at odds with each other? I'm trying hard to read points from your sentences.
- grg0 1y ago
  Your view is baseless, as in not grounded in reality. Abstractions that do not model reality are useless, they are mostly just ideology. > Not sure where you're going with this? I was just stating the corollary of your original statement. I know, it makes no sense, that's precisely my point. > It seems you think capitalism and standards are at odds with each other? Not at all. > I'm trying hard to read points from your sentences. Maybe check your reading comprehension, then. Try again.
  - t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
    If you can refute it, do. Otherwise, no merit seen yet.
    - 1y ago

Aunche 1y ago

Indeed even the Soviet Union depended on a proto-capitalist black market to make up for market deficiencies. In order to incentivize the elites to do anything at all, they had to exchange favors with each other, which meant that corruption became an essential part of governance.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

aussieguy1234 1y ago

I've found what's happening in north eastern Syria to be interesting. This area was previously under the religious fundamentalist rule of Islamic State, who were pushed out by a Anarchist/Libertarian socialist milita, around half of whom were women (much to the dislike of ISIS, whose fighters believed if they were killed by a woman, they don't get to go to heaven). Currently it's the first example of a working Anarchist system. No laws means that capitalism isn't illegal, so it still exists there. But most of the economy is based on cooperatives and wages are three times higher than the rest of the country. They smartly played the global power order, letting the Americans develop their oil and the Russians develop their gas. Unlike what many may think, people don't go around killing each other without laws in place - which does happen in the rest of Syria under a statist (State based) system of government.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
I don't know where to being commenting on this, you've raised quite a few points. I've travelled to both Northern Iraq and Syria. Iraq while ISIS were there, Syria before the conflicts started. I'd be interested if there was a documentary / podcast / etc you could point me to, in order to better understand all that you're presenting. Either way, very glad ISIS was pushed back. I don't have the words to describe how horrible the situation seemed there.