6 ms·

> We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.

by clebio 12y ago

vixen99 12y ago
What a bizarre connection! Disputing the divine right of kings had to be a private act or you faced the consequences; you and I, the consumers, ultimately decide the fate of the millions of businesses that constitute the system we call capitalism within a free market.
- davedx 12y ago
  She is talking about moving to a new system outside of capitalism, not causing a dip in profits for one particular company.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    "Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or shot for being capitalist traitors, and the landowners who were exiled or killed. It was literally illegal to own a shop, or to grow or make something and exchange it for something else.
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      Luckily there's never been any large scale violence within or around capitalism. Everyone's freedoms - especially the freedom to get paid a fair rate for hard work - are quite safe.
      - logicchains 12y ago
        If you add up Mao's and Stalin's bodycounts, that's 50-100 million people, so yes, compared to that we are quite safe. I don't know of any capitalist nation that's inflicted anything in that order of magnitude of deaths on its own citizens, and what deaths there are are usually caused by noncapitalist entities like the state police and army. Noncapitalist because they're not funded voluntarily; I suspect if the military was something we had to pay for as individuals like bread, computers, cars, etc. then it'd be a hellova lot smaller. Similarly I can't imagine many people would pay gangs of private detectives to go around locating and imprisoning drug users.
      - facepalm 12y ago
        What violent acts of capitalism are you referring to? I suppose there is exploitation in the "3rd world", but it is not clear how that is caused by capitalism. How would other economic systems prevent that kind of thing? Or is that rather a problem of law and policies? I don't think capitalism = everything is allowed as long as it makes money. You are not allowed to kill people because it suits your business in most capitalist countries, for example. Socialism managed to suck the whole Aral sea dry, so I don't think it has any inbuilt mechanisms to protect against exploitation.
    - lazaroclapp 12y ago
      Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as well as universal public healthcare. These are all things which almost every modern nation recognizes as good ideas. Where it goes off the rails is when you formulate an entire political theory that can be summed as "We shall get a moral and dependable dictator to forbid people from engaging in Capitalism or owning excessive property, thus forcing everyone to work for the common good. This will eventually lead to people naturally working for the common good, because that's what humans naturally do.". The main problem with that one is obvious by word #8, but it contains a few extra fallacies beyond that. Now, it's perfectly possible to embed socialized literature grants and "literary tenure" within a capitalist system if democratic society believes that is the best way of generating valuable literary works that are not likely to produce an immediate return of investment in the open market. We can even do that simultaneously with a publishing industry producing literary works with a focus towards profitability. Scientific research and some forms of artistic creation already work this way. As for completely replacing capitalism, as opposed to just having a mostly-capitalist mixed economy? Well, I can't see it happening in a scarcity society, but I can imagine it happening in a post-scarcity one. Suppose we get to the point where robots farm food for us, robots gather natural resources for us and robots keep basic infrastructure working for us. Now, suppose that at one point we mostly trade in "services" and "ideas" (software, books, music, movies, 3D printable designs for all our physical stuff). At what point there does capitalism becomes silly? "Oh, I don't need money to live, I am designing this car to get paid so that I can buy the 3D printable design of my bed. Oh, wait, someone open-sourced the design for the bed I wanted, neat, let me print it. Guess I can open-source my car design too." "But hey, does that mean you are never making another car design?" "Are you kidding? I love designing cars and what else would I do with my time? Besides, I get a kick out of seeing people driving the car I designed!". The beauty is that we wouldn't even need most people to think that way, just a small fixed count from the population. Things like reputation and competition for real state might have to be solved differently in a society without capitalism, but lets be honest, capitalism is a poor system for solving those two anyways, as evidenced by rent prices in the Bay Area and "Am I a failure if I am not worth $1Bn by age 22?" questions on Quora. Now, capitalism is probably still the best system we know of to solve resource allocation and promote technological innovation in the conditions of contemporary human society. But those conditions are subject to change. So, yes, "we need capitalism because people need to exchange and accumulate [physical, non-duplicable, scarce] goods freely" is true at the moment. But so would have been at a time: "we need the King to keep all the feudal lords and their peasants united in peace and organized in the case of barbarian invasions". (Note: This rant turned longer than I expected. Also, HN might be the weirdest place on the net to do a Commie rant ;) )
    - jdub 12y ago
      <blockquote>"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely.</blockquote> That's what the word means. But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair. But then, the then-accepted concept of "Divine Right of Kings" was never what it purported to be either, was it?
      - happyscrappy 12y ago
        Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
      - innguest 12y ago
        > But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair. There's no "our capitalism". You either have it or you don't. You mean "our political system". Feel free to find a name for it. Capitalism is taken, it means voluntary trade and savings. Stop listening to politicians trying to smear Capitalism. Wake up.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > "Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. That is neither what the term was coined to describe nor what actual historical systems described with the term have been. If you look at both the specific systems the term was coined to refer to and the historical systems it has referred to (and the specific policies, even that haven't been actually implemented, advanced under the banner), I think there are a couple of defensible short rough definitions that apply well in general (though neither matches perfectly with any popular articulation of capitalism, including that by the socialist critics who coined the term -- the first, based on means, is closest to that typically espoused by proponents [though it strips away the fuzzy term "freedom" for the more concrete description underlying the capitalist understanding of freedom] and the latter, based on cui bono intentionality, is more like that typically espoused by critics: 1. "Capitalism" is a feature of a politico-economic system which is exists in a system to the degree to which that system favors fee simple property rights as the basis for allocating power. 2. "Capitalism" is a feature of a politico-economic system which is exists in a system to the degree to which that system seeks measures and maximizes social benefit weighted by the magnitude of the fee simple property holdings of those participating in the system.
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  Sorry, but you're forgetting: - shadowy allegations of conspiracies - caricatures of corporations as all-powerful Machiavellian forces wielding the very levers of global history - castigation of "overly" aggressive and "too" competitive behaviour - refusal to consider the role of competition and consumer choice - refusal to acknowledge the participation of all people as both buyers and sellers of goods on the free marketplace - refusal to ignore the massive and widespread concessions and responses to populist demands evident in modern politics - sole focus on the influence of abnormally wealthy entities on the political system (and refusal to admit that without a massive cultural change a human-run politic is impossible to insulate from monetary corruption). It's important to keep the facts in mind before you go wild insinuating something absurd like the average consumer being anything more than a ragged brainwashed puppet of the corporocrat Illuminati.

> We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.

by clebio 12y ago

> We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.

What a bizarre connection! Disputing the divine right of kings had to be a private act or you faced the consequences; you and I, the consumers, ultimately decide the fate of the millions of businesses that constitute the system we call capitalism within a free market.

davedx 12y ago
She is talking about moving to a new system outside of capitalism, not causing a dip in profits for one particular company.
- logicchains 12y ago
  "Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. Moving to a system "outside of capitalism" involves preventing this, and necessarily involves large scale violence both to take the accumulated capital of savers and to persecute anyone who still seeks to engage in the free exchange of goods. See for example the merchants in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia who were hung or shot for being capitalist traitors, and the landowners who were exiled or killed. It was literally illegal to own a shop, or to grow or make something and exchange it for something else.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    Luckily there's never been any large scale violence within or around capitalism. Everyone's freedoms - especially the freedom to get paid a fair rate for hard work - are quite safe.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      If you add up Mao's and Stalin's bodycounts, that's 50-100 million people, so yes, compared to that we are quite safe. I don't know of any capitalist nation that's inflicted anything in that order of magnitude of deaths on its own citizens, and what deaths there are are usually caused by noncapitalist entities like the state police and army. Noncapitalist because they're not funded voluntarily; I suspect if the military was something we had to pay for as individuals like bread, computers, cars, etc. then it'd be a hellova lot smaller. Similarly I can't imagine many people would pay gangs of private detectives to go around locating and imprisoning drug users.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      What violent acts of capitalism are you referring to? I suppose there is exploitation in the "3rd world", but it is not clear how that is caused by capitalism. How would other economic systems prevent that kind of thing? Or is that rather a problem of law and policies? I don't think capitalism = everything is allowed as long as it makes money. You are not allowed to kill people because it suits your business in most capitalist countries, for example. Socialism managed to suck the whole Aral sea dry, so I don't think it has any inbuilt mechanisms to protect against exploitation.
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    Not really. Those are reasonable examples of what it takes to try to "force" an entire country out of capitalism "for their own good". Socialism as a part of a general economic or ethical philosophy - embedded within the liberal democratic system - is not quite as bad on its own. The fundamental ideas behind the movement led to things like universal public education, national investment in the sciences and arts, as well as universal public healthcare. These are all things which almost every modern nation recognizes as good ideas. Where it goes off the rails is when you formulate an entire political theory that can be summed as "We shall get a moral and dependable dictator to forbid people from engaging in Capitalism or owning excessive property, thus forcing everyone to work for the common good. This will eventually lead to people naturally working for the common good, because that's what humans naturally do.". The main problem with that one is obvious by word #8, but it contains a few extra fallacies beyond that. Now, it's perfectly possible to embed socialized literature grants and "literary tenure" within a capitalist system if democratic society believes that is the best way of generating valuable literary works that are not likely to produce an immediate return of investment in the open market. We can even do that simultaneously with a publishing industry producing literary works with a focus towards profitability. Scientific research and some forms of artistic creation already work this way. As for completely replacing capitalism, as opposed to just having a mostly-capitalist mixed economy? Well, I can't see it happening in a scarcity society, but I can imagine it happening in a post-scarcity one. Suppose we get to the point where robots farm food for us, robots gather natural resources for us and robots keep basic infrastructure working for us. Now, suppose that at one point we mostly trade in "services" and "ideas" (software, books, music, movies, 3D printable designs for all our physical stuff). At what point there does capitalism becomes silly? "Oh, I don't need money to live, I am designing this car to get paid so that I can buy the 3D printable design of my bed. Oh, wait, someone open-sourced the design for the bed I wanted, neat, let me print it. Guess I can open-source my car design too." "But hey, does that mean you are never making another car design?" "Are you kidding? I love designing cars and what else would I do with my time? Besides, I get a kick out of seeing people driving the car I designed!". The beauty is that we wouldn't even need most people to think that way, just a small fixed count from the population. Things like reputation and competition for real state might have to be solved differently in a society without capitalism, but lets be honest, capitalism is a poor system for solving those two anyways, as evidenced by rent prices in the Bay Area and "Am I a failure if I am not worth $1Bn by age 22?" questions on Quora. Now, capitalism is probably still the best system we know of to solve resource allocation and promote technological innovation in the conditions of contemporary human society. But those conditions are subject to change. So, yes, "we need capitalism because people need to exchange and accumulate [physical, non-duplicable, scarce] goods freely" is true at the moment. But so would have been at a time: "we need the King to keep all the feudal lords and their peasants united in peace and organized in the case of barbarian invasions". (Note: This rant turned longer than I expected. Also, HN might be the weirdest place on the net to do a Commie rant ;) )
  - jdub 12y ago
    <blockquote>"Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely.</blockquote> That's what the word means. But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair. But then, the then-accepted concept of "Divine Right of Kings" was never what it purported to be either, was it?
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > But our capitalism? The one we have? It's not that. It's not optimal. It's not efficient. It's not even fair. There's no "our capitalism". You either have it or you don't. You mean "our political system". Feel free to find a name for it. Capitalism is taken, it means voluntary trade and savings. Stop listening to politicians trying to smear Capitalism. Wake up.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > "Capitalism" is a system in which people are allowed to exchange and accumulate goods freely. That is neither what the term was coined to describe nor what actual historical systems described with the term have been. If you look at both the specific systems the term was coined to refer to and the historical systems it has referred to (and the specific policies, even that haven't been actually implemented, advanced under the banner), I think there are a couple of defensible short rough definitions that apply well in general (though neither matches perfectly with any popular articulation of capitalism, including that by the socialist critics who coined the term -- the first, based on means, is closest to that typically espoused by proponents [though it strips away the fuzzy term "freedom" for the more concrete description underlying the capitalist understanding of freedom] and the latter, based on cui bono intentionality, is more like that typically espoused by critics: 1. "Capitalism" is a feature of a politico-economic system which is exists in a system to the degree to which that system favors fee simple property rights as the basis for allocating power. 2. "Capitalism" is a feature of a politico-economic system which is exists in a system to the degree to which that system seeks measures and maximizes social benefit weighted by the magnitude of the fee simple property holdings of those participating in the system.
jasonisalive 12y ago
Sorry, but you're forgetting: - shadowy allegations of conspiracies - caricatures of corporations as all-powerful Machiavellian forces wielding the very levers of global history - castigation of "overly" aggressive and "too" competitive behaviour - refusal to consider the role of competition and consumer choice - refusal to acknowledge the participation of all people as both buyers and sellers of goods on the free marketplace - refusal to ignore the massive and widespread concessions and responses to populist demands evident in modern politics - sole focus on the influence of abnormally wealthy entities on the political system (and refusal to admit that without a massive cultural change a human-run politic is impossible to insulate from monetary corruption). It's important to keep the facts in mind before you go wild insinuating something absurd like the average consumer being anything more than a ragged brainwashed puppet of the corporocrat Illuminati.