Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

Assuming you aren't playing devils advocate.

Sort of. I understand that there is no perfect solution, and that sometimes even an imperfect solution is better than none at all. However, I also believe that this thread isn't addressing the real underlying problems, and instead focus on some of the more superficial symptoms. I also believe that rocking the boat without preparing for the possible consequences invites disaster, because the same kind of charismatic assholes that exploited the previous system are sure as hell gonna try to exploit the new one. And if we can find a problem, they are going to find it, too.

[SalmonGod]

Assuming you aren't playing devils advocate.

Sort of. I understand that there is no perfect solution, and that sometimes even an imperfect solution is better than none at all. However, I also believe that this thread isn't addressing the real underlying problems, and instead focus on some of the more superficial symptoms. I also believe that rocking the boat without preparing for the possible consequences invites disaster, because the same kind of charismatic assholes that exploited the previous system are sure as hell gonna try to exploit the new one. And if we can find a problem, they are going to find it, too.

This is why I believe in de-centralizing political power and resource control.  I believe that the desire to pursue power itself belies corruption, therefore the best system is the one that offers the least opportunity for anyone to obtain power and harm others with their corrupt intentions.

[Helgoland]

Why should I account for factors that are non-capitalist as part of a critique of capitalism?

Economic systems do not exist in a vacuum, just like political systems. You can't critizise an economic system without critizising the political structures supporting it; you cannot critizise a political system without examining its economic foundations. To quote Marx:

Die Gesamtheit dieser Produktionsverhältnisse bildet die ökonomische Struktur der Gesellschaft, die reale Basis, worauf sich ein juristischer und politischer Überbau erhebt und welcher bestimmte gesellschaftliche Bewußtseinsformen entsprechen.

Translation (roughly): The productive relations between people define the economic structure of society, the real foundation, upon which a legal and political superstructure is erected that corresponds to certain ways of thinking within society.

It doesn't make sense too distinguish between "capitalist" and "non-capitalist" factors, since both are present in any system. Your critizism as it stands is only  valid for Ayn Rand/Gilded Age-style capitalism, and therefore only marginally relevant to discussions of our current system(s), as it only takes into account a select few parts of the whole and thus produces a distorted picture. Look at it like this: Much like a cliché capitalist, you're only thinking about money without seeing the social component

Two things that are tangentially interesting about that quote as well: An example for those "ways of thinking" would be Lagslayer's refusal to let government interfere with businesses; and English desperately needs a word for "Überbau". Maybe make it a straight-up loanword, that seems to work so well with anything containing the prefix "Über"

Random brainfarts:
-Capitalists should know Marx's philosophy - its analyses are just so damn accurate! And its terminology is usefull.
-It's worrying that I as a liberal social democrat with a big conservative streak should talk about Marx so much. Better stop that IRL
-SG, I've written this whole post listening to that song from the happy thread. Do you see what you have done?

[Descan]

Not knowing what Uberbau's definition is, I can't really say. But Google seems to think "superstructure" works. >_>

[Helgoland]

Superstructure is the literal translation - if that's a real word, great! Still, Überbau has that stachy Nietzsche sound...

[Descan]

Well there -is- a wiki article in English about "Base and Superstructure", so...

[Thecard]

Superstructure is a recognized English word, yes.

[SalmonGod]

I do agree with everything you're saying, Helgoland. 

I'll grant that my perspective is very much colored by living in America, and having experienced everything from dirt poor to upper middle class life here over the last 30 years.  Everything I say is my own observations and thoughts processed through near-daily discussion with all kinds of people from around the world since age 14.  I've never read any of Marx's works, though his influence is surely inescapable to me simply because I've grown up in a post-Cold War culture.

I describe capitalism in a Gilded-Age fashion partially because America is regressing towards that.  Culture (ways of thinking) is very much at the root of everything.  The rich here have worked tirelessly to subvert the government to its own ends, while undermining its power and cultural legitimacy.  As a result, welfare programs have been severely perverted, and hatred for them is very common here, even among the very poor.  So I put a lot of energy into arguing in favor of them, even though I'm no fan of the government myself. 

I also think that welfare and regulation happen in spite of capitalist principles.  It's something that has to be fought for by demand and threat of the populace directly matched against the superior resources of the wealthy who have their power limited and would be fine (in the short term) without those things.

I'm sure you've also read enough of my writing here to realize that I try whenever possible to talk about these things in their social aspects, for example how the job model effects how people relate to the concept of work and creates the cultural misconception that people are inherently lazy.

The change that I'd personally like to see very much hinges on a dramatic shift in our cultural way of thinking, and I've always said that it will never happen without that cultural shift.  As it is now, I confuse the hell out of almost anybody when I try to explain it.  I believe in rejecting the concept of property, while retaining the concept of direct possession.  Two very different things, but our culture isn't very good at differentiating them.  In other words, the changes I would like to see to the functioning of our society hinge on our culture rejecting the idea that a person can claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a direct personal relationship with.  If somebody doesn't directly interact with something or directly depend on it for their well-being, then it's stupid to allow them to restrict access to or otherwise exert control over it.  But this is definitely something that requires some deep cultural re-wiring.

I'm also a technocrat of sorts... I acknowledge that prior to mass communications, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to direct resources into efficiently improving (potential) quality of life without centralized control over resources.  However, I think that with mass communications, it should be more efficient to manage resources in a de-centralized fashion.  I've gone over my beliefs regarding this in more detail a couple times before, but I don't know who has read it that's now following this thread.  I've also gone into more detail about how I think society could operate through the internet once.  If I have some more time this weekend, I'll write it up again.

[Lagslayer]

Two things that are tangentially interesting about that quote as well: An example for those "ways of thinking" would be Lagslayer's refusal to let government interfere with businesses

Perhaps I've misinterpreted your post, but do you think I don't want any government interference in business? I never meant to imply that. Let me re-clarify. I'm saying that the same kind of corrupt people who run corrupt businesses can also run a corrupt government. Quite frequently, they actually are the same people. I'm trying to say that rearranging the power structure means little if it's the same kinds of people that keep getting into power. And I'm not necessarily against even that, but to me, it comes off that people think this will just solve all the problems of the previous system, when it would most likely have many of the same or similar problems, and as a result, they won't be prepared in case it fails.

Or if you weren't implying that, then please re-clarify.

[Helgoland]

Friendly advice: Do not try reading Marx. Bad for your eyes, your mind, and your respect for communists - I never got further than the second page of Das Kapital, and I'm sure 99% of Marxists haven't either. But it's not too difficult hurt to pick up some of his iddeas elsewhere.

On topic: Cultural shifts are difficult to accomplish, and basically impossible when done intentionally. Long-term, you might be right - but I'd rather think about what's to be done now. And that is reform, not revolution - and those reforms will happen in 2013 + x, not 1880 + x. We have the necessary political tools to accomplish what needs to be done; there's just nobody using them the right way. And in doing that, the class warfare idea of "rich vs poor" is... less than helpful, at least when done in a sweeping manner. Critizising Koch Industries is of course legitimate!

I'm sure you've also read enough of my writing here to realize that I try whenever possible to talk about these things in their social aspects, for example how the job model effects how people relate to the concept of work and creates the cultural misconception that people are inherently lazy.

Do you know the concept of alienation? (And the Marxist concept of it?) That is pretty much what you describe, I guess. I know, this has already been discussed, but it's a great example for why I'd like it if more people knew a thing or two about Marx - his terminology is very well suited to discuss this kind of topic.

(German word for alienation is "Entfremdung", by the way - philosophy is one of the things the German language is really suited for )


FAKEEDIT:

Perhaps I've misinterpreted your post, but do you think I don't want any government interference in business? I never meant to imply that. Let me re-clarify. I'm saying that the same kind of corrupt people who run corrupt businesses can also run a corrupt government. Quite frequently, they actually are the same people.
Or if you weren't implying that, then please re-clarify.

Oh, I must have missed a Devil's Advocate there - sorry, my fault. But that sort of statement, when it is meant seriously (which it - sadly - often is), is a good example.

[Mr. Palau]

I believe in rejecting the concept of property, while retaining the concept of direct possession.  Two very different things, but our culture isn't very good at differentiating them.  In other words, the changes I would like to see to the functioning of our society hinge on our culture rejecting the idea that a person can claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a direct personal relationship with.  If somebody doesn't directly interact with something or directly depend on it for their well-being, then it's stupid to allow them to restrict access to or otherwise exert control over it.  But this is definitely something that requires some deep cultural re-wiring.

Why is it stupid to allow people to maintain control over the portions of their property that they do not maintain a direct personal relationship with? Exactly what would constitute a direct relationship with your property? What constitutes a direct dependence?

I presume that an example of indirect property under your definitions would be an overseas factory or a part of your business whose governance you have delegated to others correct?

[Eagle_eye]

It's stupid because the point of property is to prevent people from being deprived at random of something they need. If you're not ever using something, obviously you don't need it, so you have no moral grounds on which to deny it to anyone else.

[SalmonGod]

I'm sure you've also read enough of my writing here to realize that I try whenever possible to talk about these things in their social aspects, for example how the job model effects how people relate to the concept of work and creates the cultural misconception that people are inherently lazy.

Do you know the concept of alienation? (And the Marxist concept of it?) That is pretty much what you describe, I guess. I know, this has already been discussed, but it's a great example for why I'd like it if more people knew a thing or two about Marx - his terminology is very well suited to discuss this kind of topic.

Yeah, that's very similar.  I was not aware of that application of the word.

I believe in rejecting the concept of property, while retaining the concept of direct possession.  Two very different things, but our culture isn't very good at differentiating them.  In other words, the changes I would like to see to the functioning of our society hinge on our culture rejecting the idea that a person can claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a direct personal relationship with.  If somebody doesn't directly interact with something or directly depend on it for their well-being, then it's stupid to allow them to restrict access to or otherwise exert control over it.  But this is definitely something that requires some deep cultural re-wiring.

Why is it stupid to allow people to maintain control over the portions of their property that they do not maintain a direct personal relationship with? Exactly what would constitute a direct relationship with your property? What constitutes a direct dependence?

I presume that an example of indirect property under your definitions would be an overseas factory or a part of your business whose governance you have delegated to others correct?

The house you live in is your personal possession.  The house that you own just to charge someone else to live in is property.  That's a very stark contrast and there are plenty of other examples where things could get fuzzier, but hopefully you get the idea.  And without the concept of property, there wouldn't really be such a thing as a business.  The whole idea is to make consolidation of resources into the hands of a minority impossible, and make allocation of resources more a product of direct democracy.  I am essentially a libertarian socialist.

[ed boy]

It's stupid because the point of property is to prevent people from being deprived at random of something they need. If you're not ever using something, obviously you don't need it, so you have no moral grounds on which to deny it to anyone else.

I would disagree. Quite often people have possessions that they don't use and don't plan on using, but want just in case, even to give them peace of mind. Fire extinguishers, for example.

Also, there is a benefit of property in that it implies liability if something ever goes wrong. For example, if something breaks and is difficult to fix, or is impossible to fix and needs to be scrapped at great expense, then someone needs to be responsible for that, and if it's not considered to be property of anybody, then there is a problem.

[Helgoland]

Also, there is a benefit of property in that it implies liability if something ever goes wrong. For example, if something breaks and is difficult to fix, or is impossible to fix and needs to be scrapped at great expense, then someone needs to be responsible for that, and if it's not considered to be property of anybody, then there is a problem.

Tragedy of the commons?
Assigning responsibility is apparently a big part of why laws are so complicated and bureaucracy so unwieldy - if you can't pin someone down as responsible, shit will start hitting the fan very soon.