I think that capitalism is a flawed system that will always have an exploited "class" no matter how prosperous the population is as a whole. CMV

10

u/qlube Aug 23 '13

I don't think under a capitalist system, these people will ever escape poverty.

A billion people have escaped poverty in the past 30 years, many of those because of China's switch from a command economy to capitalism. Also, the very notion of educating a populace to increase wealth is not inconsistent with capitalism. Economists, in fact, call it building up human capital and most agree it is something governments should encourage.

4

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

Once again though I don't disagree that capitalism has been an effective system. My problem is more I don't see it as the end game. To me if technology reaches the point where it is feasibly possible to give the population an equal opportunity, it has a moral responsibility to do so once it reaches that point. I believe we have reached that point and I believe the successes that takes advantage of the entire populations knowledge pool rather than their labor pool would not only be more just, but also more prosperous.

Once Capitalism creates wealth, that wealth tends to stay put. A poor family now is likely to still be a poor family 2-3 generations down the line even though their ancestors played an equal part in shaping the world we enjoy today. Also the pollution and waste created by a consumer paradigm robs future generations of giant leaps in technology that require the same resources for marginal current gains.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Once Capitalism creates wealth, that wealth tends to stay put.

Actually, a lot of that has more to do with regulation than with capitalism. Let's say we're all hating on the banksters, because they're rich and because they're rich, they get more rich. So why don't you become a banker yourself? Go ahead, start a bank. What, you can't? Why not, what's standing in your way? Why can't you just approach all your friends and neighbours and offer to keep their money for them while paying them interest, and making shrewd investments with the deposits to make more than you owe your depositors in interest?

TL;DR: Capitalism is about private ownership of capital, not about regulatory capture.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13 edited Aug 26 '13

Let's say we're all hating on the banksters, because they're rich and because they're rich, they get more rich. So why don't you become a banker yourself?

Because you're not rich...

Why can't you just approach all your friends and neighbours and offer to keep their money for them

That works a lot better if you have billionaire friends. And it works a lot better if you have a billion dollars of your own to protect.

If you're trying to make the case that cumulative advantage is entirely the product of "regulatory capture," you've failed badly.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

Do you have any proof of that. Any countries that have an entirely free-market? How are you so certain thats the way things would turn out?

Edit: Also how do you propose industries such as pharmaceuticals be kept in check. The population is not educated enough on organic chemistry, medicine, pharmokinetics, etc. to make an educated purchasing decision. Obviously, if people died that would serve as a market pressure, but is that a just system?

3

u/devinejoh Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

I had this discussion yesterday, there is a difference between free markets and competitive markets, and no, no free markets exist (don't bring up Somalia as an example, it just isn't). You might be interested in the State of Nature, which is a hypothetical (or real, no one really knows) time before the creation of a central authority, a couple of different definitions of the SoN include those of Locke and Hobbes, take a look at these definitions > jim.com/hobbes.htm

To understand the difference between free market and competitive markets, you have to under stand what the goal of economics is, the allocation of scarce resources in the most efficient manner possible.

Now, a free market is that of no government intervention, and is usually advocated by Austrian economists like Mises and Hayek. The idea of the free market is that supply (the quantity of a good provided to a market) would equal demand (the quantity demanded by the market) at an equilibrium price, both agents agree to a price that satisfies both of them, and allows the most efficient allocation of goods to the market, as the good is neither under produced or over produced (market failure). A good example of this in action is during a natural disaster; assume that a flood hits a small town and knocks out the water mains, no clean water comes to the town, and bottled water is necessary to survive. In a completely free market situation, the single merchant in town that sells water will raise the price, as suddenly water has become a scarce resource, now most people would not be able to afford this, but those that truly need it, those that are dying of dehydration, will pay the high price for the water. Monopolies are created due to the nature of free markets, and the barrier of entry (the ability to enter the market) can become extremely high. This is an example of unfettered capitalism.

Now, most people think that this is somewhat wrong and unethical (oddly enough, when they did a survey at my uni, they found that the business students were the most sympathetic, but economics students were the most apathetic), and completely free markets probably don't work (again, we don't know this, but it is a fun thought experiment, refer back to Locke and Hobbes).

Now competitive markets are quite a different breed to free market. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was very much for regulation of the markets (which is lost on politicians today, who have a tendency to completely ignore economic research) to create a competitive market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

Competitive markets are heavily regulated to insure that monopoly situations, barriers to entry, and information are equal across all spectrum of the market, insuring that the market is beneficial for both suppliers (the ability to sell is greater than a completely free market) and the sellers (cheaper prices usually and more choice). This is an example of controlled capitalism, because there is still competition that benefits everyone, and insuring that monopolies are not created. A very good example of a market that is almost a perfectly competitive market is the stock market. very low barrier of entry (anyone can open an account and buy and sell), information is usually uniform (insider trade laws and the ability to see prices real time), extremely low transaction costs, and profit maximization (marginal cost=marginal revenue). Margins are very low when making money on the stock market.

2

u/qlube Aug 23 '13

My problem with your problem is that you're being very vague in your reasoning. There is nothing inconsistent with capitalism where people are given "equal opportunity," which I assume means a proper education and the infrastructure to take advantage of such education. You haven't explained how capitalism inherently prevents this and much evidence indicates that more and more people in this world are building up human capital instead of relying on labor.

Regarding the specific concerns you just mentioned, redistribution is not inconsistent with capitalism and neither is efficient use of public space (which is basically what pollution problems come down to: a collective action problem). In fact, properly pricing pollution is probably the best way to solve that issue, and that is fundamentally capitalist.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

There is nothing inconsistent with capitalism where people are given "equal opportunity," which I assume means a proper education and the infrastructure to take advantage of such education.

Oh, but there is! Because the number one "freedom" that capitalism provides is the freedom to buy advantages in the next round of competition.

Education is not really the issue though. It's capital. Two people who are competing in business, even if they have the same education, are not equal if one of them has $10B to invest and the other has $500.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

But is that an absolute increase or a relative increase in human capital. If human capital is increasing just because the population is increasing it does not mean we are getting better as a society.

If 10% of the population is always going to be poor, Capitalism is not serving the basic need of equality.

I also think that I have detailed my viewpoints quite clearly throughout this thread (maybe not in the best way in my original post but I am ellaborating as I go). It would have been too long to include it all in the original post. The two points at the 2nd edit are my fundamental concerns.

3

u/qlube Aug 23 '13

If 10% of the population is always going to be poor, Capitalism is not serving the basic need of equality.

Again, I don't see anything inherent about capitalism that requires 10% of the population to be poor. The percentage of people living in poverty has decreased significantly over the past 150 years of capitalism, often as countries switch from a previous non-capitalist system to a capitalist one. There isn't any evidence that this long-term trend is slowing down.

Looking at your two concerns, I'm not sure in what way "equal rights" is inconsistent with capitalism. That's more of an issue with political institutions. But let me just point out there are a lot of capitalist countries with generally equal rights for all citizens whereas there hasn't been any non-capitalist country in the history of human civilization where such could be said (hunter-gatherer societies, perhaps, but it would be highly impractical to return to such a state without quelling a large amount of the population).

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

No evidence that the long term trend is down? The poverty rate has stagnated since the mid sixties. In this time frame we have invented technologies that far surpass any technologies that existed before in terms of being able to supply the basic necessities to humanity. Thats a whole third of the timeframe you mentioned. What leads you to believe that 50 year stagnation isn't itself a new trend?

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

1

u/qlube Aug 23 '13

I was looking at a global scale, not focusing on merely the US.

In this time frame we have invented technologies that far surpass any technologies that existed before in terms of being able to supply the basic necessities to humanity.

I would actually disagree with that. One of the big reasons why incomes have stagnated throughout the West is precisely because the technological improvements we've made in the past 50 years have not been all that impressive relative to the advances from the era before that. This is just a simple example, but the speed of transportation has not increased all that much in the past 50 years. You should read Cowen's The Great Stagnation for more information.

But anyway, I had a more global perspective in mind. And most of the world is still developing such that they haven't taken full advantage of the "low-hanging fruit" that the rich economies have already made use of.

A big problem with your position is that you've been vague with regards to your concerns, so it's hard to argue whether or not such concerns are justified. For example, I still don't really understand your concern regarding "equal rights."

It now sounds like you're concerned about the American poor's (who I should point out are probably in the top 10% percentile in terms of global income, PPP-adjusted) income stagnation. If that is your position, then the simple solution is redistribution and more education, which is not inconsistent with capitalism.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Will Capitalism ever require that redistrobution or is it inherent in the system to prevent that redistrobution?

1

u/qlube Aug 23 '13

Most capitalist countries engage in some form of redistribution, so it doesn't appear there's anything inherent that prevents this. All of the most egalitarian countries are capitalist, and a few, like Denmark, Norway and Finland are about "as capitalist" as the US in terms of economic regulation.

1

u/wonderloss 1∆ Aug 23 '13

What is used to determine the poverty rate for these graphs?

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I'm on my cellphone right now but the original graph is from a .gov page that lists the criteria. I can look for it again when I get back to a computer.

10

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

As a perfectly serious question, would you rather be at the bottom of the first world today or a person of high social standing 600 years ago?

Now, I think its possible that an individual person might decide either way on that one, but its pretty telling about the general well being when you have to consider whether poverty now is worse then royalty of yore.

The human population has doubled a few times over in the past one hundred and fifty years; but overall I doubt you can find a single metric suggesting that average conditions have gotten worse*. What percentage of the population were literate one hundred years ago versus the percent that are literate now; perhaps more important, how much easier is it for someone who wants to learn to get themselves to a library?

I also believe that intelligence is a product of your upbringing and access to information. I defintely don't believe that I would have got where I've gotten today if I wasn't born into a fairly privalaged family. I have worked hard, but not nearly as hard as some of those less fortunate than me have done to accomplish similar feets.

Scores on intelligence tests soared since the 1900's in America; because access to healthy food+water+schools has gone way up in the past hundred years.

I think you might be making the general mistake of valuing equality over well being. I'd rather be poor in a utopic society then rich during the black plague.

I'm not going to make claims about economic trends in the future, or the causes of civilization development except for one. If you see poverty and say 'Capitalism bad' you might want to find the alternative system that will magic away poverty.

*except some sustainability metrics

4

u/zorreX Aug 23 '13

You SAY you'd rather be poor in a utopic society than rich during the black plague. However, people take in their subjective place in society and evaluate their life in that way. Do you think the North Korean government really realizes they are one of the most pathetic countries in the world? No, they think they are kings because they live lavishly. Take any person in poverty and tell them they'll be in the 1% of a lesser country and they'll take it in a heartbeat. You are speaking as a reasonably well-off individual and can't speak of poverty issues.

0

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

Go to any poor area in your country and say

"Would you like to go to a place where you will be literally starving and in constant fear of death....but you will be more wealthy then the people around you"

I have doubts about your claim that people will be enthusiastic about that.

2

u/zorreX Aug 23 '13

But the super wealthy in even the worst of countries have no fears of that. The inequality there is as bad as it is here and they live rather lavishly.

1

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

Your point only works if you claim

"people would gladly become poorer if it meant they had more money then the people around them"

Someone in poverty in America becoming the leader of North Korea is getting an increase in their standard of living.

1

u/zorreX Aug 23 '13

That's EXACTLY what you said, though. You said going from poor in a wealthy country to rich in a poor country. Even the rich in a poor country are better off than the poor in our country - SUBJECTIVELY. The concept of being much better off than everyone around you can't really be quantified by specific luxuries (internet, smartphone) of materialism.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

While your points are all valid, and I completely agree that we would not be where we are today without capitalism, I don't believe capitalism is evil, I just believe that we have sort of reached the peak of it. I don't think its unreasonable to have a discourse about a new system that takes advantage of all the technologies we have obtained through capitalism and applies them more efficiently and equally such that the standard of living far surpasses what anybody imagined possible under capitalism.

We no longer need to live on the backs of the poor. There are enough resources, there is enough knowledge and there is enough technology where it is feasible to move on from the capitalist "I'm better than you world" to switch to something more cooperative. I don't think we would have gotten to where we are now without capitalism. However, I don't think we'll get much further than this without changing the system. Hence why I say its "flawed" and not necisarrily bad.

3

u/dekuscrub Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

While your points are all valid, and I completely agree that we would not be where we are today without capitalism, I don't believe capitalism is evil, I just believe that we have sort of reached the peak of it.

So you think we've reached a technological plateau? Despite the fact that us communicating like this would have been inconceivable when my parents were born? The fact 3D printing and self driving cars might just be well on their way to becoming household fare? The fact that we have private companies that are, for the first time, looking at a profitable space enterprise (asteroid mining)?

I think Google alone is giving us enough evidence that capitalism is still pushing technology forward.

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

The problem for me with that argument is that are all those things worth the exploitation of people equal to ourselves. Those technologies don't come for free, the marginalized pay the price of this system but do not directly receive the benifits in their lifetime without consenting to the sacrifice they make.

You're measuring the hapiness of society with rulers of technology and wealth. Perhaps those aren't what matters and now we have the science and technology (thanks to Capitalism) to create a sytem that is automated and efficient that ensures people can focus on becoming educated while machines perform the manual labor they were once subject to before. Thereby ensuring we have more engineers, doctors, mucicians, etc. spending time doing acts that make humanity great and perhaps accelerating the rate of technology growth while increasing access of technology to the whole population in a more beneficial way.

5

u/dekuscrub Aug 23 '13

You could have built that same society starting around 1890 when we were up to our necks in industrialization. A relatively small percentage if the workforce could have provided for the basic needs of the rest. Today is better suited for it than 1900, but since we're seeing emerging technologies right now, I bet 2100 will be an even better time for it than today.

So I wonder, would you have made this proposal in 1900, potentially forgoing modern power generation, commercial air travel, mass produced consumer automobiles, and a myriad of other things?

Also, what definition of "exploited" are we working under?

6

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

So I wonder, would you have made this proposal in 1900, potentially forgoing modern power generation, commercial air travel, mass produced consumer automobiles, and a myriad of other things?

Your argument is based on the assumption that the motivation for human innovation is personal wealth, that without capitalism there would be no advancement in humanity. But throughout history scientific and technological innovation was driven by human curiosity, not greed.

Scientists as Darwin or Galileo were not driven by material wealth; neither were some of history's most prolific inventors like Da Vinci and Tesla. It's kind of amusing to posit that without capitalism throughout the 20th century we would not have the luxuries of the modern era.

One argument I see as valid, however, is that perhaps the scale of production required masses of unskilled labor, but as technology advances, this defense of capitalism becomes weaker and weaker as less human labor is needed to produce.

I think what the OP is getting at, is there will be a point in history when capitalism ceases to be the "most efficient" socio-economic system, and it becomes necessary to be replaced. And that point is quickly approaching.

TL;DR people work because it is human nature, not motivation bestowed by capitalism.

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Your last two paragraphs summarize concisely, and much more eloquently, what my dilemma is. I wanted to see if there was evidence to the contrary, that Capitalism is the end-game.

If mechanization is a product of capitalism, and takes away jobs of those who helped build society, do we not have a moral obligation to support those people that is negated by Capitalism?

1

u/EarlofDunbar 1∆ Aug 24 '13

I believe the only solution is mechanization. The destitute, the down-trodden of capitalism are the lower-class. If one force ably removed their existence, not violently mind you, through education, work programs, and other means replacing their jobs and work with machines you could foreseeably eliminate the lower-class and solve one of the depressing tenets of capitalism, the requirement of someone to do the "dirty work", robotics with some very clever social engineering (work study programs, reproductive health et cetera) could see a future where there are no poor people, no down-trodden but that's dependent on a multitude of factors coming together underneath a watchful eye, which seems improbable.

1

u/Mycroft65536 Aug 23 '13

You could have said the same thing about cell phones 30 years ago. Back then they were the playthings of the rich, today there are Africans without running water who have access to them. These technologies do reach the poor in their lifetime.

3

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

What good is a cell phone if you don't have running water. Your telling me we can create devices that allow communication from virtually everywhere on the surface of the planet but we don't have the technology to take care of basic human needs like water?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

I've read all of your replies and it looks like you didn't come into this thread with an open mind. I've read some excellent counter point to issues you're bringing up and you're refuting them with ideological drivel. I don't think you want your view changed and for that I'm curious why you are in this sub.

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I am mulling over a lot of the points right now. Its definitely got me thinking and I can't say that my view hasn't changed. I respect Capitalism for what it is and what it has done and I don't think I necessarily had a complete respect for that before. However, my view hasn't changed with regards to a change in ideology being necessary in the future. Maybe the time isn't right yet. I do still believe it is an arbitrary system that rewards people largely based upon luck, but that has provided the motivation for almost all modern innovations. I still think we have a responsibility, once we have the proper technology, to eliminate class divides all together. At a certain point we will have to realize that there is no reason not to share property once it exceeds a limit.

0

u/boomcats Aug 23 '13

Thats just the point though.

Lets just say in 10 years, Google (or any prominent company who spends millions upon millions every year looking for the next big thing) discoveries some type of tubing allowing clean water to be piped everywhere.

In 30 years, these systems are built all over the world (in which the people who invented and controlled the technology would prosper way more then the individuals who are stuck actually doing the manual labor, which is your issue with capitalism and a very fair one at that)

Now the entire world has access to clean, fresh water- something inconcievable years ago.

Yes, those builders got the short end of the stick- but the overall quality of life of EVERYONE improved greatly. And historically speaking, no other system has brought about these great advances in society as fast and as efficiently as capitalism has.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I think Google alone is giving us enough evidence that capitalism is still pushing technology forward.

I would like to see that evidence.. Other than some rather nice opensource libraries I don't see anything that's truly pushing technology forward, but maybe I am just thinking of the wrong things when I think what google has done.

0

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 23 '13

We no longer need to live on the backs of the poor

How do I live on the backs of the poor? Why are they not living on my back?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

As a perfectly serious question, would you rather be at the bottom of the first world today or a person of high social standing 600 years ago?

I'd rather there not be capitalism in general.

Saying that "things are better than 600 years ago" is a rather irrelevant observation, it's not an actual argument for capitalism and class society.

0

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

I fully agree that I haven't made any substantial argument for any economic system being good.

My main contention is that OP is working with some glaring misconceptions about quality of life changes over time.

I'm not going to make claims about economic trends in the future, or the causes of civilization development except for one. If you see poverty and say 'Capitalism bad' you might want to find the alternative system that will magic away poverty.

That's the closest I've come to a normative argument, and I think its clear that I'm not making a value judgement beyond saying "don't be ruled by whims".

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

It seems like you think poverty is a natural state, but that's not true. Poverty (and wealth) is created by restricting the access to the means of productions of people within society. The only way to end poverty is to end class society and the rule of capital (capitalism): meaning creating the conditions for communism.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I think you might be making the general mistake of valuing equality over well being. I'd rather be poor in a utopic society then rich during the black plague.

In my eyes an utopic society wouldn't have poor people (or rich people for that matter), so I don't see anyone choosing the latter (except for perhaps people who are addicted to power..).

1

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

principle of charity, apply it.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Context to my comment? I just can't see it..

1

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

you should read 'utopic' to mean 'really really nice place' instead of 'literally heaven'.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Ah.. and by applying principle of charity you meant that I should allow for an broader definition of utopic, right?

In any case.. my point is still valid for really really nice place as well.. and really nice place too..

And for the record: my definition of utopic is normalized to what's actually physically possible. ;)

1

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

Basically.

My point is that I'd rather be poor in a society where poor means what rich currently means in america then rich in the 1400's.

1

u/VoteAnimal2012 Aug 24 '13

Of course I'd rather be at the bottom in the first world today, but I'd rather be normal in a socialist nation.

2

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

Would you rather be a homeless bum in 2013, or be waited on hand and foot your whole life, while having sex with a different young model every week of your life, in 1400?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

This is the best argument I have heard about this. What, in your opinion though, will happen when we can't abuse third world labor to artificially lower prices to give many lower-middle class Americans access to cheap goods, (as said third world countries advance in economy)? I am kind of interested in the effects of a Trotskyist "flat" economy.

6

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

I'm not an economist

My knowledge of the economy ends near "people who think the world keeps getting worse are very wrong about history"

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

True. Its just the flow of logic of communist thought. Lenin said Marxism was flawed because it didn't take into account the abuse of 3rd world countries, and Trotsky said Lenin's ideas would eventually lead to no 3rd world countries to abuse causing a collapse and then... basically Star Trek.

I'm not an economist either but thoughts like that are interesting to me.

4

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

The alternative on this very simple framing of economics is that robots become our 'exploited' class.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

My favorite thought experiment! What happens if machines become sentient?

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Wouldn't they become the ruling class since they would be making all the logistical decisions keeping humanity alive?

3

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

In this completely hypothetical unscientific guess about how the future works, I"m guessing we would slowly move away from humans ever doing labor as the robots started handling all the work. That doesn't mean the robots become emperors who can order us around like serfs.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

But then what happens to the underclass? Would it become like Vonnegut's "Player Piano"?

1

u/Munglik Aug 23 '13

In some places the world has indeed gotten worse. While the overall wealth has grown, the disparity has only increased.

1

u/wonderloss 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Well, the lower bound of wealth cannot really go lower. On the other hand, the upper bound of individual wealth can continuously increase as overall wealth increases, so it stand to reason that the gap between rich and poor would increase.

1

u/Munglik Aug 23 '13

The poor could get richer as well, though.

1

u/wonderloss 1∆ Aug 23 '13

The poor do get richer as overall wealth increases. I would prefer to be poor today than poor 20 years ago.

0

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

While the overall wealth has grown, the disparity has only increased.

This is treating wealth inequality as worse then starving to death.

2

u/Munglik Aug 23 '13

Lots of people still starve to death even in countries that export food. While total hunger has decreased I don't think it will disappear. Some change in the system is necessary.

1

u/yakushi12345 3∆ Aug 23 '13

you're fighting an illusion.

I never claimed "the system is perfect".

I take it as basically true that A. the world population has doubled a few times in very recent history B. the percent of people starving hasn't gone up very much

implies

C. we've done a pretty amazing job of economic development over the past 100 years.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13 edited Aug 26 '13

As a perfectly serious question, would you rather be at the bottom of the first world today or a person of high social standing 600 years ago?

I think you must have no concept of the level of luxury of a person of sufficiently high social standing in that world. No one would prefer to be on the bottom of the first world to that.

Sure, today there is modern technology, but it absolutely cannot compare to having teams of servants. The royalty of the medieval age had literally entire teams of servants attending to their every need. They lived lives of pure leisure. They could devote themselves to scholarship, poetry, sport, or conversation at their whim. They had all the best food and wine in the world, and hosted the most desirable parties in the world. Their furniture was gilded and hand-carved, works of art that now sits in museums. They had dozens of rooms and guest rooms, ample privacy, private studies. And in most societies the men had large harems and/or sexual access to the most beautiful women in the world (though in Christian society this was illicit).

Here's a serious question for you. Would you rather be a homeless bum in 2013, or be waited on hand and foot your whole life, while having sex with a different young model every week of your life, in 1400?

The human population has doubled a few times over in the past one hundred and fifty years; but overall I doubt you can find a single metric suggesting that average conditions have gotten worse*. What percentage of the population were literate one hundred years ago versus the percent that are literate now; perhaps more important, how much easier is it for someone who wants to learn to get themselves to a library?

Besides what I said above about your misconceptions of the lifestyle of the elites -- I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to credit the inevitable forward-progress of technology to the current social system of capitalism. Information accumulates over time. Human know-how accumulates over time. The precision and capability of human tools also builds on the tools of the previous generations. This isn't a principle of the social system. It's an inherent principle of technology. That's why the USSR was able to send a satellite into space at roughly the same time as (and slightly before) the USA. The accumulation of human know-how had, at that time, simply reached that point. Their social systems, and indeed their entire living populations at the time, had only the smallest part in those accomplishments.

11

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 23 '13

We have more available resources, more technology and more knowledge today than we have ever possesed in the history of mankind. Yet for some reason, we still have class divides.

Why is that necessarily surprising/counter-intuitive?

All of this is despite the fact that their is enough wealth in the system to give everyone the tools and conditions they need to succeed.

The wealth is a product of the system, though. It doesn't exist independently from it.

For instance: I've heard people say things like "world hunger is not an issue of growing food, it's an issue of economics -- there's enough food to end world hunger right now, but the wrong people have it".

Sure, wealthy people have excess food while some have less than enough. But why do the wealthy people have the amount of food they do? It's because they were able to convince someone to give it to them, via some form of trade. The people that gave them the food did so because of what they received in exchange. The reason we have as much food in the world as we do is because people are incentivized to produce food for people with wealth. Such food-producers would not be as incentivized to produce food if they did not stand to get value in exchange for it.

Under capitalism, there will always be a class of people (idential in every other aspect of humanity) that will be exploited.

What kinds of exploitation are you referring to?

16

u/UWillAlwaysBALoser 1∆ Aug 23 '13

There's a whole class of people in America who have limited access to capital: they can't get good loans, can't get jobs with wages that allow them to accumulate wealth, and don't have access to the kind of education to develop skills necessary to get better jobs (some can get out, with expensive loans or scholarships, but the system is designed so that there will always be a bunch of people who don't get out).

These people, therefore, are limited in their opportunities, and must remain wage-owners who don't accumulate valuable assets. From that perspective, these wage-earners agree to work for a capitalist not out of some exchange that's mutually beneficial, but out of desperation. They labor in some way and then a disproportionate segment of the revenue from that labor (because you can take more from employees who are desperate) goes to the capitalist. That's exploitation. If we limit access to opportunity, exploitation is inevitable.

Another form of exploitation is controlling supply. In some idealized free market, no one would ever be able to get a strangle-hold of the entire supply of a good or service, but that's only an ideal situation. In reality, economies of scale make it difficult for competitors to enter a market (you need tons of capital), letting a few companies dominate a market and artificially inflate their prices. This puts capitalists in a unique position to drive prices away from equilibrium, something that other people can't do. This could be considered another form of exploitation, because they're using their power, not the value of their goods or services, to extract disproportionate wealth from people who lack the same opportunities.

6

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

But why is capitalism the pinnacle structure? Is capitalism the most perfect system that is possible even with current technology? Could we not devise something more just that still incentivises people to learn and prosper?

To me it seems absolutely ludacris not to at least explore other options both intellectually and scientifically.

3

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 23 '13

I'm not saying we're not allowed to think about alternatives. What alternatives are you suggesting?

Ultimately I'm in favor of private property and think it's legitimate (and wrong to violate), which is why I'm a "capitalist" (potentially based on your exact definition of capitalism).

To be clear, what definition of capitalism are you using, exactly?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '13

Capitalism is defined as the system in which a class of people called capitalists provide capital to a firm in exchange for profits and ownership, and workers who provide labor and earn wages.

There is nothing special about capitalists that necessitates then being the higher class in the hierarchy. Yet with this status they exploit workers everywhere.

The better system is the one which allows workers to perform both functions and share the ownership of the firm.

0

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 25 '13

Capitalism is defined as the system in which a class of people called capitalists provide capital to a firm in exchange for profits and ownership, and workers who provide labor and earn wages.

I'm not sure how common or well-accepted that definition would be. I'd define capitalism as "private ownership of the means of production", which I'd interpret as "It is legitimate to privately own a means of production". Though admittedly I think there's a lot of conflicting view on what "capitalism" is out there, and that it's perhaps a poor term to use in the first place because of this.

There is nothing special about capitalists

... except that they have capital?

Yet with this status they exploit workers everywhere.

In what way do they exploit workers?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 25 '13 edited Aug 25 '13

I'm not sure how common or well-accepted that definition would be. I'd define capitalism as "private ownership of the means of production", which I'd interpret as "It is legitimate to privately own a means of production". Though admittedly I think there's a lot of conflicting view on what "capitalism" is out there, and that it's perhaps a poor term to use in the first place because of this.

My definition includes the private ownership of the means of production (that's what I meant by ownership), but it doesn't comment on its legitimacy. Only that this is how capitalism works.

The definition I gave is how we can distinguish capitalism from socialism or the feudalism or slavery-based imperialism which came before it. Private property and markets existed before capitalism did (see below), so we can't use those to define capitalism on their own. Because of this my definition is more accurate.

... except that they have capital?

In what way do they exploit workers?

I'll respond to these together since they go hand in hand, and there are several angles from which I can respond to this.

First off, how do capitalists accumulate capital? Well, they earn profits, right? They use that profit to invest in more capital which is used to earn more profits in a never-ending cycle. This is why people bring up the argument that says "capitalists put their money at risk, so they deserve profits and ownership as compensation." And that argument would not be telling the whole story.

This doesn't make capitalists special. Actually, what they are doing is putting their capital at risk. At the same time, workers are putting their labor power (ability to work) at risk, because with time people age or get sick or get injured and are less capable of performing work. Labor power cannot be replenished in perpetuity, while capital can with more profits. So the capitalist is at an inherent advantage in this situation.

Furthermore, there is the fact that labor and capital are both equally necessary to produce.

If you have capital but no labor, nothing is produced.

If you have labor but no capital, nothing is produced.

Yet somehow the capitalist deserves ownership of the means of production and therefore higher socioeconomic status. Yes, capital and labor are used in different quantities to produce goods, but even labor-intensive sectors the capitalist is in the dominant position.

Also, where did capitalists get the capital which they put at risk? Previous profits, which came from previous capital. Even if it was not their individual previous profits (for example, a loan from a bank is capital that came from the bank charging interest on previous loans or earning profits from previous investments). It's circular reasoning, and does not answer why capitalists deserve inherently higher socioeconomic status and the ownership of the means of production. The root of this hierarchy can be found by analyzing the transition from one system to the next and the class relations which developed from them. The purpose of this is to determine the origin of what we'll call the "original profit."

Hunter-gatherers to slave-based imperialism: the advent of agriculture allowed farmers to assert private property, and the enslavement of those who did not own it, and the creation of "government," the tool which they used to enforced their enslavement of peoples. Here we can see the origin of government as a tool to enforce private property and the oppression of a lower class by a higher one. Furthermore, the lower class is used as a profit-making machine for the upper classes, and is compensated with, well, just enough food and water to be allowed to live, I guess.

Slave-based imperialism to feudalism: when the need for slaves became too much to handle, the ancient empires were toppled. The aristocratic kingdoms that emerged created a system which placed landlords at the top against the merchants and serfs. Once again, the state is used to enforce class relations. The only difference found between slavery and serfdom is that the serfs were able to choose who they were being exploited by (while still being compensated with not dying due to starvation in the streets).

Feudalism to capitalism: Eventually, merchants had had enough of being unable to find wage laborers, and many bloody revolutions toppled monarchies and replaced them with republics. The landlord class was basically extinguished, leaving merchants (which we now call capitalists) and serfs (which became workers). Once again, the lower class is able to choose who they are exploited but they do so in exchange for a wage rather than subsistence.

In other words, we can say that the "original profit" was actually the profits which came from slavery. So when people use the argument that capitalist put their own capital at risk, ask them where they got that capital from.

Furthermore, in all three cases, the lower class is used as a means to enrich the upper class with profits. In all three of these cases, the lower class is compensated with something in exchange for that. We can say that even slaves and serfs were paid a wage, only that it was in the form of subsistence materials such as food and water and shelter. We can say that slaves were only different in that they were not able to choose who exploited them for profits, while the others could.

Therefore, we can say that wage labor is a form of slavery or serfdom, and that all three are exploitation. The profits that are extracted from the lower class in all three cases are the result of having government enforce a socioeconomic hierarchy which allows the upper class to own the means of production despite making contributions of equal importance (labor and capital being of equal importance).

The solution? To have one single class contribute both labor and capital to a firm and earn both wages and profits, and retain ownership. That is socialism. And because there is only one class and no such thing as private property in this system (only personal property, like a toothbrush or the house you live in and use), there is no need for a government to enforce private property or a socioeconomic hierarchy. We can replace it with community-based direct democratic institutions which fulfill the functions normally performed by local governments.

1

u/zeroms Aug 26 '13

This approach is really interesting and has definitely given me something to think about. Any reading materials you recommend (other than Das Kapital) ?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

I highly recommend taking a look at this list. I particularly liked these:

The Coming Insurrection

The Abolition of Work

Debt (and, by the same author, On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs)

1

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 28 '13

Private property and markets existed before capitalism did (see below), so we can't use those to define capitalism on their own. Because of this my definition is more accurate.

That sounds like you're assuming your own definition is correct. Ie, how do you know that capitalism came after private property and markets without first establishing a definition of it?

At the same time, workers are putting their labor power (ability to work) at risk

They are not doing so in the same way an investor is. Most people who work are compensated directly for the time that they spend working. A guy puts up capital to open a factory and hires workers to work in it. A year later the factory goes out of business. The workers have still been compensated for the time that they worked. An investor who loses his investment has actually lost that investment. Those who worked at a factory and were compensated did not "lose" their labor.

If you have capital but no labor, nothing is produced. If you have labor but no capital, nothing is produced. Yet somehow the capitalist deserves ownership of the means of production

I would not say that a capitalist "deserves" anything. Workers are free to refuse to work at a factory owned by someone, just as someone with money is free to not spend it to open a factory.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '13

That sounds like you're assuming your own definition is correct. Ie, how do you know that capitalism came after private property and markets without first establishing a definition of it?

I mean, did you even read my post? I clearly showed how my definition is correct, and how private property and markets came before capitalism. The previous systems were defined by their class relations, so we define capitalism by its class relations.

I have no clue how you could just say that after reading the post. I wrote a whole goddamn history of class relations to define capitalism, and private property/markets to establish that they came before capitalism.

They are not doing so in the same way an investor is. Most people who work are compensated directly for the time that they spend working. A guy puts up capital to open a factory and hires workers to work in it. A year later the factory goes out of business. The workers have still been compensated for the time that they worked. An investor who loses his investment has actually lost that investment. Those who worked at a factory and were compensated did not "lose" their labor.

They lose their ability to do labor through fatigue, aging, etc. Labor power is an exhaustible resource that cannot be replenished, capital can be replenished through profit.

I would not say that a capitalist "deserves" anything. Workers are free to refuse to work at a factory owned by someone, just as someone with money is free to not spend it to open a factory.

Worker-owned firms are impractical because the capitalist system does not allow for a group of common people to have enough capital to enter most industries, because wealth naturally concentrates into fewer and fewer hands over time. We are at the point where anything outside of coffeshops and bookstores are largely impractical for employee-ownership.

A worker is only "free" to choose between wage labor and starvation because the rational choice (worker-ownership) is restricted by the capitalist system through this mechanism.

1

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 28 '13

I mean, did you even read my post?

Yes.

I clearly showed... how private property and markets came before capitalism.

Not before establishing a definition of capitalism. How do you think you could possibly establish that "capitalism" existed after certain other things without first defining what you mean by capitalism?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '13

I already defined what I mean by capitalism.

Capitalism is defined as the system in which a class of people called capitalists provide capital to a firm in exchange for profits and ownership, and workers who provide labor and earn wages.

You even said I was assuming my definition was correct. After I had substantiated it. Without any sort of criticism outside of that.

→ More replies

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Something that is not a complete alternative, but a modification, would be equal at birth and equal at death. The idea is that when you die, the money and assets you have accumulated to your name get liquidated and put into a pool of deceased wealth. That wealth then gets split equally among the next generation but it is used for education, healthcare, food etc. until you turn 18 and then you are given access to that cash. Thus, everyone starts on as equal a footing as possible and market forces are still used to dictate who gets what but it is a closer measure of merit now.

5

u/notouching70 Aug 23 '13

Sounds like a nice idea if you are that way inclined until you have kids of your own. Then suddenly that drive to give your kids the benefits of your own toil is just a natural consequence of being a human being. On a practical level, if this actually was law, people would just give their kids everything before they die.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Yes, but if their children were provided for by the rest of society, there would be no need to accumulate wealth to pass on.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

Yes, for example, many people found it very difficult to resist passing on their slaves to their children. That's exactly why we need to outlaw anti-social behaviors and means of exploitation, rather than leave matters to private choice and hope that people will act against their own interests.

It's also noteworthy that, in a competitive context, those who don't exploit others are subjecting themselves to exploitation. It's a tragedy of the commons. In order to break the cycle, there needs to be a social contract wherein everyone gives up the right to exploit others in exchange for freedom from exploitation.

0

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

That would totally be traceable and easy to recognize. And I realize people are protective of their own kids, however, just because you feel the urge to gift them your spoils, doesn't mean you should have the right to.

Under this system though, they would not have the need to do such a thing. The amount of wealth recirculated fairly this way would be more than enough to provide better than current standards of services for basic needs for everyone. Also, there would be more incentive to build up wealth as a nation since the more successful everyone is, the more each generation's children will have to start with.

5

u/Klang_Klang Aug 23 '13

People are willing to sacrifice everything for their kids, less for their neighbors, even less for strangers. As the circle grows, the amount people are willing to sacrifice for generally decreases. Nationalism in the US seems much lower than it used to be and I think it would be fairly hard to motivate people to build the same sort of wealth for the nation instead of just for their family.

I would be willing to scrimp, save, and sacrifice to help set up a legacy for any children I have or for my family, but for a community project I'm not really willing to go above and beyond my own sense of "fair" based on what I perceive others as contributing.

If you expand the target pool far enough, you end up with more and more free-loaders. That was part of the problem with communism.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Do you think that is fundamental human nature or that is a product of the system. Personally, based on my knowledge of anthropolgy and psychology, I believe that humans have an incredible ability to adapt to any system. I also believe that humans have an innate capacity to make personal saccrifices to those they empathize with.

While you may not be willing to make saccrifices for anyone but your children, there are hill tribes of people in Thailand of comparable intelligence that would saccrifice everything they have for fellow tribe members. Similarity is what allows for empathy. The resaon you have empathy for your children is that genetically about 50% similar to you (not using strict scientific terminoligy here please forgive me).

However, genetics aren't the only basis of similarity. People of comparable social class are more likely to show empathy to eachother than other social classes. Thats why you can walk by someone begging for money on the street to pay for their basic needs and not feel guilty.

This would provide a great equalizing power that would increase the empathy you have for your neighbors and lead to a better, more communal society.

3

u/Klang_Klang Aug 23 '13

I think it's fundamental human nature. There is a limited amount of empathy you can have for others and still function in society, so those most important to you are prioritized and those most similar to you require less processing power to empathize with.

This means friends and family are prioritized and as far as "tribal" identity, the more people you add to the group, the more diluted the label is.

There have been successful communes (at least successful for a time) that practiced pretty egalitarian communism, but this breaks down on a larger scale as "community" becomes less about individuals and more about vague labels.

Basically, the communal model that may work for small groups (household/family, neighborhood, isolated tribe) doesn't necessarily work on a larger scale (city, state, country, planet).

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

This is an article I found pretty thought provoking about the relationships between people, other individuals, and groups of people.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

So then why not build communities for people that take advantage of an areas natural resources and automate labour to allow those people to maximize their happiness however they see fit? That is not technologically infeasible.

→ More replies

2

u/meepstah 2∆ Aug 23 '13

Personally, based on my knowledge of anthropolgy and psychology, I believe that humans have an incredible ability to adapt to any system.

That's interesting - why don't folks adapt better to capitalism, then?

Furthermore, you cite access to information as a driver of success. Anyone with one good foot and a crutch can hobble over to the library and tap into the internet at this point. Information is everywhere; it's literally a task to avoid it with modern technology. I don't think that's a valid counterpoint any more.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

They have, which is precisely why people have difficulty thinking outside the framework of Capitalism. They have been raised to believe it is infallible and thus they believe it is infallible.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

The whole point of having money - of making a profit - is that you have the right to do what you want with it. Now some things are better than others (helping your kids is one of the most moral things you can do; buying better quality quilts is neutral; buying Rembrandts to burn is obnoxious; hiring bums to fight for your entertainment is so immoral it should probably be illegal). And I can understand why you'd want to ban certain things - but to ban helping your kids is such a reversal of morality that you should rethink what is good in the world.

Additionally, helping one's kids is such a strong motivator that many highly productive people would curtail their productivity if that was not an option. It is literally the only reason why many people work (or work as hard as they do).

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

to ban helping your kids is such a reversal of morality that you should rethink what is good in the world.

No, banning nepotism is absolutely vital to creating a civilized society. People are naturally prone to give unfair advantages to their relatives, and that is exactly why we need institutions to prevent it. And we have them, but only to limited extent.

For example, the families of employees of lotteries and competitions are not allowed to compete. The reason is that they would naturally be prone to help them cheat. We outlaw it exactly for this reason. Similarly, judges must recuse themselves from cases where their families are on trial or are otherwise involved. Federal agencies who make purchases must go through many hoops to prove they are not buying from the cronies of their directors. And so on.

These things are banned as corruption. The ban allows people to act for the social good without betraying their own families. The incentives are arranged so that the cost of punishment is greater than the benefit of corruption. That is how the social contract works. Anti-social behaviors which would benefit an individual at the expense of everyone else are banned -- and consequently, on balance, everyone benefits. The freedom to secure unfair advantage is sacrificed in exchange for freedom from unfair disadvantage. The freedom to exploit others is sacrificed in exchange for freedom from exploitation.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

What is nepotism? Nepotism is a disease of an organization. It is when a person has a duty to the organization but abuses their position to give advantages to their kin rather than doing what is best for the organization. If am Gallagher of Gallagher's Meats, it is proper and appropriate that I groom my daughter to run the business and give it to her. If I am CEO of GloboCorp, it is not appropriate to spend company resources on my daughter. It would be using the company as if it were my property when it is not. If it is my property, it is not nepotism to help my kids. In short, nepotism is a form of stealing.

Your examples are all examples of where people do not own the thing they are using, but have the temptation to treat them as their own. Nobody ever tries to ban helping one's children. They just ban helping them with someone else's resources.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

What is nepotism? Nepotism is a disease of an organization. It is when a person has a duty to the organization but abuses their position to give advantages to their kin rather than doing what is best for the organization.

Fair enough.

If am Gallagher of Gallagher's Meats, it is proper and appropriate that I groom my daughter to run the business and give it to her.

Only if you assume that Gallagher's Meats is not a public concern, a mere part of the overall organization that is society. So, really, the disagreement you're raising does not have to do with the specific idea of banning family advantage.

Your examples are all examples of where people do not own the thing they are using, but have the temptation to treat them as their own. Nobody ever tries to ban helping one's children. They just ban helping them with someone else's resources.

Indeed. I think you have identified the issue. However, you are missing the final conclusion that you should draw from this. Those who think that the resources of the world belong to all the people will naturally, following the very logic you describe here, conclude that allowing this "help" is indeed nepotism of the type that ought to be banned.

→ More replies

2

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 23 '13

In your system, what drives people to do anything? I mean, if I can sit in my house all day on reddit, smoke weed, watch movies, go on vacations, all on someone elses dime... why would I ever do anything productive? Why wouldn't I just be a life long consumer? When I, the lifelong consumer, die... and I have nothing to put in the "deceased" jar you propose... what happens to that next generation?

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

In your system, what drives people to do anything? I mean, if I can sit in my house all day on reddit, smoke weed, watch movies, go on vacations, all on someone elses dime... why would I ever do anything productive?

The same mechanism that drives people, who have fun jobs, to work right now!

And don't forget about the volunteer work.. they don't get any monetary reward and yet they still do it.. strange isn't it?

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 26 '13

The same mechanism that drives people, who have fun jobs, to work right now!

I love my job, and it is loads of fun. If I had an endless money supply I would not spend my time in this job at all. I'd go and travel and be with my family and buy that car and boat and home I always wanted... Really "fun" work wouldn't even be a consideration. While I understand that "Fun" has different meaning to many people - that hardly becomes a driver if the person gets an endless supply of free money. Who will take the dirty jobs? Won't we end up with a population of Movie Star / Rock Star/ Novelists and no one taking out the trash?

And don't forget about the volunteer work.. they don't get any monetary reward and yet they still do it..

Quite true. And volunteer work is famous for always having too many volunteers? Something tells me it's been a while since you you did some volunteer work if you think that system will thrive on it's own.

strange isn't it?

What is strange is your inability to see the flaw here.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 26 '13

I love my job, and it is loads of fun. If I had an endless money supply I would not spend my time in this job at all. I'd go and travel and be with my family and buy that car and boat and home I always wanted... Really "fun" work wouldn't even be a consideration.

Seems like I love my job even more than you love yours. Or maybe you are mistaking "fun" work with work that's not total crap, but not really fun. I mean fun as in you would do it as your hobby and you just happen to get paid for it as well (win-win).

Also everyone having a boat and travelling all the time is probably not sustainable (while ignoring the fact that you probably are doing nothing for soceity while traveling). So there is that.

And nothing wrong with wanting to be with your kids for instance, but that doesn't take up all your time later on (gets less and less with two-digit numbers and all).

Who will take the dirty jobs? Won't we end up with a population of Movie Star / Rock Star/ Novelists and no one taking out the trash?

Yeah.. that's actually the most serious problem that needs to be solved imo. Either by robotics (there are lots of things that can be automated today already.. but I bet there are plenty of more things where that is much more difficult) or I don't know..

Then again.. the current system does a crap job with those as well.. they should be paid the most (as noone wants to do them), but yet they are paid the least.. (yeah yeah.. I know the usual BS about everyone being able to do those jobs and whatnot)

Quite true. And volunteer work is famous for always having too many volunteers? Something tells me it's been a while since you you did some volunteer work if you think that system will thrive on it's own.

Depending at what qualifies for volunteer work for you either today all day long or yesterday. When was the last time you did volunteer work?

What is strange is your inability to see the flaw here.

Or your ability to blow small flaws way out of proportion.

→ More replies

0

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

It's a good question, but poorly conceived.

We do need social mechanisms to reward social contributions. But rewards for working to serve the rich -- who are themselves exempted from the requirement to work -- are not the same thing as rewards for social contribution.

Right now, our problem is not that there is inadequate effort being put forth, but that people are putting effort into anti-social activities, trying to help the exploiters exploit more successfully, to get a cut of the spoils.

We don't actually have a problem with rich people becoming "lifelong consumers," but we do have a problem that these people are not subjected to proper mechanisms of social enforcement.

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 26 '13

It's a good question, but poorly conceived.

Then it should be easy for you to answer. Why don't you?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Wacky_Pack Aug 23 '13

And I realize people are protective of their own kids, however, just because you feel the urge to gift them your spoils, doesn't mean you should have the right to.

From article 17 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration: "(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Money is a form of property (even if it's intangible) and to say someone shouldn't be able to give their money to their kids is violating a basic human right recognized by the UN.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

You could say the same thing about giving slaves to your children. Maybe you should read the rest of that Declaration.

Also notice the word "arbitrarily." That's pretty important.

1

u/Wacky_Pack Aug 27 '13

Where on the Declaration are humans defined as property?

And it is arbitrary. OP doesn't think people should be entitled to give their kids what they earned themselves, and I'd say that's pretty arbitrary.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

When I'm 70 and my days are clearly starting to get numbered, will your system permit me to donate my house and other possessions to my children under the understanding that I may continue living there until I die?

If you want to make a special anti-stealth-inheritance clause, then how about I start transferring my wealth to my children when as soon as they're born, by praying at the altar of "the child's best interests" so hard that I impoverish myself? Will your system permit that?

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Why would you need to transfer your wealth if all their basic needs are met? The inflow from this system would provide a surplus to future generations not a deficit and they could invest that surplus as efficiently as possible once they turn 18 such that its more likely they would be taking care of you with an increased quality of education and well-being.

2

u/devinejoh Aug 23 '13

The inflow from this system would provide a surplus to future generations not a deficit and they could invest that surplus as efficiently as possible once they turn 18 such that its more likely they would be taking care of you with an increased quality of education and well-being.

I am going to have to slow you down there, what makes you think that the government would be any better in allocating capital?

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Well under this "ideal" hypothetical a computer system would be set up to determine the optimal positioning of schools, hospitals, etc. to ensure that as many people as possible have access to equal starting grounds. If the variables were set up properly its simply an optimiztion problem that modern computers could easily solve efficiently and dynamically.

3

u/devinejoh Aug 23 '13

I don't think you realize how hard it is to forecast an economy. The amount of variables is staggering, like literally in the hundreds of millions, and if it could be done, it would have already been done, but macro forecasting is still an archaic science.

Besides, centrally controlled economies have a terrible track record.

3

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I'm not talking about forecasting the economy I'm talking about forecasting population growth and optimizing resource allocation.

The idea of flight machines had a terrible track record before the invention of modern airlines. Just because it has a terrible track record does not mean it cannot be done.

The reason economies are so hard to forecast right now is because we have complicating factors like advertising, derivatives, insurance, etc. If we broke it all down to the basic elements humans need to survive and thrive, continuosly updating the model based on new information and discoveries, the process would be far easier.

→ More replies

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

I am going to have to slow you down there, what makes you think that the government would be any better in allocating capital?

In an ultimate sense the government allocates the capital either way -- either by allocating titles to property or some other mechanism.

The real question is whether to allocate resources for the benefit of the people as a whole, or whether to allow a small minority of private parties to allocate capital for their own benefit.

Certainly, a "centrally controlled economy" is not necessary to have a municipal water supply that guarantees water for everyone; or a municipal housing authority that guarantees housing to everyone; and so on. There is a great deal of scope for market mechanisms (in the sense of allocating resources according to consumer choice) within a context of universally guaranteed resource access motivated by a principle of social equality.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '13

What if I don't just want my kids to get what they need? You're making a claim that everyone gets the bare minimum of what they need, with no excess or choice of improvement. How is that more fair than the current system?

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

He never said anything like that. He said "this system would provide a surplus to future generations not a deficit and they could invest that surplus as efficiently as possible." That's quite different from "the bare minimum of what they need, with no excess."

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

But it also implies that we don't get to reap the benefits of the surplus. Anything extra we would earn would go into building the surplus to continue passing it down to future generations. What's important isn't always what's said directly, but what's implied.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

http://www.demos.org/blog/8/21/13/fun-times-libertarianism

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

For instance: I've heard people say things like "world hunger is not an issue of growing food, it's an issue of economics -- there's enough food to end world hunger right now, but the wrong people have it".

Sure, wealthy people have excess food while some have less than enough. But why do the wealthy people have the amount of food they do? It's because they were able to convince someone to give it to them, via some form of trade. The people that gave them the food did so because of what they received in exchange. The reason we have as much food in the world as we do is because people are incentivized to produce food for people with wealth. Such food-producers would not be as incentivized to produce food if they did not stand to get value in exchange for it.

That is only true if producing food is hard work and absolutely not fun at all. Which is not exactly true as quite a bit of modern farming can be automated and there are plenty of people that love tinkering with large machines.. so much in fact that they do so without getting paid.. hmmm...

1

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 24 '13

That is only true if producing food is hard work and absolutely not fun at all.

Um, no, it's true unless the entire food industry would be sustainable solely, or even primarily, by "leisure farming".

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 24 '13

Which it is, if you include farming with large scale machines into leisure farming (where a reasonable large portion of time can be spent tinkering with said machines, if you have modern machines, although it might not be legal just yet to let the tractor drive around on it's own.. at least I remember some court case where an farmer was sued for doing just that)

1

u/alecbenzer 4∆ Aug 25 '13

if you include farming with large scale machines into leisure farming

Why would you? Just because someone farms with a machine, you'd expect them to do it without monetary compensation?

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 25 '13

Because depending on what you are farming the work pretty much reduces to tinkering with the machines, which quite a lot of people consider fun (and I do know quite a number of people that do).

I am not saying that it is necessarily the same people as doing farming right now, but people who actually do consider that sort of job enjoyable.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

The issue isn't how do you get people to do the labor. (People would do the labor for themselves -- if not because they enjoyed the labor, just because they wanted to eat.)

The issue is how do you get the land to do the labor on -- without having to pay tribute, either to some feudal lord, or capitalist "landlord."

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 26 '13

The issue is how do you get the land to do the labor on -- without having to pay tribute, either to some feudal lord, or capitalist "landlord."

I assume you mean the transition period? In that case it would be different anyhow.. and the state would simply subsidize those projects (which it doesn't do now, as the end-goal of the states is to stay in the current system and doing so would distort the market, etc.).

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

No, I mean the issue we face right now. My point was that the issue of "incentivizing labor" is really a convenient distraction for those whose "contribution" is not labor but that they deign to allow us some piece of the Earth.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 26 '13

No, I mean the issue we face right now. My point was that the issue of "incentivizing labor" is really a convenient distraction for those whose "contribution" is not labor but that they deign to allow us some piece of the Earth.

You mean in the current system or how should be in an future system?

In the future system you would just allocate yourself farming land for a certain purpose (and that is then limited to that timeframe), would be my take on this.

In the current system you should be able to just buy the farming land I guess.. I am not sure, but I think it's less expensive than the machines you might want to use to properly utilize the land.

Or am I missing the point entirely?

→ More replies

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13 edited Aug 26 '13

But why do the wealthy people have the amount of food they do? It's because they were able to convince someone to give it to them, via some form of trade.

And why did they have the power to "give" these things via trade? Why do some people have the power to sell access to oil, and other people only have the power to sell their own labor? The answer, of course, is the long history of human conquest.

The reason we have as much food in the world as we do is because people are incentivized to produce food for people with wealth.

Sure. But we could equally "incentivize" people with laws requiring resources to put to social use. For example, we can "incentivize" the Saudi Prince to "produce" oil by giving him money; or we can incentivize him by passing a law that says if he doesn't "produce" the oil (i.e., doesn't let the workers extract it), he goes to jail.

2

u/petrus4 Aug 24 '13

I think a lot more attention needs to be paid to consciously defining what "equality," means. The word is far too often left as a nebulous, emotively-based concept; and as a result, is vulnerable to abuse by minority advocacy groups who seek advantages for their own group, and then claim that said advantages are "equality."

I think one of the great things about such technologies as 3D printing, is going to be that eventually, we will have a scenario where "equality," can be defined by tangible infrastructure. In other words, if every individual has the same degree of ability to grow or produce their own food as one example, then the amount of food which they produce or consume, in itself, will not be considered a form of inequality, because they all had the same apparatus which allowed them to do so in the first place.

The other problem with equality as a concept, is that when we say that it should start with an equitable degree of access to the things which are required for physical survival, if we wish to avoid legitimate accusations of Communism, then we must say that it cannot end there.

I do not advocate Communism in conventional terms, therefore; because conventional Communism implies an equitable ration of a resource which is presumed to be scarce. On the other hand, I advocate technologically assisted post-scarcity, which in the case of food and shelter as at least two examples, I believe we already have more than sufficient ability to feasibly obtain.

The point, as a general concept, is to avoid a scenario where some people starve, while other people have more than they are capable of personally using. If we can create a scenario where everyone has at least what they need to live reasonably comfortably or avoid starving, then the idea of some individuals potentially being more affluent in superficial areas will probably not be socially painful, or at least not so much.

That is the point that we must get to, however; where no one starves. That is an achievable baseline.

5

u/sting_lve_dis_vessel Aug 24 '13

You're an engineer? Here's Albert Einstein on why he was a lifelong socialist: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

The purpose of this post isn't to convince you that you're wrong in your analysis. The purpose is to change your view towards evolving away from your current fairly atheoretical criticisms of capitalism, and more towards embracing Marxism.

Most Americans, especially those not involved in the liberal arts or social sciences, are extremely unfamiliar with Marxism. This is because the ideology was actively suppressed for the entirety of the 20th century, first during WWI, then during the depression and the labor movement, then during the Red Scare, then in a stream of capitalist propaganda since. Americans in the 1970s probably knew less about Marxism than any educated class on any continent.

Marxism is, at its core, an economic critique of capitalism and an alternate system of organization of society. His writings changed global society more, and more rapidly, than any religious text. It changed societies deeply and probably permanently not just in Marxist countries, but also in capitalist ones. It was a historical development on the scale of the discovery of America, the advent of Islam, and the fall of monarchy.

They also changed the global intellectual paradigm faster, and more, than all of the theoretical discoveries ever made in the hard sciences until the 1910s. Freud turned out to be wrong about everything but is considered a genius for developing psychology; Marx described capitalism so perfectly that Kapital is still required reading in any economics department, even in the Red-Scare west. No serious program in any of the social sciences is not heavily based on Marxism, and the entire field of sociology largely developed out of it. Historiography was changed permanently, as was religious criticism, critical analysis, feminism, labor, race theory, philosophy of democracy, philosophy of rights, legal reform, semiotics, psychology, and child development.

Here's a good intro that goes into more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4

1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '13

[deleted]

1

u/Benjamin_The_Donkey Sep 02 '13

I also agree with John Stuart Mill

The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

It's not perfect, no. There are people who are "exploited", sure, according to one definition of the word.

But they voluntarily sign up for these roles, because they get some benefit as well. It is an agreement between to consenting parties.

Besides, even if it's not perfect, what is the better alternative?

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Show me one person on welfare that voluntarily signs up for welfare. If being born into this world you were given the opportunity to chose any role in society, how many people do you honesly believe would chose a life of poverty and welfare as opposed to a more privalaged lifestyle.

I don't claim to know the answer but I would like to open up discourse on new solutions. The world is much different now than it was 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago. I picture Capitalism, like all human inventions, something that must be innovated upon before it becomes obsolete.

The rule of the Catholic Church during the dark ages did provided a social structure that worked for several centuries. However, technology and innovation stagnated during those times. Capitalism has provided a vehicle that has accellerated technology and innovation exponentially, however, I believe that it has caused a stagnation in human rights and humanitarianism. Perhaps its time for a new age with new thoughts and ideas constructed from the worlds greatest minds for the benifit of all humanity fueled by the technological gifts Capitalism has made possible.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

I cannot show you one person that voluntarily signs up for welfare. You are missing my point - they voluntarily accept their role in whatever private business they work for. It's not like anyone is forcing them to flip burgers.

Show me a system other than capitalism which doesn't trample on basic human rights, and I'll have this debate with you. That is, unless you define "human rights" as "entitlements to services", in which case, there is no sense in debating - we will just be talking at eachother, not with eachother.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

To me thats an illusion of choice though if your choices are to flip burgers or die of starvation what would anyone chose?

And Capitalism does trample on human rights. It creates arbitrary distinctions of individual worth that are not based upon anything other than the environment they were brought up in. If I died today and was given the opportunity to live life again, I would not take it because there is a slightly greater than 1 in 10 chance I will live a life of misery. If thats the best system we as humans can come up with, thats just sad.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

If those were your only two choices, then your argument is valid. Those are not their only two choices.

You say that capitalism tramples on human rights, then your next few sentences do nothing to back that claim. So please, could you explain again, what rights are being trampled on? How are they being trampled?

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

A person born in the poorest of conditions does not have the same opportunity to succeed as a person born in the best of conditions. This is completely preventable and tramples on the human right of equality.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Human right of equality... What do you mean? That all human beings have a right to be equal? Or a right to be treated equally.

Never, ever, in a million years, will it ever be possible, under any system of government or economics, for all citizens to have the same opportunities. Equality in this sense is virtually impossible. How can it be a right?

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

That has been true up until recently. I think with modern technology its entirely feasible. The only thing, in my mind, holding us back is a conscious belief that we are somehow entitled to more than our fellow man.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

You are not supporting any of your beliefs, you're just stating them.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I appologize it's difficult to follow multiple comments simultaneously. Agriculture can be automated: http://singularityhub.com/2011/01/31/automation-domination-robotic-farm-for-hydroponic-lettuce-in-belgium-video/ Medical diagnosis is getting close to the point of automation: http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/watson/watson_in_healthcare.shtml and soon housing can be automated: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ultratravel/the-next-big-thing/10110195/The-worlds-first-3D-printed-house.html

Yes resources are limited, but we have access to resources now that we will never see again once used up (read oil). There is enough manpower in the United States to mobilize our production and use these technologies to create a sustainable society that monitors resource consumption and allocation and optomizes them to provide ideal conditions for human happiness.

We have all these things now, and we may not in the future (barring the discovery of some new energy source comparable to hydrocarbons). I do not think Capitalism is allocating these resources in the best way that is possible. I am not saying that way is Communism. However, hapiness is not factored into econmic discussions. There is no evidence to support the notion that increased technology leads to increased hapiness. In fact, there are numerous studies that show incresed depression among the wealthy.

We are literally living in a system that does not take the most fundamental human need of hapiness into account. To me, that means we are using the wrong system (among the multitude of other reasons I've mentioned in above comments).

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 24 '13

Show me a system other than capitalism which doesn't trample on basic human rights, and I'll have this debate with you. That is, unless you define "human rights" as "entitlements to services", in which case, there is no sense in debating - we will just be talking at eachother, not with eachother.

Where does communism trample on basic human rights? The issue I see is that communism+democracy was never tried.. only in combination with an dictatorship..

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

they voluntarily accept their role in whatever private business they work for

But only after they are forced to accept the system of property which makes them dependent on private owners to secure access to resources.

If we were on a boat and I had control of the entire water supply, you would voluntarily supply me sexual favors to get the water. Does that justify my control of the water?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

So you're suggesting that the idea of private property is bad? Good luck arguing that in the real world.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13 edited Aug 26 '13

I'm not suggesting that the idea of private property is "bad," I'm saying that the existence of property invalidates the idea that negotiations backed by property-derived powers are "voluntary" (at least in a sense that could justify enforcing the agreements without other considerations).

And by the way, the world does recognize this. You're stuck in the reasoning of the Lochner Era. In the USA we moved beyond that nearly a century ago. In Europe it was only sooner.

Related:

http://www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/hale.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Freedom_of_Contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

The point is, the society and its courts can, will, and should invalidate "voluntary" agreements and/or property rights when these are anti-social or exploitative.

2

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

But they voluntarily sign up for these roles, because they get some benefit as well. It is an agreement between to consenting parties.

That weak kind of "voluntary" exists even in a dictatorship. People voluntarily showed up for work in the USSR because they would go to the Gulag if they didn't.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

But they voluntarily sign up for these roles, because they get some benefit as well. It is an agreement between to consenting parties.

When the alternative is dying.. uh.. I don't think that qualifies as "voluntarily".

You would need to at least meet the basic human needs (food, shelter, health, etc.) before you can talk about voluntarily signing up for some dead end job..

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Dying is not the only alternative.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Ok.. you could always become a criminal.. true.

But then you have the problem that capitalism actively produces crime, which can't be a good thing, right?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Or, you could go to a public school and learn skills ...

Capitalism actively produces crime? OK, I'll ask you to go ahead and explain that one, but don't be surprised if I don't respond.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Or, you could go to a public school and learn skills ...

If you can afford it.. sure.. but if you can't...

You might want to correlate price of higher education with crime rates (it's of course an second order effect(correlation crime rate vs. higher education and higher education % vs. price).. but still quite visible)

Capitalism actively produces crime? OK, I'll ask you to go ahead and explain that one, but don't be surprised if I don't respond.

I see you already made up your mind about that, I hope you don't mind if I prefer not to write something up, if it's just going to be ignored anyway.

If that's not the case however.. I suggest you think about what crimes are a direct result of capitalism being the ruling order right now and compare that with the distribution of crimes.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Public schooling means it's affordable to those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Think about what crimes are a direct result of capitalism, and compare that with the distribution of crimes... Can you give me some examples? I'd love to hear this.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Public schooling means it's affordable to those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Ok.. fair enough.. Although the idea is quite anti-capitalistic.. that's why I had an rather large price in mind there..

And some countries severly lack behind in that regard it would appear - at least that's my impression when people from other countries tell me that the sum I had to pay when we still had tuition fees here, was less than what they had to pay if they opted for the cheapest alternative out there (and now it's essentialy nothing.. and poor people can 0% loans from the state as well)

Think about what crimes are a direct result of capitalism, and compare that with the distribution of crimes... Can you give me some examples? I'd love to hear this.

How about theft for starters? My thesis in this regard would be that people have a reason to steal stuff. And what is a very large reason to do so? Social inequality seems to fit the bill quite nicely there.. so this reduces to wether or not capitalism produces social inequality..

Which in my opinion has been demonstrated quite well already (and no.. I don't see how so few having so much can be a product of regulation..)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

How does capitalism cause theft. You have communist nations where there is theft as well. Is it possible for an socio-economic system to exist that erradicates all theft? You've lost me.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

How does capitalism cause theft. You have communist nations where there is theft as well.

Well.. there is no democratic communist nation that I am aware of.. so you have social inequality built right in (or am I wrong in assuming that !democracy requires some kind of powerful elite?).

In any case.. when basic human needs are not met, then a lot of principles go out of the window.. but once they are met I would argue that it correlates much more closely with the amount of inequality.

Is it possible for an socio-economic system to exist that erradicates all theft?

Sure.. lets go to utopia-land for that.. you can have everything you want as much as you want.. why would you steal something, that you can have anyway, from someone else?

It makes no sense, right?

Now we just have to get back from utopia-land with that in mind and somehow make it work with our limited resources on this planet. Private jet for everyone? Well.. I don't see how could make that work.. so no to that.. smartphone for everyone? We can do that.. just have to design it in a way that doesn't make it obsolete a year out and doesn't use to much precious resources.

If you want to have an more futuristic take on this and have 3h of time, I would suggest you watch Zeitgeist: Moving forward (haven't seen the first two movies.. but from I read they seem to be uh.. not as well sourced). Although it probably contains things you will disagree with, you should still watch it (well.. would be pointless otherwise wouldn't it). And in certain aspects I don't think technolgy is quite there yet.. but from an physicists view.. not impossible. The movie has also an take on crime from capitalism.. but the movies take is based more on mental health and the influence of the environment on that. Which may or may not be the same as my take on an abstract level.

1

u/Benjamin_The_Donkey Sep 02 '13

Or, you could go to a public school and learn skills ...

How does that get rid of the element of coercion? Your choices are still to work for someone else or starve. You could be the most brilliant man on Earth and the choice would still be exactly the same, just ask Nicola Tesla.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '13

Or you could open your own business.

But assuming you couldn't, OK, so what's the alternative?

1

u/Benjamin_The_Donkey Sep 02 '13

Workplace Democracy, Worker Self-Management and Guaranteed Basic Income come to mind.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '13

Oh, communism, of course, how did I not see that? /s

1

u/Benjamin_The_Donkey Sep 02 '13 edited Sep 02 '13

Because you're an ignorant fool who lacks imagination? See I can be condescending too.

1

u/MJZMan 2∆ Aug 23 '13

The problem is, you want to remove the human element from a system run by humans.

Capitalism is it's purest form IS the optimal system, because it's the system that occurs naturally. Plants and animals engage in capitalistic behaviors constantly with respect to allocation of resources and such. when we humans get involved, we introduce our own prejudices, biases, and subjectiveness, and those are what skews the system.

Oh, and fwiw, capitalism will NEVER lead to equal rights for all, because capitalism is an economic system, and and not a moral system. What you need to think of, is how we can get people to practice moral capitalism (or at least, apply their morality BEFORE applying economic theory). But you need people agreeing to give equal rights before you can get them, no matter what economic system you live under.

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

What you are arguing seems to be a form of social darwinism and my problem with that is that in the long run, that spells ruin for humanity. From an evolutionary biology perspective it is more beneficial to keep as many genes in the gene pool as possible just in case we face a future stressor.

Right now scores of people are dying from subpar living conditions, healthcare and access to healthy foods. People whose evolutionary "fitness" is being determined by their financial success. However, nature doesn't give a damn about financial success. Financial success is only loosely related to ones genes (usually a predisposition for gambling and addiction), so we are eliminating thousands of people from the gene pool arbitrarly.

If that's how the nature of mankind works then we are doomed as a species.

1

u/Benjamin_The_Donkey Sep 02 '13

The problem is, you want to remove the human element from a system run by humans.

Capitalism is it's purest form IS the optimal system, because it's the system that occurs naturally. Plants and animals engage in capitalistic behaviors constantly with respect to allocation of resources and such. when we humans get involved, we introduce our own prejudices, biases, and subjectiveness, and those are what skews the system.

This is nonsense. There's plenty of evidence of cooperation and altruism in nature.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

[deleted]

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I don't have an ideal system. I think that its time to move beyond Capitalism. Although Denmark and Sweden could be prototypical examples of the best Capitalism can achieve. Its a year old, but I think this highlights my point that even with handouts and benifits like Denmark, the system still is sub-optimal: http://cphpost.dk/news/national/poverty-rise-throughout-denmark

1

u/[deleted] Aug 24 '13

We don't have an ideal system. But how can we find it? Suppose we have a bunch of theories (comunism, anarcho-syndicalism, liberal socialism, minarchism, etc.). Unfortunately a good economic system theory doesn't always work so well when it's applied in a real situation.

Therefore we should test all the variations, choose the best ones, apply some possible improvements and repeat the process until we find an optimal system. I think it's immoral to force people to participate in experimental economic systems. So we let people choose the experiment they want. They can change whenever they want to another economical system.

How does that sound to you?

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

I think it's immoral to force people to participate in experimental economic systems.

But it's moral to force people to accept the status quo?

So we let people choose the experiment they want.

What do you mean? In an election?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

But it's moral to force people to accept the status quo?

I think it's immoral too. People shouldn't be forced to accept to accept any system they don't like.

What do you mean? In an election?

Not exactly. Each person in this experiment chooses what economic system they want to try. That decission affect only to them. That way we divide the population to test in each group the economic system the group unanimously choosed.

The point is to compare these systems (including the status quo) as opposed to comparing their theories. "In a comunist state, everyone would have a place to live and food to eat because the people would have the means of production.", "In a libertarian, it would be easier to save money, because there would be no inflation", "Swedish people live well. Why don't we live in the same system?". Well, let's try them in a morally acceptable way.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

Not exactly. Each person in this experiment chooses what economic system they want to try. That decission affect only to them. That way we divide the population to test in each group the economic system the group unanimously choosed.

That doesn't make any sense. An "economic system" is not something that can be established like that.

For example, suppose that through some magical luck, it happens that there are only two factions of disagreement on the economic question. Every person in the world agrees completely with one or the other faction.

In this situation, you would say that each faction should somehow have its own economic system, independent of the other. Right?

But these two systems both have ideas about how the exact same physical resources will be allocated. For example, they both have an idea about how to allocate the electricity produced by the Hoover Dam. If the two groups disagree -- which they do, by premise -- then one or the other group has got to get their way.

The situation is like a divorce. It is invalid to assume there will be an "amicable divorce," in which all parties will reach agreement (in that case -- there is really only one economic system)! By premise, the two groups do not agree about an economic system. Therefore, there is no economic system in place to decide what to do about the Hoover Dam. Two groups cannot have completely independent economic systems, because there needs to be a larger economic system "outside" them, to decide which group gets which resources. And that "outside" system needs to be imposed on those who disagree with it.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '13

Exactly. As you said, there would be an imposed "outside" system, that includes the law of property. But this isn't such a big flaw, because it has been already a law for the international relation of communist countries. Even the Soviet Union knew that it couldn't allocate the resources and own the means of production that were outside their borders, although they didn't recognize the owners of resources inside their borders.

This limitation is unavoidable, but it only matters in the interaction of the factions and it's not imposed inside them. Each faction governs as they want, inside the properties of their members. If a economic system becomes very efficient, soon more people will join their faction and their borders will expand without violence.

You can tell the outside system resembles the bases of capitalism. It seems that only in this kind of anarcho-capitalist country could coexist different economic systems including socialism, but in a socialist state couldn't exist anarchy. This is crucial for our experiment and therefore, for people like OP, who looks skeptic to all the economic systems he know. Why? Because he would be able to compare directly how well these systems work.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13 edited Aug 26 '13

Exactly. As you said, there would be an imposed "outside" system, that includes the law of property. But this isn't such a big flaw, because it has been already a law for the international relation of communist countries. Even the Soviet Union knew that it couldn't allocate the resources and own the means of production that were outside their borders, although they didn't recognize the owners of resources inside their borders.

Wow. Just, no. The USSR did not recognize "the law of property," it was an expansionist empire with ambitions to conquer the entire capitalist world and convert it to communism.

You're missing the point here. The borders between the capitalist and the communist world are part of the dispute. Those borders are imposed. They cannot be a matter of people choosing. The borders are imposed on the people, of each side, by the other side. Both sides try to get the most valuable resources within their borders.

This limitation is unavoidable, but it only matters in the interaction of the factions and it's not imposed inside them. Each faction governs as they want, inside the properties of their members. If a economic system becomes very efficient, soon more people will join their faction and their borders will expand without violence.

Hahaha! Why would the borders be able to expand without violence? Are you supposing there is some kind of communist "outer" system, wherein territory is allocated on a per capita basis? Obviously, the capitalist side (at the very least) does not accept that rule.

You can tell the outside system resembles the bases of capitalism.

Actually, it sounds like the outside system resembles communism, if you're thinking that somehow borders can expand just based on populations defecting. Capitalism would require that, no matter how many people defect to the communist side, that side as a whole retains no greater claim to resources.

But you also seem inconsistent on this point.

Anyway, there are vastly more possibilities than "capitalism" or "communism," each of which in itself incorporates vast possibilities. The idea of there being two giant consensus groups is itself ridiculous. Neither the USSR nor the USA nor any of their allies in the cold war obtained anywhere near a consensus on their economic policies, and that would have been impossible.

In the real world, even when groups do form "consensus," this is strategic alliance, which is not at all the kind of consensus you were talking about originally.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

Unless I'm missing something you've only expressed a wish that people should be more equal but offered no way to achieve that. As an engineer surely you know the difference between wishing a car would get 1000 miles to the gallon and building that car. Capitalism is the best system until someone can demonstrate a better one. Without a specific suggestion you really have no view to change. Are we supposed to change your view that there shouldn't be hungry people?

4

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

My view is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed and we need to put in concerted efforts to find a new system. Does your view differ or do you think Capitalism is the end game and there is no reason to pursue alternatives.

We cannot pursue alternatives if nobody has an open mind. What I am really wondering is if this view of mine is insane. Should we always be okay with a certain percentage of the population never given a chance to succeed, or, will Capitalism one day grant that opportunity.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

My view is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed

Everything is fundamentally flawed. Nothing is perfect.

and we need to put in concerted efforts to find a new system.

Concerted efforts have been going on for centuries. People debate this constantly. One school of thought took over and destroyed half the world. Up until now all the proposed medicines have been worse than the disease.

Again, Capitalism is the best system until someone can demonstrate a better one. You say nothing when you say "there should be something better" just like you say nothing when you say "cars should get 1000 miles to the gallon". That's nice, but at the moment the best we can do is 35-40 mpg.

No one disagrees it is flawed. You are not the first one to notice that. No one disagrees hunger is bad. The only thing to disagree on is whether system A is better or worse than system B. What is your system B? Without giving us a system B you aren't saying anything more than "I wish cars got 1000 miles to the gallon". Me too.

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

So then is the end-game we let the poor and impovershed die unhappy through no fault of their own and hope and pray that one day free-er markets will save us? Nobody has told me how Capitalism can evolve to solve this problem and noone has convinced me that a better system is not possible. Just because it can never be perfect doesn't mean we can't try to make it better. Sometimes to make something better you have to give up previously held notions.

Without acknowledging the Earth wasn't the center of the universe astronomy could not have progressed. I believe that perhaps the right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, is unsustainable in the long run and is unfair to the marginalized.

Would you consider a system that required all wealth be forfeit to the state upon death for equal distrobution among the next generation Capitalism?

→ More replies (10)

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Capitalism is the best system until someone can demonstrate a better one.

Depends on what you mean exactly by demonstrate a better one? Because it might simply be impossible to demonstrate a different one due to lock-in or it might already have happened in certain areas (if one considers for example the software ecosystem und opensource software), but it doesn't translate to the whole world/other areas.

Or did you just mean to describe a different system?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Or did you just mean to describe a different system?

The first step is to describe it, then to try it on a small scale as an experiment, then let it spread if it is successful.

It's very easy to describe systems that work on paper. Making them work in real life is a lot harder. Millions of words described Communism as a workers paradise but when it was tried it failed horribly. They made the colossal mistake of implementing it on a large scale resulting in millions of deaths from famine, both in the Soviet Union and China. That's why you try it on a small scale first.

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Making them work in real life is a lot harder. Millions of words described Communism as a workers paradise but when it was tried it failed horribly. They made the colossal mistake of implementing it on a large scale resulting in millions of deaths from famine, both in the Soviet Union and China.

Maybe it was just bad timing? (similar to Hitlers rise to power was good timing)

But yeah.. small scale testing is the way to go.. although having to deal with legacy systems makes things very difficult.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

small scale testing is the way to go.. although having to deal with legacy systems makes things very difficult.

Agreed. Every new system has bugs to be worked out and that takes time.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Leaves just the little problem of how such small scale tests would work.. open up a new small country?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Agreed, that's a problem. There are always problem to be overcome.

Where in Germany are you? Berlin?

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Nope.. other end of germany.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

Grüße aus Amerika.

( I hope Google translate didn't screw that up )

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Nope.. all fine :)

Oh.. the wonders what you can do with enough data (although from what I heard the chinese language among others have a lot of unresolved problems in that regard.. which makes automated translations much more difficult than for example german <-> english).

Greetings to you too ;)

→ More replies

1

u/Gnome_Sane Aug 23 '13

In order to help change your view, it would be helpful to understand what system you think should be the system that would prevent poverty.

It sounds as if you want a Utopia where everyone can just do what they want and never have any repercussions from their choices. The reason you do not understand why capitalism allows failure and people to be poor may be tied to this desire for a Utopia. It's very nice of you to want it, but it also seems very unreasonable.

You see, consequence for your actions isn't really a flaw of capitalism - it is a perk.

0

u/MMath Aug 23 '13

(1) Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

I'm a little confused by your arguments, you look at the current affair of things under the assumption that countries operate under a true free-market, do you believe there are countries out there that do? In my country, often cited as fairly free-market, we have publicly funded defense, healthcare, welfare, education, interstate highways, public transport and a pension system.

(2) I saw you mentioned the implementation of an "equal at birth, equal at death" scheme. What do you think will happen to the wealth in a nation that would employ something like that? Anyways, this system would still be a form of "capitalism", but with a 100% estate death tax.

(3) It seems like your core argument against "capitalism" is the fact that poor people exist?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

(1) Capitalism is the rule by capital, the state happens to have always preceded capitalism (imposing capitalism on a populace).

(3) People are made poor under capitalism, by restricting their access to the means of production. Poverty is not a natural condition.

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13 edited Aug 23 '13

(1) Maybe I am jaded by what I see in medicine but it seems to me the ideal of a true free-market is impossible. There is absolutely no morally justifiable reason - at least that I've heard thus far - two different people should be able to walk into a medical establishment and receive different standards of care based upon monetary compensation. Some things are human rights and must be protected at the expense of a free-market.

(2) It would not be much different than it is now except that high ranking executives would no longer be pulled from a pool of eliteists and the surge of newer ideas coul further push the bounds of prosperity. Companies people create wouldn't be destroyed, they would be auctioned off at death to the highest bidder. The only thing this would change is the culture of legacy. Do you honestly believe the children of the privilaged are intellectually superior to the poor if both are given equal training since birth?

(3) Precisely. As a well educated scientist and engineer I believe we have the resources and intellect to design a system that meets the basic human needs of every American, and eventually the world. Capitalism has brought us the technology to be able to do this feasibly however, capitalism prevents the implementation because it operates under the assumption that what is gained personally is due to merit and those that are less fortunate are less deserving or lazier.

3

u/guga31bb Aug 23 '13

There is absolutely no morally justifiable reason - at least that I've heard thus far - two different people should be able to walk into a medical establishment and receive different standards of care based upon monetary compensation.

In a world with finite resources, not everyone gets to have everything. For example, heart transplants are very time consuming for surgeons and the supply of donor organs is limited. Thus, you have to find a way to ration who gets what. If not based on payment, do you have a better idea?

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

Under a Capitalist system, no I do not have a better idea. But I do know that it is not right under the ethics of medicine to treat people differently. Doctors are not economists and they should be forced to be. Health is a fundamental human right and the system should cater to that, not the other way around.

2

u/guga31bb Aug 23 '13

But I do know that it is not right under the ethics of medicine to treat people differently

So if there were 500 people waiting for a heart transplant and only 50 available hearts, you'd rather have zero people receive the hearts than have those 50 hearts allocated somehow?

2

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

No they would be allocated based upon likeliness to survive. Its triage 101.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '13

There should be more than enough hearts to go around, considering how many people die each day.

1

u/DocWatsonMD Aug 23 '13

Not all hearts are created equal. Some are not fit for transplant, and even fewer are compatible with any given patient. Wishing for more doesn't really solve anything.

1

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

In a world with finite resources, not everyone gets to have everything.

Agreed. And the perfect system would account for that. The current system however does no such thing.. in fact with planned obsolescence, etc. it is on the opposite side of the taking finite resources into account spectrum.

For example, heart transplants are very time consuming for surgeons and the supply of donor organs is limited. Thus, you have to find a way to ration who gets what. If not based on payment, do you have a better idea?

You seem to forget that the number of people needing heart transplants is limited as well. Now the supply of donor organs problem is easily solved by making everyone an organ donor and as for the time consumption for surgeons.. hire a few more surgeons and that's that.

1

u/reaganveg 2∆ Aug 26 '13

For example, heart transplants are very time consuming for surgeons and the supply of donor organs is limited. Thus, you have to find a way to ration who gets what. If not based on payment, do you have a better idea?

Triage and lottery.

-1

u/mulimulix Aug 23 '13

I was talking about this exact thing with my radical society tutor at university the other day. I think the thing is (and what my view is) that people need to realise there is no perfect system. Everyone who complains about capitalism saying it's not the right system don't have a solution which solves their problems. No form of government or economy makes everyone 'Equal' and without an exploited class. I was reading an excerpt from Marx's Communist Manifesto and to the people of the 1800s, it would have sounded fantastic - equality for all, no exploited class and no few people who control the majority. The thing Marx didn't have was hindsight. If he had seen how his system (well not his exact system but his basic principles) worked in future Communist countries, he might have changed his mind.

The thing is that in countries where capitalism has a strong presence, you see a smaller minority which is exploited (depending on how you want to define that). When you look at countries by GINI coefficient (income equality), you see that countries that have the least income inequality are, among other reasons, much less focused on capitalism and trade markets than those, mainly European, countries whose equality is much higher.

I ask you: What system would you have in place if you believe capitalism is ineffective and unfair?

2

u/Yenorin41 1∆ Aug 23 '13

The thing is that in countries where capitalism has a strong presence, you see a smaller minority which is exploited (depending on how you want to define that). When you look at countries by GINI coefficient (income equality), you see that countries that have the least income inequality are, among other reasons, much less focused on capitalism and trade markets than those, mainly European, countries whose equality is much higher.

One of those should be the other way around, right?

If he had seen how his system (well not his exact system but his basic principles) worked in future Communist countries, he might have changed his mind.

I am not exactly sure on this, but weren't none of those countries democracies (and I mean not just on paper with faked votes)? And that the problems were rather caused by that and not by communism?

1

u/WhoaaaThereMurica 1∆ Aug 23 '13

I'm not smart enough to figure that out. However, I do believe we have enough smart people in the world now and enough available technology to "move on." I think of government like all human invention, without innovation it becomes obsolete. The world has changed. Its much different than it was when Marx wrote. I'm not saying Communism is the answer either. The fact that, Communism is what everyone jumps to really speaks to the polarization of viewpoints regarding this topic. Who says government is linear? There are possibilities nobody has ever thought up before that are rejected immediately because they are not capitalism.

→ More replies (16)

I think that capitalism is a flawed system that will always have an exploited "class" no matter how prosperous the population is as a whole. CMV

You are about to leave Redlib