Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[aelf]

That's another way to look at it, i.e. defining exercise as work that is done to survive. Why, a politician in my country literally did that, to wit: Poor old people are collecting used boxes because they are exercising.

 

[Lexicus]

Nitpicking microcosmic non-representative examples of "institutional structure" doesn't really define the global functions of capitalism as it operates on the scale it does.

What it requires is actually doing some work and grokking what you're trying to describe, rather than relying on tropes.

A drastic oversimplification is the only thing you can really give when it comes to the description of the whole world's economic relationships.

I don't think that's true at all. See above: you need to do the work. It takes a lot of study to describe complex things in simple terms, and to isolate the important bits of a big, messy, actually-existing social formation. Capitalism functions by the extraction of surplus value in a particular way, and that's the bit that's remained unchanged because it's essential to what capitalism actually "is." But the institutional structure of capitalism has changed immensely over its lifetime: in my view the most important such change was from the 'proprietor' capitalism of the 19th century to the 'corporate capitalism' of the 20th, and to that we could probably add the 'globalized capitalism' which has emerged since 1970 or so. Some things that changed between these different types are the relative importance of the finance sector, the scale and structure of economic enterprise, and and degree to which countervailing institutions are accepted into the fold, so to speak, of the dominant social system.

I don't think social welfare or equality could ever be policy goals in capitalism.

Then you need to concede one of two things: that your opinion here is wrong, or that we don't currently live under capitalism ( at least, we didn't for a few decades after World War II).

I'll concede you seem to have more to say about unions than I do, I agree the far left probably has an unfair attitude towards them. Would you care to tell me a bit about your perspective on them?

While unions have tremendous problems in the US and elsewhere any ideology that dismisses the independent organizations of the proletariat as "middlemen to exploitation" has basically defined itself outside the bounds of usefulness. You claim above that you don't endorse political vanguardism, but how do you intend to effect change if not by convincing people that you're right? How do you convince people that you're right by telling them repeatedly how brainwashed they are?

 

[inthesomeday]

What it requires is actually doing some work and grokking what you're trying to describe, rather than relying on tropes.

What I'm describing is a pattern of global exploitation that hasn't really changed except in scope and alongside technological advances.

I don't think that's true at all. See above: you need to do the work. It takes a lot of study to describe complex things in simple terms, and to isolate the important bits of a big, messy, actually-existing social formation. Capitalism functions by the extraction of surplus value in a particular way, and that's the bit that's remained unchanged because it's essential to what capitalism actually "is." But the institutional structure of capitalism has changed immensely over its lifetime: in my view the most important such change was from the 'proprietor' capitalism of the 19th century to the 'corporate capitalism' of the 20th, and to that we could probably add the 'globalized capitalism' which has emerged since 1970 or so. Some things that changed between these different types are the relative importance of the finance sector, the scale and structure of economic enterprise, and and degree to which countervailing institutions are accepted into the fold, so to speak, of the dominant social system.

I agree that finance increased in importance, but that's about it. Scale increasing isn't really a structural change, or a functional change, just an expansion or intensification of the same structure. Proprietor > Corporate > Global is really just an increasing scope, and a focusing or intensification based on technological advance.

Then you need to concede one of two things: that your opinion here is wrong, or that we don't currently live under capitalism ( at least, we didn't for a few decades after World War II).

What specifically are you referring to? Something like the Marshall Plan, which really just sought to expand the market opportunities of American corporations and prevent the spread of radical ideas?

While unions have tremendous problems in the US and elsewhere any ideology that dismisses the independent organizations of the proletariat as "middlemen to exploitation" has basically defined itself outside the bounds of usefulness. You claim above that you don't endorse political vanguardism, but how do you intend to effect change if not by convincing people that you're right? How do you convince people that you're right by telling them repeatedly how brainwashed they are?

I agree completely but I've never experienced modern unions to really be independent organizations of the proletariat, just sort of toxic political class-run organizations that pretend they speak for workers. Again though I'm completely open to changing this schema if you have another perspective and some examples of evidence.

 

[Perfection]

This is a terrible definition in my view.

How would you define it then?

But if we are going off that definition, then indeed, markets and private ownership of the means of production are essential to creating enough wealth to end oppression and poverty. I also believe that diffuse private ownership is more conducive to conditions of political freedom than either state ownership or concentrated private ownership.

I don't see anything wrong with profit per se, but there are some industries (namely those whose economies of scale tend them toward monopoly and oligopoly) that I believe should be run not-for-profit, whether simply nationalized or regulated as nonprofits.

What industries do you have in mind?

In my view, replacing the current militaristic-and-upward-redistribution-obsessed state with one that makes social welfare its top priority would be an improvement on the current system. So would reconstituting most current economic enterprise along democratic lines. And to me these things would constitute a displacement of capitalism from its current position as the dominant mode of production.

What does "reconstituting most current economic enterprise along democratic lines" mean? Can you provide examples of how it would play out?

 

[Perfection]

My solution is down the road but it starts right here with dialectics. First we need to come to a more perfect agreement and mutual understanding of the social ideal. So far I think we actually agree; I agree that human experience necessitates diversity, and that any social system needs to be capable of great adaptation. I think that capitalism has proven itself quite incapable of adaptation, given that the profit-minded continue to deforest and pollute despite the inevitable trajectory this sets us on. I think an economic system with collective ownership (I'll preemptively say this doesn't mean state property) would be way better able to adapt, as well as to progress. The capitalist insistence that competition is the greatest motivator is inconsistent with modern psychological and sociological science, and I think anyway that motivation comes more from culture than from inherent biology. I do think there are some inherent motivators when it comes to biology and survival, but I definitely think that on a broader level, especially post-civilization, culture is more important to motivation.

I think capitalist societies have proven themselves capable of effectively tackling environmental problems when strong regulatory agencies are in place. For instance smog control efforts in many cities have turned cities that were covered in black soot into breathable cities with decent air quality. Even on global issues we've shown progress, from whaling conservation measures to curbing CFC emissions.

Now that's not to say that there aren't real failures that urgently need to be addressed (such as deforestation and Climate Change). However I do not see advocating for some overthrow of the capitalist systems in any way helpful. In fact, I largely see such diversions as a likely to impede progress.

I also think globalism offers some real positives when it comes to environmental issues. Granted it does create a fair amount of legitimate problems (e.g. exporting polluting industries to countries where regulations are more lax), it also makes countries economically interdependent on each other. That interdependence can used as leverage in environmental negotiations. I doubt we'd have the Paris agreement if economies weren't so interconnected.

 

[Lexicus]

How would you define it then?

A market system politically controlled by capitalists, to their own advantage and at the expense of everyone else.

What industries do you have in mind?

Including but not limited to banking, telecommunications/internet, power, and healthcare/insurance.

What does "reconstituting most current economic enterprise along democratic lines" mean? Can you provide examples of how it would play out?

Sure: co-ops, employee-owned and governed companies, credit unions. Small businesses often use ESOPs as a succession plan when the founder retires, so that sort of takes care of itself if we incentivize it hard enough.

 

[Ajidica]

What specifically are you referring to? Something like the Marshall Plan, which really just sought to expand the market opportunities of American corporations and prevent the spread of radical ideas?

I dunno, the National Health Service and the Cradle-to-Grave Welfare State in the UK; and to some extent the Great Society programs here in the United States.

Also, your description of the Marshall Plan is highly misleading. The core element of the Marshall Plan was to ensure the welfare of the people of Europe and ensure that they were not starving in burned out ruins of cities. If expanding American influence was the cost to Europe of being able to rebuilt after the horrors of war, that is a low price to pay.

Including but not limited to banking, telecommunications/internet, power, and healthcare/insurance.

No nationalization of the railroads and heavy industry?
Some socialist you are.

 

[Lexicus]

Railroads, sure. Heavy industry probably not.

Also, your description of the Marshall Plan is highly misleading. The core element of the Marshall Plan was to ensure the welfare of the people of Europe and ensure that they were not starving in burned out ruins of cities. If expanding American influence was the cost to Europe of being able to rebuilt after the horrors of war, that is a low price to pay.

I don't think it's misleading so much as just emphasizing the wrong things. Sure, one purpose of the Marshall Plan was to prevent "the spread of radical ideas," like fascism or Bolshevism - worth doing, in my view, considering what fascism had just done to the world.

 

[Perfection]

A market system politically controlled by capitalists, to their own advantage and at the expense of everyone else.

Definition seems a bit jumpin to conclusion methinks.

I favor a more politically nuetral definition.

Including but not limited to banking, telecommunications/internet, power, and healthcare/insurance.

That's a good list of industries that have a tendency to suffer market failures (I'd add infrastructure in general and education too). I certainly agree that a laissez-faire approach is not acceptable. But I think nationalization or forcing to be non-profits is unnecessary in many cases and can stymie innovation. Strong regulatory agencies are another viable option.

Sure: co-ops, employee-owned and governed companies, credit unions. Small businesses often use ESOPs as a succession plan when the founder retires, so that sort of takes care of itself if we incentivize it hard enough.

I'm not so impressed by these alternative structures. They sacrifice efficiency in favor of employee interest. I would much rather have businesses make decisions for business reasons and have a solid social welfare system that protects people from being screwed over.

 

[Lexicus]

They sacrifice efficiency in favor of employee interest.

I don't agree with this and there is research demonstrating that employee-governed companies actually do better than conventionally-run ones, if the right cultural conditions are in place.

 

[Perfection]

I don't agree with this and there is research demonstrating that employee-governed companies actually do better than conventionally-run ones, if the right cultural conditions are in place.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. I think they're viable for industries where the number of employees needed is fairly stable and where you have a steady reliable customer base (such as a grocery store) but in industries where there are wide swings in demand and unstable needs for employees (such as tech sector) it seems to me that employee ownership would likely prevent businesses from being able to make the sort of tough decisions needed to remain viable in the 21st century economy.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

it seems to me that employee ownership would likely prevent businesses from being able to make the sort of tough decisions needed to remain viable in the 21st century economy.

I am far from certain this is true, though I can certainly imagine how it can be true in instances, but assuming it was true in general, this just leads to the same old problem all efforts to fundamentally challenge economic structures lead to: they have to compete with the old structures. We like to herald the competition of the free market as the greatest thing ever. And with reason, of course. In some ways, it really has been the greatest thing ever. But in others, it also holds us hostage. Forces us to submit to its one-dimensional and inconsiderate logic.
But no one can break successfully free of it, because everyone depends on being able to compete within the global market. The solution is obvious: The answer must be just as global. But for different reasons that is not about to happen any time soon. It could, in principal. All nations could meet and work towards it, pool resources to seek for the best balance of wealth/innovation and life quality etc. And if I was to campaign for a better world, this is what I would campaign for. There are endless possibilities to rethink economics. Free-market capitalism as we know it is just the one with a fierce natural drive for dominance and subjugation. While alternatives require intelligent design and a vast organizational success to make it go global.
Sadly, only because something could be done, it does by far not mean, it will be. First, the conditions have to be right. After that, it may perpetuate itself. But before.... before can be a long long time.

 

[Perfection]

I am far from certain this is true, though I can certainly imagine how it can be true in instances, but assuming it was true in general, this just leads to the same old problem all efforts to fundamentally challenge economic structures lead to: they have to compete with the old structures. We like to herald the competition of the free market as the greatest thing ever. And with reason, of course. In some ways, it really has been the greatest thing ever. But in others, it also holds us hostage. Forces us to submit to its one-dimensional and inconsiderate logic.
But no one can break successfully free of it, because everyone depends on being able to compete within the global market. The solution is obvious: The answer must be just as global. But for different reasons that is not about to happen any time soon. It could, in principal. All nations could meet and work towards it, pool resources to seek for the best balance of wealth/innovation and life quality etc. And if I was to campaign for a better world, this is what I would campaign for. There are endless possibilities to rethink economics. Free-market capitalism as we know it is just the one with a fierce natural drive for dominance and subjugation. While alternatives require intelligent design and a vast organizational success to make it go global.
Sadly, only because something could be done, it does by far not mean, it will be. First, the conditions have to be right. After that, it may perpetuate itself. But before.... before can be a long long time.

I don't see a radical restructuring away from free-market capitalism or engaging in some grand new global order as necessary. Rather, I think we just need to expand people's protections and benefits so those who having a hard time remaining economically viable aren't totally hosed. In doing so we need to make sure money raised to do this is sourced with minimal economic impact, and we also. want to make sure working is still incentivized. That's a delicate and tricky balancing act, requiring careful detailed analysis, and subtle policy decisions but I think it can be done. None of this is particularly new or particularly radical and it would improve the lives of many, it's mostly just doing what the government has been trying to do but doing it better.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Here is another idea that is not new, but has been always false so far: the idea that technology would cause massive unemployment. But some believe it may be different this time. That the so-called 4th economic revolution, which was on the horizon, would in contrast to previous revolutions not compensate lost jobs with new jobs, because in contrast to previous revolutions it would not create new market, at least not to the necessary extend. The twist in this scenario is, that a universal basic income could change from a high-minded ideal to a sort of necessary evil to handle this. If true, your concerns would probably be well addressed.
Personally I don't know how realistic that really is, but I strongly distrust the simple hand-waive that structural economic upheaval never had such consequences before, so surely it won't have them now.

Anyway, I am convinced a lot more is possible than people are willing to seriously consider, but I also think that the ability of humanity to actually decide its destiny rather than muddle through is, for now and the foreseeable future at least, extremely limited, so I am fine with aiming for lower hanging fruits. It just is sad and I have sympathy for those not willing to accept that.

 

[Kozmos]

Also, your description of the Marshall Plan is highly misleading. The core element of the Marshall Plan was to ensure the welfare of the people of Europe and ensure that they were not starving in burned out ruins of cities. If expanding American influence was the cost to Europe of being able to rebuilt after the horrors of war, that is a low price to pay.

That's not the cost, that was the whole goal of it. American money lands where there are US foreign policy interests. It is like, basic IR. Even EU's aid programs today are tied up in a lot of indirect business deals with European companies profiting greatly from lopsided deals where governments take the inferior option for money they can embezzle easier.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That's not the cost, that was the whole goal of it. American money lands where there are US foreign policy interests. It is like, basic IR. Even EU's aid programs today are tied up in a lot of indirect business deals with European companies profiting greatly from lopsided deals where governments take the inferior option for money they can embezzle easier.

It certainly is eerie when one discovers how many big public measures were actually cooked up by businesses. Of the top of my head, I can name the big welfare and labor reforms in Germany in the 00s, which were at least partially developed by Bertelsmann (a private media conglomerate) or even the Euro, developed by a group representing the ten or so biggest European companies at the time.
Gives me the impression that if governments ever get around to having some sort of vision or grand plan these days, they have been mouth-fed it by some large cooperation.

 

[Kozmos]

I was talking about foreign aid mostly, EU funds for domestic projects are always under the anal supervision of the JASPERS team. Are there some undue influences there too? No doubt, but the amount of controls and avenues for complaints by various parties that can sabotage entire projects are very extensive. Business and politics have always been linked, but overall I like the EU technocrats. They more or less always eye the long game and I have seen more competence from their part than local private & public sectors.

 

[Honor]

My solution is down the road but it starts right here with dialectics. First we need to come to a more perfect agreement and mutual understanding of the social ideal. So far I think we actually agree; I agree that human experience necessitates diversity, and that any social system needs to be capable of great adaptation. I think that capitalism has proven itself quite incapable of adaptation, given that the profit-minded continue to deforest and pollute despite the inevitable trajectory this sets us on. I think an economic system with collective ownership (I'll preemptively say this doesn't mean state property) would be way better able to adapt, as well as to progress. The capitalist insistence that competition is the greatest motivator is inconsistent with modern psychological and sociological science, and I think anyway that motivation comes more from culture than from inherent biology. I do think there are some inherent motivators when it comes to biology and survival, but I definitely think that on a broader level, especially post-civilization, culture is more important to motivation.

Anyway after the dialect comes education. Once we can agree on a message, bring the message to the people. Now this sounds vanguardist, but in fact it prevents vanguardism of action. If the entire revolutionary class is educated, then that prevents a vanguard party from seizing control through action. It still has characteristics of a vanguard party, but it's what I like to call ideological vanguardism as opposed to direct vanguardism. And it seems rather inevitable in this world of such diverse thought.

And I do think that the entire global proletariat can understand and come to the same conclusions when presented the same set of evidence.

Anyways after education comes things that will scare and excite and I think that I've already said enough for the reactionaries out there to analyze for the time being. I wasn't planning on going this deep into discussion, and I definitely maintain/accept that this forum about a video game probably isn't gonna be the foundation of a revolution, I just wanted to make sure y'all know I do have some ideas instead of proceeding with your strange assumption that I'm just saying these things to complain.

Revolutions are a disruption in the trend - a major force that can oppose the current continuum perpetuated by reinforcing loops - loops which can sometimes be impossible to break short of a revolution. Revolutions can create a new reality by destroying the old. I don't find them surprising. On the contrary, I see revolutions as part of our dynamic ecosystem. If things get really bad for the people, especially the moderates, revolutions can happen. There are going to be major consequences to what you are doing, and a lot of it will be outside your control once the wheel starts spinning. People will suffer and die. A void in authority will be created, which can be seized by opportunists. The environment/system created after the revolution can be far from what you were imagining before you started your struggle.

As opposed to promoting a revolution, I find it much less risky and more rewarding to promote love and trust. Talk about the benefits of meditation, for instance. I believe this will help to transform the culture, albeit slowly, and result in a less competitive environment for everyone. Peaceful societies tend to create happy individuals that actively refuse to participate in serious competition. Competition just becomes incompatible with how the people are. Oppression and suffering still exist, but it is more difficult for the system to get to the point of a self-reinforcing dystopian nightmare.

 

[Perfection]

Here is another idea that is not new, but has been always false so far: the idea that technology would cause massive unemployment. But some believe it may be different this time. That the so-called 4th economic revolution, which was on the horizon, would in contrast to previous revolutions not compensate lost jobs with new jobs, because in contrast to previous revolutions it would not create new market, at least not to the necessary extend. The twist in this scenario is, that a universal basic income could change from a high-minded ideal to a sort of necessary evil to handle this. If true, your concerns would probably be well addressed.
Personally I don't know how realistic that really is, but I strongly distrust the simple hand-waive that structural economic upheaval never had such consequences before, so surely it won't have them now.

Anyway, I am convinced a lot more is possible than people are willing to seriously consider, but I also think that the ability of humanity to actually decide its destiny rather than muddle through is, for now and the foreseeable future at least, extremely limited, so I am fine with aiming for lower hanging fruits. It just is sad and I have sympathy for those not willing to accept that.

I'm not too worried about unemployment in general. Humans will gladly pay for human company and human interaction. You want to be able to go out to eat and talk to the waitress or the bartender. You like that a chef created the meal just for you. As much as we love to listen to recorded music, we love a live band even more.

What I more worry about is labor market volatility. The constant creation and destruction of jobs. That's natural in a full-throttle highly innovative society, and thus should be thought of as a good thing. However, the way society is set up makes it hard on people, and makes it difficult to make life decisions. It also opens people up for exploitation. However, I think our current legal and governmental systems can be modified such that it isn't so hard on people. Moreover I don't think those modifications need to be revolutionary or destructive to the current order of things, even though they could have profound impacts on many people's lives.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's another way to look at it, i.e. defining exercise as work that is done to survive. Why, a politician in my country literally did that, to wit: Poor old people are collecting used boxes because they are exercising.

Well, is he/she right? Is it enough, are they satiated and healthy? My gut reaction is that this is probably backasswards. Rather instead, the order should be that work done to survive happens to be a form of exercise. Very much not the same statement in the realm of this analogy. I'd rather people pick a tough row to hoe, or pick up litter on a couple extra highway ditches as an extracurricular than release starving bears even if both get the blood pumping.