Support NeoGAF

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Capitalism specifically is certainly a construct, with a well documented history that makes the trajectory of what problems we see pretty clear. The problem is that historically we lack evidence for societies that manage to function without exploitation while also not being drastically dissimilar to our current one (i.e not primarily nomadic or agrarian). Which doesn't really say anything about what's possible in the future, IMO, just that capitalism does not seem, to me, to be some sort of historical perversion

Capitalism is, of course, a construct, but such things as desiring superiority over other humans within the confines of whatever system one finds oneself in, or shortsightedness that considers ingroup needs and desires over larger species-wide and even planet-wide needs are, I would argue, universal.

 

[Steel]

The thing a lot of people avoid is that many of the problems that people attribute to capitalism are more of a result of democracy. Like, let's take the war in Iraq for example. Every single public poll taken had the majority of people in the U.S in favor of going in. The voters wanted the war and soured on it after they got it and realized what that war meant.

In general, though, a lot of the really terrible things that modern society does(colonialism, exploitation of foreign low wage workers, etc.) have been/are extremely popular, if not directly, they're popular in result.

If you wanted another system without the problems that are attributed to capitalism, you'd also want to get rid of democracy... But what would you replace it with? Democracy really isn't about installing enlightened leaders and the will of the people is not some great thing.

 

[HeatBoost]

Saying capitalism is the problem is kind of like saying that aging is a problem at this point. Yeah it's bad but what're you gonna do about it? Because unless you overturn the entire plot of land that the apple cart is on, there's no alternative that's gonna work out.

As far as I can see the only solution is to regulate it until the people with money start to behave

 

[Kurdel]

Saying capitalism is the problem is kind of like saying that aging is a problem at this point. Yeah it's bad but what're you gonna do about it? Because unless you overturn the entire plot of land that the apple cart is on, there's no alternative that's gonna work out.

As far as I can see the only solution is to regulate it until the people with money start to behave

I refuse this outlook.

Capitalism was healthier in the 50’s and 60’s, we can strive to return to that kind of model.

 

[Oersted]

The thing a lot of people avoid is that many of the problems that people attribute to capitalism are more of a result of democracy. Like, let's take the war in Iraq for example. Every single public poll taken had the majority of people in the U.S in favor of going in. The voters wanted the war and soured on it after they got it and realized what that war meant.

In general, though, a lot of the really terrible things that modern society does(colonialism, exploitation of foreign low wage workers, etc.) have been/are extremely popular, if not directly, they're popular in result.

If you wanted another system without the problems that are attributed to capitalism, you'd also want to get rid of democracy... But what would you replace it with?

The majority in practically every country rejects Saudi Arabia. Money speaks volumes louder.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Capitalism was healthier in the 50's and 60's, we can strive to return to that kind of model.

That model worked because it had a much, much smaller number of human beings within the system. The human population has essentially doubled and so did our needs as life spectancy rises.

 

[patapuf]

The thing a lot of people avoid is that many of the problems that people attribute to capitalism are more of a result of democracy. Like, let's take the war in Iraq for example. Every single public poll taken had the majority of people in the U.S in favor of going in. The voters wanted the war and soured on it after they got it and realized what that war meant.

In general, though, a lot of the really terrible things that modern society does(colonialism, exploitation of foreign low wage workers, etc.) have been/are extremely popular.

If you wanted another system without the problems that are attributed to capitalism, you'd also want to get rid of democracy... But what would you replace it with?

I don't think anything war related is a problem of democracy. As a whole, democracies make going to war a lot harder because you also need public support.

Prior to that, war could be declared because one ruler didn't like anothers face.

That doesn't mean that wars and other terrible things can't get legitimised with public support. It means you need it, to do it.

If there's one drawback it's, that things can take a longer time to change, because a majority has to agree to it. In exchange you get stability. And, at least in theory, a minority shouldn't be able to trample on the majority.

 

[Steel]

The majority in practically every country rejects Saudi Arabia. Money speaks volumes louder.

Not many people are in favor of making Saudi Arabia an enemy either. And they're certainly in favor of cheaper gasoline.

I don't think anything war related is a problem of democracy. As a whole, democracies make going to war a lot harder because you also need public support.

Prior to that, war could be declared because one ruler didn't like anothers face.

That doesn't mean that wars and other terrible things can't get legitimised with public support. It means you need it, to do it.

I wasn't actually contesting that at all, the opposite in fact. There have been far fewer lives lost in war since gloabalization/democracy spread since the last world war. My point was that a lot of the problems that people find with the current state of the world are a result of democracy in action, that also goes for the positives.

 

[patapuf]

I wasn't actually contesting that at all, the opposite in fact. There have been far fewer lives lost in war since gloabalization/democracy spread since the last world war.

Yeah, but i wouldn't attribute the Irak war to democracy. Not necessarily to capitalism either. But economics, propaganda and personal grudges played a way bigger role than the war having popular support to boot.

 

[Steel]

Yeah, but i wouldn't attribute the Irak war to democracy. No necessarily to capitalism either. But economics, propaganda and personal grudges played a way bigger role than the war having popular support to boot.

Propaganda is a part of democracy, though. Leaders sell what they want for whatever reason to the populace and if they get public favor in their direction, then they do what they want. Voters can be sold quite a few things given the right presentation, which is a problem that can be exploited in any democratic society.

My general point against democracy is while it's the best and probably only option we have, it does have fundamental flaws that cannot be overcome, no matter the system(Which is precisely why over-centralizing power is dangerous).

 

[Lime]

I'm unsure where things like sexism and racism fits into captialism. Seems to me if you're following captialism to a T, you're selling whatever sells regardless of how much you hate women or black people. I'm sure plenty of business opportunities have been lost due to prejudice. Human nature certainly doesn't get a pass.

But yeah, captialism seems a flawed concept to build a society around. Reducing humans to capital seems to lead to a resentful and unkind society.

They interlink and affect one another. Racism interlinks with capitalism and vice versa - e.g. Wages of Whiteness (racism -> capitalism) or how capitalism created white supremacy to justify the African genocide & diaspora by White colonial nations (capitalism -> racism).

They don't, they're separate intersecting axes. Racism and sexism arent subsets or side effects of capitalism, They're their own thing.

They are clearly affected and exacerbated by one another.

 

[The Technomancer]

They are clearly affected and exacerbated by one another.

They are yes, but I also argue against any interpretation that says that they are specifically generated by capitalism (or more broadly by the class struggle). The self identities that inform how people interact and aggregate are constrained along economic strata sure, the rich don't really find solidarity with the poor overall, but further divisions are just as real even if they aren't economically determined

 

[Future]

Would there be a drive to be exceptional if you nobody got the rewards of capitalism

 

[patapuf]

Would there be a drive to be exceptional if you nobody got the rewards of capitalism

Of course.

If and how that drive will benefit the economy and/or society is a different topic, but people like to be good at things.

 

[Laiza]

Would there be a drive to be exceptional if you nobody got the rewards of capitalism

Yes.
An important question, because this comes up every single time anyone at all mentions systems other than capitalism.

 

[Boney]

Wait, what? Asian nations have been the biggest beneficiaries of the neoliberal movement, as that's where the world's production has moved to.

Especially China, who really embraced the concept post-Mao, and are now the foremost neoliberal utopia: an absurdly rich elite, an impoverished underclass who are forced to work for peanuts in poor conditions, and an authoritarian (yet pliable, if you've got the cash) government. A lot of Republicans in the US can barely contain their envy.

You're misunderstanding me. It is true that the consolidation of free trade agreements and very lax labour laws (to put it nicely) has allowed for an exploding manufacturing. But internally, they haven't applied the neoliberal reforms that privatizes industry with the banking industry overtaking the entire economy. They have strong internal investment and social programs that sees the middle class position itself much stronger comparatively than South America.

 

[Fulminator]

I used to agree with that, but I think capitalism is fine, far from perfect, but what system isn't

I don't think our societal problems are primarily influenced by capitalism


Except consumerism

 

[TyrantII]

That model worked because it had a much, much smaller number of human beings within the system. The human population has essentially doubled and so did our needs as life spectancy rises.

You don't get how economics works.

Wealth, productivity, supply of resources have all increased at much faster rates.

The whole idea behind economics is the pie increases, not that the pie is finite and cut up.

That's not even getting into how population growth is slowing down, and even reversing in advanced economies. Eventually the pie will be growing as populations level out or decline.


People seem to be confusing the policy on how the pie is divided up, with what the pie is actually doing. There more pie now that at any other point in human history, but our political policy dictates who gets what cut.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Drive to accumulate could definitely be a description of what's going on after it's run through the filter of current society and culture. My general belief is that it makes intuitive sense and seems to be the case that animals favor themselves and their own offspring. That's what evolution is, kind of. The things best at making more of themselves flourish, the things that are bad die off. So the leap I take is that for our species to make more of ourselves, individuals accumulate money or power.

Just to be clear, I'm not bashing your beliefs or anything.

What's interesting is the current way we describe something like evolution. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about can correct me here for my gross oversimplification, but my understanding is that evolutionary traits are effectively random mutations over a very long period of time (is that right?), with some proving more useful than others.

If that is the case (and I kind of hope it is since my entire point hinges on it!), why do we always describe evolution in terms of competition and survival of the fittest, and never use more exploratory or probability-based language instead? I'd suggest it is because we are taught it that way. Why? Because that narrative fits the prevailing paradigm.

The point I am beating around is that if evolution does not work on a large scale level, altruism and whatnot seem less likely to be our primary driver.

That's fair enough. I wouldn't say those elements were drivers either. Unless I'm shown any strong evidence to the contrary, I don't really accept the narrative that greed is either. I like to think we're more fluid than that.

What "bad" behaviour is is obviously relative to the era you currently live and, and standarts change all the time.

What is constant, is that there have always been people their peers considered "bad" because they didn't conform to the moral standard of the time. People who rebelled against what was established. For good reasons, but often also for personal gain.

This is not about the inherent evilness of mankind. It's just what happens.

I think I broached that a little, though I wasn't really thinking in terms of ethics or morality. Like I said, I'm not saying there aren't 'selfish' people (those whose primary drive is to accrue stuff), I just take issue with the idea that it's an innate human characteristic/driving force for the entire species.

 

[zethren]

Would there be a drive to be exceptional if you nobody got the rewards of capitalism

Yes. This is the worst argument people bring up. So everything that everyone does on this planet is motivated by lots and lots of money?

My drive to excel in areas of my life that I care about is not driven based on money. I would drive towards those goals regardless, nor do they even have the promise of much money at all. Lots of money does not equate to achieving excellence. Personal fulfillment, or providing aid to others, is a form of achieving excellence.

Money is a necessary evil in my life, that I need in order to survive. Money is not the end goal.

Capitalism humpers are fuckin annoying.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Did you read the article? Capitalism reduces human nature to a footnote. It turns everyone and their actions into a commodity.

That said, capitalism itself isn't the problem; unregulated/freemarket capitalism is. When it gets huge, that's when corruption and grass roots social issues begin to arise.

I think regulated capitalism is totally fine and the way to go.

Not everything has to be hard-right or hard-left.

This. Capitalism is like a train. On the right track (regulation) it takes society where it needs to go. Without those regulations it just fucking plows through whatever is in its way with no regard for people.

Yes. This is the worst argument people bring up. So everything that everyone does on this planet is motivated by lots and lots of money?

My drive to excel in areas of my life that I care about is not driven based on money. I would drive towards those goals regardless, nor do they even have the promise of much money at all. Lots of money does not equate to achieving excellence. Personal fulfillment, or providing aid to others, is a form of achieving excellence.

Money is a necessary evil in my life, that I need in order to survive. Money is not the end goal.

Capitalism humpers are fuckin annoying.

It's not money. It's what money allows me to do. Money, credits, whatever. At the end of the day people are motivated to improve their condition. And the condition of those they most care about. Not going out and grinding to put food on someone else's plate when mine needs food. Just like I'm not gonna care about someone else's kids when mine ain't getting fed and need clothes.

For me, in the world I live in money matters to a point. Then diminishing returns kicks in. I'm not at the point of diminishing returns so I'm still on my grind.

 

[Lime]

They are yes, but I also argue against any interpretation that says that they are specifically generated by capitalism (or more broadly by the class struggle). The self identities that inform how people interact and aggregate are constrained along economic strata sure, the rich don't really find solidarity with the poor overall, but further divisions are just as real even if they aren't economically determined

Yes but I'm not saying that?

 

[Fenderputty]

Capitalism might be a problem but I don't think we've advanced enough that it is the only problem. Technology hasn't reached a point that we can overcome our human nature. Scarcity is still a thing.

Until then, I'm on board the "market based socialism" train.

 

[Jimothy]

Until then, I'm on board the "market based socialism" train.

So...not socialism?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

You can offset capitalism's negative effects with much higher taxes and much larger transfer systems.

But I do mean really fucking high taxes. And not just on the rich. Sanders doesn't even come close. It's worth it though, but will never happen in America

 

[GKnight]

Pure capitalism is a problem.
Socialism needs a chance to be used to its full potential.

 

[Dartastic]

So, for those of you who DO think that capitalism has it's issues... I urge you to check out the Democratic Socialists of America.

http://www.dsausa.org/

 

[oneils]

What's wrong with brainless chickens? Seems more humane to me than subjecting a thinking creature to factory farming. Brainless chickens would basically be meat plants.

It also seems exactly like the thing you would create in a state communist society in order to eliminate scarcity. So pointing it out as the result of capitalism seems weird to me. Any type of system could potentially lead to chickens in vats.

 

[KingSnake]

Why do you people keep confusing socialism and communism with fascism?

This is why these conversations go nowhere for me. This happens every time. I'm just not interested in having to re-educate people from the ground-up on how different government and economic systems work.

I'm talking about the actual experience living in communism, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[entremet]

The issue is that there are no pure systems. Even what many righties would call capitalism is crony capitalism. Plus there are no true free markets--competitors collude all the time--see Apple and Google driving down wages.

 

[KingSnake]

That's a matter of semantics.

I can use a car or a tool to create capital or i can use it for leisure.

I can lend stuff for favors.

I can trade my personal property for your personal property.

ect.

What it comes to is a ban on earning money/stuff. That needs to be enforced. And controled.

Especially the control part is a big reason so many real life socialist states are full of corruption and miserable places to live in.

It goes even further than that. Is a cow a personal propriety or private property. How about land? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Abstrusity]

Capitalism is the absolute worst economic system except f or all the others that have been tried from time to time.

But Capitalism is broad, it includes things like the Scandinavian countries' efforts, of high regulation, high taxes but low business taxes, it includes the American system that isn't going very well. Or the German one that fares a bit better.

THIS brand of capitalism, the American brand, where people believe supply creates demand, where "bootstraps" are the end-all be-all, where inequality skyrockets? This doesn't work. It never really did, but people are stupid. They didn't see it coming. They got their piece 30 years ago and decided they were alright. And for the last 15 years we've seen how bad it's gone. Even today people look back on Reagan era as "something good" for the economy...when it was anything but.

There is no saving it. The rot is malignant.

 

[And_Gignac]

Capitalism is unsustainable. The neoliberal wave is literally capitalism running on fumes, desperately trumping worker's rights, the environment and the job / personal life balance.

Universal Basic Income seems to be the only feasible solution, but that will create a whole new set of inequality problems, basically making CEOs living kings.

 

[iamblades]

This thread is absurd.

Capitalism has lifted the vast majority of the world out of subsistence level poverty to unprecedented levels of wealth in less than 250 years, at the same time as the world population has increased by an order of magnitude.

But that's not even the point. It is the only system of economic organization that works at all, and it is the only one that can even be attempted to be implemented without complete totalitarianism. You can't have individual liberty and socialism, because a black market will inevitably appear(hell it usually will even WITH totalitarianism).

Capitalism is the only game in town, and if by chance we reach a post-scarcity technological utopia, it will be capitalism that gets us there.

 

[Foffy]

This thread is absurd.

Capitalism has lifted the vast majority of the world out of subsistence level poverty to unprecedented levels of wealth in less than 250 years, at the same time as the world has increased by an order of magnitude.

But that's not even the point. It is the only system of economic organization that works at all, and it is the only one that can even be attempted to be implemented without complete totalitarianism. You can't have individual liberty and socialism, because a black market will inevitably appear(hell it usually will even WITH totalitarianism).

Capitalism is the only game in town, and if by chance we reach a post-scarcity technological utopia, it will be capitalism that gets us there.

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

 

[iamblades]

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

Before capitalism, basically everyone was in that boat, capitalism did not create that situation.

Again though, none of this is at all relevant because there is no alternative. Capitalism works, nothing else does.

 

[Razorback]

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

I agree with most of the negatives being pointed out, but what does a best case scenario look like to you in an alternate history where capitalism never took off?

 

[entremet]

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

I actually don't blame capitalism there. Stuff like NIMBYsm and ultra dumb zoning regulations are bigger issues for keeping cost of living especially in blue cities high. Capitalism could provide a solution here, but you have entrenched groups limiting that choice.

 

[KingSnake]

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

Which is the actual issue. Most of the potential negative effects of capitalism can be controlled via policies, if there is a political will. The blame is put on capitalism when the blame lies with the administration and public policies. The big issue is that the policies are the result of the popular vote and too many people vote ignoring the policies associated with whatever drives their vote.

 

[Foffy]

Before capitalism, basically everyone was in that boat, capitalism did not create that situation.

Again though, none of this is at all relevant because there is no alternative. Capitalism works, nothing else does.

But the precariat is a class of people that are a result of the breakdown of 20th century economic systems that are still being proposed in the 21st century with no change.

How are you applying the result to prior times by disconnecting it from its causes? You really can't, because what's emerged for this class is the present climate of decoupled labor wages, rentierism, and commodification of any and every resource under the illusions of a moralistic free market that is not moral and was never ever free.

Which is the actual issue. Most of the potential negative effects of capitalism can be controlled via policies, if there is a political will. The blame is put on capitalism when the blame lies with the administration and public policies. The big issue is that the policies are the result of the popular vote and too many people vote ignoring the policies associated with whatever drives their vote.

To assume it occurs at the high end is a bit foolish. It's a problem of norms, cultures, ideas, and ideals.

Many Americans believe in isolationism on some core level, and this is ground zero for all of the problems afflicting it. For a culture that believes in dualism, neoliberalism is like oxygen for the lungs.

 

[Munti]

Capitalism can be a useful tool.

I see the problem in how the economy system has evolved:
From a system originally meant to serve and support mankind, to a system where mankind serves and works for the economy. Exactly the reverse. This results in "profit above everything".

Actually, I think the problem can be somehow solved if anyone acts at the same time and companies&1% wouldn't exploit, respectively wouldn't focus on maximizing the profit anymore. Although I don't know what the "act" should be. A worldwide strike? A maximum limit of salaries? I don't know

 

[David H Wong]

Way to ignore it has also created a precariat class, primarily in many first-world nations.

Relative poverty is still an enormous issue, especially in neoliberal shitholes like America.

Ah, these threads in which the place with the highest standard of living anywhere in human history is referred to as a "shithole."

It's just a tragic lack of basic education on the subject. The places or eras you think did it better exist mostly in your imagination.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

> racism, sexism, immigration, globalized exploitation, sweatshop factories, huge income inequalities, etc, are interlinked with the logic of capitalism.


These things all existed before Capitalism. (except globalized exploitation)

Capitalism just happens to be the most efficient way of doing things that result in these characteristics.



> Ah, these threads in which the place with the highest standard of living anywhere in human history is referred to as a "shithole."


Sucks that we think of the system of poverty wages and the rampant police state as "the highest standard of living".



> Most of the potential negative effects of capitalism can be controlled via policies, if there is a political will.


Policies are created and rolled back in Capitalism all of the time. Capitalism has no qualms with using the political tool of Fascism to discipline a working class and liquidate a bourgeoisie class if their political will doesn't line up with Capital's end goal.

 

[Foffy]

Ah, these threads in which the place with the highest standard of living anywhere in human history is referred to as a "shithole."

It's just a tragic lack of basic education on the subject. The places or eras you think did it better exist mostly in your imagination.

Have I yet stated of a golden age of nostalgia we threw away?

What makes you think I consider the human species as "civilized?" We have enough proof in this very moment we are still largely uncivilized.

I would like to say a high standard of living would be a society where people don't have to go to fuckin' sites like GoFundMe to handle cancer bills, but that's just me.

There's an enormous problem when the country with the "highest standard of living anywhere" can't even accomplish that, baseline infrastructure, or even decent education. Fuck, even the quality of life in regards to a human lifespan is shorter here than in other first-world nations.

Get real and stop fellating mirages.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

> It is the only system of economic organization that works at all

It crashes spectacularly every 10 years or so.

"Works".

If your computer crashed every 10 hours to the point of needing a huge monetary investment to get it back to working again, you wouldn't say "it works".

 

[Night Angel]

I see we're also conflating robust social welfare systems with socialism (even though the Scandanavian countries lauded for such are some of the purest capitalist countries in the world).

Keep on keeping on, I guess.

 

[CornBurrito]

The problem isn't capitalism. It's human nature. There is no perfect system. Is the U.K. Government so awesome that you want it controlling all conmerce?

Market socialism doesn't require the gov controlling all commerce.

 

[iamblades]

But the precariat is a class of people that are a result of the breakdown of 20th century economic systems that are still being proposed in the 21st century with no change.

How are you applying the result to prior times by disconnecting it from its causes? You really can't, because what's emerged for this class is the present climate of decoupled labor wages, rentierism, and commodification of any and every resource under the illusions of a moralistic free market that is not moral and was never ever free.



To assume it occurs at the high end is a bit foolish. It's a problem of norms, cultures, ideas, and ideals.

Many Americans believe in isolationism on some core level, and this is ground zero for all of the problems afflicting it. For a culture that believes in dualism, neoliberalism is like oxygen for the lungs.

Because none of that is true. There have always been people who are not competitive in the labor market, and prior to capitalism this was basically everyone. The fact that a different group of people is now non-competitive does not mean this state was created by capitalism.

Don't know what morals have to do with the market, it's impossible for a non-living entity to be either moral or immoral. Certainly true that it has never truly been free, but it is also true that the closer to freedom that we approach, the better things seem to function.

I would say that free market capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with morality though.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I see we're also conflating robust social welfare systems with socialism (even though the Scandanavian countries lauded for such are some of the purest capitalist countries in the world).

Keep on keeping on, I guess.

Can't blame people. Socialism has been conflated with Statist Welfarism for decades. Marx fought against it, the Dem Socs brought it back, Stalinism became it...

 

[KingSnake]

It crashes spectacularly every 10 years or so.

Can you point what years are you talking about with this statement?