|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 31 2014 16:12 IgnE wrote:
Uh, how exactly do worker cooperatives have "problems you mentioned?" I didn't even link anything about worker cooperatives. You are as deaf as they come.
Inequality is just one of the symptoms, capitalism is intrinsically immoral.
Yes, last time we had this discussion you linked me to stuff of that sort. But if you don't remember it whatever.
Capitalism is immoral? Why? Is it not because of the symptoms? But I disagree and there is no changing that.
Edit: I don't want to tread this road again. So gl hf
|
On March 31 2014 16:12 IgnE wrote:
Uh, how exactly do worker cooperatives have "problems you mentioned?" I didn't even link anything about worker cooperatives. You are as deaf as they come.
Inequality is just one of the symptoms, capitalism is intrinsically immoral.
You're better off avoiding the immoral part of the argument and just get him to realize for a huge swath of people they have virtually no opportunity to pull themselves from poverty or to access freedom through no fault of their own, or character weakness.
Then ease into the idea that capitalism has something to do with it. Then maybe you can start with the moral aspect if it hasn't already sunk in by then.
|
On March 31 2014 16:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 16:12 IgnE wrote:
Uh, how exactly do worker cooperatives have "problems you mentioned?" I didn't even link anything about worker cooperatives. You are as deaf as they come.
Inequality is just one of the symptoms, capitalism is intrinsically immoral. Yes, last time we had this discussion you linked me to stuff of that sort. But if you don't remember it whatever. Capitalism is immoral? Why? Is it not because of the symptoms? But I disagree and there is no changing that. Edit: I don't want to tread this road again. So gl hf
I remember it quite clearly. I linked you to wikipedia pages on different political orientations. There was nothing about worker cooperatives in particular or separately from a couple political pages on wikipedia. It must all run together though because you don't seem to engage seriously with ideas that threaten your own beliefs.
Capitalism is immoral because its foundational working basis is that people with money are able to turn human labor into a commodity, thereby extracting surplus value from the labor of others, and in turn, perpetuating a system of objective, anonymous violence which turns the vast majority of humanity into wage slaves that rely on the capitalist class for basic subsistence. The contract is a means of this violence, wherein employers contract with workers, providing them wages in exchange for their labor product, which they turn around and sell at a higher price than the cost of production. They reproduce the initial capital by assuming the surplus capital unto themselves.
Marx identified 5 basic economic structures. Two were not exploitative because the worker controlled his labor and labor products. What he called the "ancient" structure involved the worker himself making something for his own use. The other non-exploitative structure is a communalism or communism, from community. His descriptions of this economic form are, coincidentally, one of the few times he actually talks about "communism" as such, since he saw himself as a commentator on the present, not the future. But in a communist structure, the workers themselves decide, collectively what to do with their labor product, that they have all created. There is no mention of a state, as that did not concern Marx. Most of what people in the United States refer to as Marxism or communism is overlaid with Leninism or Stalinism.
The first exploitative economic structure was slavery, wherein everything a person creates is someone else's property, as the person himself becomes property. Obviously exploitative. The second was feudalism, wherein the laborer is tied to the land, like in European serfdom. Three days a week he would work the land for his lord, three days he would work a patch of land for his own consumption and reproduction, and the seventh day, of course, was for the Lord. This is exploitative because he is spending 3 days a week laboring to make commodities that are appropriated by a lord. The last economic structure, which started booming in Britain shortly before Marx started writing was capitalism. In capitalism, people are ostensibly free politically, in that they are not slaves or serfs. But no capitalist has ever hired a laborer at a wage which he knows to be equal (or god forbid less) than what is he able to sell the commodities produced by the laborer for. That is, an employer extracts the surplus value of the laborer's work by paying less than he knows the work to be worth.
If all of the workers in a capitalist system decided they would not accept this wage contract, in which they accept a wage that they know to be less than the value of their work, capitalism would quickly end. Unfortunately, the pressing realities of hunger and exposure prevent workers from being on an equal footing at the bargaining table.
It's important to realize that making money from money has been done since there were markets. Merchants and money lenders use pure money to buy commodities and then resell them at a higher price. For thousands of years, merchants and money lenders were looked upon with suspicion, because ordinary people know that something is up in those kind of transactions. When dealing with a merchant, for example, you are either paying a fair price and the merchant was able to buy the commodities he is selling you for less than a fair price, or you are paying more than he paid for the commodities, which seems wrong. (Obviously the merchant is providing some labor in the transaction, call it finder's labor, and Marx accounts for this in his analysis if you read it. This labor varies from transaction to transaction, but most people have a basic sense that sometimes merchants are just ripping people off).
Capitalism has created a new kind of transaction, in addition to the transactions of merchants and money lenders, that follows the same basic form, in which money is used to buy a commodity (in this case the sum of raw inputs and commodified labor) and then sell it at a higher price. But the magic of labor is required in order to turn the inputs into a higher-priced good. So the capitalist, by virtue of owning capital, is able to reproduce it by relying upon other people to do the labor for him. He (or more likely the corporation's board of directors) then decides what to do with the surplus value. The capitalist, and capitalism, relies on this asymmetric relationship between capitalist and worker. The worker accepts the wage because he must reproduce himself, and was not fortunate enough to be born into a situation where he (and a group of like-minded individuals) could refuse to enter into such an exploitative arrangement, by, for example, working his own land to produce his own commodities that he can decide what to do with by himself or with his compatriots.
The birth lottery largely determines whether or not someone has, or is able to obtain, independence from the exploitation of capitalism. The working masses have no choice but to prostitute themselves out, selling their commodified labor in an anonymous, cruel marketplace.
|
On March 31 2014 16:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 16:16 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 16:12 IgnE wrote:
Uh, how exactly do worker cooperatives have "problems you mentioned?" I didn't even link anything about worker cooperatives. You are as deaf as they come.
Inequality is just one of the symptoms, capitalism is intrinsically immoral. Yes, last time we had this discussion you linked me to stuff of that sort. But if you don't remember it whatever. Capitalism is immoral? Why? Is it not because of the symptoms? But I disagree and there is no changing that. Edit: I don't want to tread this road again. So gl hf I remember it quite clearly. I linked you to wikipedia pages on different political orientations. There was nothing about worker cooperatives in particular or separately from a couple political pages on wikipedia. It must all run together though because you don't seem to engage seriously with ideas that threaten your own beliefs. Capitalism is immoral because its foundational working basis is that people with money are able to turn human labor into a commodity, thereby extracting surplus value from the labor of others, and in turn, perpetuating a system of objective, anonymous violence which turns the vast majority of humanity into wage slaves that rely on the capitalist class for basic subsistence. The contract is a means of this violence, wherein employers contract with workers, providing them wages in exchange for their labor product, which they turn around and sell at a higher price than the cost of production. They reproduce the initial capital by assuming the surplus capital unto themselves. Marx identified 5 basic economic structures. Two were not exploitative because the worker controlled his labor and labor products. What he called the "ancient" structure involved the worker himself making something for his own use. The other non-exploitative structure is a communalism or communism, from community. His descriptions of this economic form are, coincidentally, one of the few times he actually talks about "communism" as such, since he saw himself as a commentator on the present, not the future. But in a communist structure, the workers themselves decide, collectively what to do with their labor product, that they have all created. There is no mention of a state, as that did not concern Marx. Most of what people in the United States refer to as Marxism or communism is overlaid with Leninism or Stalinism. The first exploitative economic structure was slavery, wherein everything a person creates is someone else's property, as the person himself becomes property. Obviously exploitative. The second was feudalism, wherein the laborer is tied to the land, like in European serfdom. Three days a week he would work the land for his lord, three days he would work a patch of land for his own consumption and reproduction, and the seventh day, of course, was for the Lord. This is exploitative because he is spending 3 days a week laboring to make commodities that are appropriated by a lord. The last economic structure, which started booming in Britain shortly before Marx started writing was capitalism. In capitalism, people are ostensibly free politically, in that they are not slaves or serfs. But no capitalist has ever hired a laborer at a wage which he knows to be equal (or god forbid less) than what is he able to sell the commodities produced by the laborer for. That is, an employer extracts the surplus value of the laborer's work by paying less than he knows the work to be worth. If all of the workers in a capitalist system decided they would not accept this wage contract, in which they accept a wage that they know to be less than the value of their work, capitalism would quickly end. Unfortunately, the pressing realities of hunger and exposure prevent workers from being on an equal footing at the bargaining table. It's important to realize that making money from money has been done since there were markets. Merchants and money lenders use pure money to buy commodities and then resell them at a higher price. For thousands of years, merchants and money lenders were looked upon with suspicion, because ordinary people know that something is up in those kind of transactions. When dealing with a merchant, for example, you are either paying a fair price and the merchant was able to buy the commodities he is selling you for less than a fair price, or you are paying more than he paid for the commodities, which seems wrong. (Obviously the merchant is providing some labor in the transaction, call it finder's labor, and Marx accounts for this in his analysis if you read it. This labor varies from transaction to transaction, but most people have a basic sense that sometimes merchants are just ripping people off). Capitalism has created a new kind of transaction, in addition to the transactions of merchants and money lenders, that follows the same basic form, in which money is used to buy a commodity (in this case the sum of raw inputs and commodified labor) and then sell it at a higher price. But the magic of labor is required in order to turn the inputs into a higher-priced good. So the capitalist, by virtue of owning capital, is able to reproduce it by relying upon other people to do the labor for him. He (or more likely the corporation's board of directors) then decides what to do with the surplus value. The capitalist, and capitalism, relies on this asymmetric relationship between capitalist and worker. The worker accepts the wage because he must reproduce himself, and was not fortunate enough to be born into a situation where he (and a group of like-minded individuals) could refuse to enter into such an exploitative arrangement, by, for example, working his own land to produce his own commodities that he can decide what to do with by himself or with his compatriots. The birth lottery largely determines whether or not someone has, or is able to obtain, independence from the exploitation of capitalism. The working masses have no choice but to prostitute themselves out, selling their commodified labor in an anonymous, cruel marketplace.
Let's say I accept most of that- that the man's labor has some value that is detached from the price that others will pay for it, etc.
So we don't retread old ground (about the very nature of people) let me ask a related but not identical question: How would technological or societal progress take place? If everyone kept 100% of the value of his work how does anything change? Doesn't this view or yours immediately slow, if not halt, all advances? Surely the chemist or physicist who wishes to study the core of the atom (as I do) would have very little value in this society. He makes nothing of intrinsic or immediate value. Someone MUST invest in it assuming that while they will be "cheated" at that time, they will come out on top at some later.
An example of this would be the tribal societies you mentioned earlier. They are as close as you can get to a communal society and they are stagnant- nothing changed before or after the advent of capitalism, except by some accident or event.
|
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism.
|
There is a famous book from A. O. Hirschmann called The Passions and the Interests that state that capitalism was created through the evolution of a religious sin - greed - to the idea of "interests", and that this evolution was justified by the desire to fight "passions" with this "sin". IgnE's view on capitalism made me think of that.
On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism.
Yes, but it will never happen. It didn't happen during the whole XVIIIth and XIXth century, despite Rousseau being celebrated, despite the age of enlightment, the age of revolution and Marx.
|
On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism.
I didn't mean to say it was "back-to-tribalism."
Much of what we have now is funded by capitalistic investments, or kings trying to get the upper edge, or leaders who just felt generous.
My point is that in this scenario someone is investing with the idea that later they will come out ahead. They will have to "trade" for it- which is capitalistic. Both must believe that they are going to come out the winner, or they are rich enough to fund it as a hobby. (Which would show they are too rich, yes?)
Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see how trading like that is so different than the capitalism those in this thread would support. If you change the ownership structure, then who pays for these things? The people through a tax? Some trade is established? (which is what companies today rely on, in essence). If you really had a moral, fundamental outrage over capitalism it seem that you should be objecting to any scenario where people trade and bet on the future. How is that not "exploitative?" or is your beef merely that you don't believe that currently people are getting a fair return on their work? That the only way to do so is to take ownership of the work from those horrible people who have it and distribute it?
And that really tempts me to come back to the idea of the nature of people- but I will refrain from it.
I'm not articulating this as well as I would like. But it doesn't seem like you have a gripe with the fundamental idea- trade where both think they come out the winner.
Edit again: unless you think that some entity should ensure that the values and trades made are exactly fair- no one comes out the winner, they break even. But this would lead back to my initial question, as well as my overall concern about such an entity. And one would have to exist- it couldn't just "happen" and stay that way.
|
On March 31 2014 17:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism. I didn't mean to say it was "back-to-tribalism." Much of what we have now is funded by capitalistic investments, or kings trying to get the upper edge, or leaders who just felt generous. My point is that in this scenario someone is investing with the idea that later they will come out ahead. They will have to "trade" for it- which is capitalistic. Both must believe that they are going to come out the winner, or they are rich enough to fund it as a hobby. (Which would show they are too rich, yes?) Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see how trading like that is so different than the capitalism those in this thread would support. If you change the ownership structure, then who pays for these things? The people through a tax? Some trade is established? (which is what companies today rely on, in essence). If you really had a moral, fundamental outrage over capitalism it seem that you should be objecting to any scenario where people trade and bet on the future. How is that not "exploitative?" or is your beef merely that you don't believe that currently people are getting a fair return on their work? That the only way to do so is to take ownership of the work from those horrible people who have it and distribute it? And that really tempts me to come back to the idea of the nature of people- but I will refrain from it. I'm not articulating this as well as I would like. But it doesn't seem like you have a gripe with the fundamental idea- trade where both think they come out the winner. Edit again: unless you think that some entity should ensure that the values and trades made are exactly fair- no one comes out the winner, they break even. But this would lead back to my initial question, as well as my overall concern about such an entity. And one would have to exist- it couldn't just "happen" and stay that way.
Just pointing out, you need not determine the exact fairness of each individual trade. If you have a large number of people trading with each other and one of them gets more and more of the resources, it's pretty clear who's getting favored in the trades. Hence redistribution. By progressive taxation. But that would be socialist.
You simply can't use the metric, "because they agreed to it, therefore both are winners". That ignores the duress of circumstance. In some cases, the circumstance is created by the true winner (ie. a robbery), in others, it's systemic, such as in capitalism.
|
On March 31 2014 18:23 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 17:52 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism. I didn't mean to say it was "back-to-tribalism." Much of what we have now is funded by capitalistic investments, or kings trying to get the upper edge, or leaders who just felt generous. My point is that in this scenario someone is investing with the idea that later they will come out ahead. They will have to "trade" for it- which is capitalistic. Both must believe that they are going to come out the winner, or they are rich enough to fund it as a hobby. (Which would show they are too rich, yes?) Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see how trading like that is so different than the capitalism those in this thread would support. If you change the ownership structure, then who pays for these things? The people through a tax? Some trade is established? (which is what companies today rely on, in essence). If you really had a moral, fundamental outrage over capitalism it seem that you should be objecting to any scenario where people trade and bet on the future. How is that not "exploitative?" or is your beef merely that you don't believe that currently people are getting a fair return on their work? That the only way to do so is to take ownership of the work from those horrible people who have it and distribute it? And that really tempts me to come back to the idea of the nature of people- but I will refrain from it. I'm not articulating this as well as I would like. But it doesn't seem like you have a gripe with the fundamental idea- trade where both think they come out the winner. Edit again: unless you think that some entity should ensure that the values and trades made are exactly fair- no one comes out the winner, they break even. But this would lead back to my initial question, as well as my overall concern about such an entity. And one would have to exist- it couldn't just "happen" and stay that way. Just pointing out, you need not determine the exact fairness of each individual trade. If you have a large number of people trading with each other and one of them gets more and more of the resources, it's pretty clear who's getting favored in the trades. Hence redistribution. By progressive taxation. But that would be socialist.
I disagree, it could be that one of them is either more skilled or does better work- thus his services are naturally valued more highly. It doesn't automatically mean that he's exploiting someone. If he was, people would trade elsewhere.
Besides, someone would have force the trade to be fair- and as I've said before this entity would eventually become abusive itself. This is my fundamental problem with Igne's complaint and calls for redistribution? Who is going to do it? Who is going to enforce it?
|
I spent a long time writing out what in particular, extraction of surplus value, made capitalism a problem both socially and morally, and you seem to have fixated on this issue with markets. Markets are not capitalism, and you seem to be conflating the two here. Trade for mutual benefit is done in simple barter economies. Money, when it is used as a medium of exchange, is not so problematic. It is when money is reified, and becomes a commodity itself that something changes. When money begets money, the picture is different, and money as capital involves turning money into more money by extracting surplus labor from those without capital. None of those things that you are talking about are real problems in non-capitalistic economic systems.
To change the subject, for those of you who lionize free will and take a strong stance on a person bearing the moral burden of every decision he or she makes, regardless of circumstance, I want to share a clip with a neuroscience researcher that I found fascinating some years ago.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/enter-the-i-of-the-vortex
The relevant portion begins at around 34 minutes.
Llinas, a neuroscience pioneer and expert recounts an interesting experience he had when he decided to perform an experiment on himself. Here is the transcript of the relevant portion:
+ Show Spoiler +BINGHAM:
Which implies an almost deterministic view of things, which makes the whole concept of free will a little bit difficult to explain.
LLINÁS:
Yeah well, two points there. The fact that it may be a set of fixed action patterns does not mean it’s completely deterministic in the sense that while the pattern of movement may be very similar, its never going to be same again ever. So all you’re doing is defining the boundaries of the possible movement you are going to make or the drive you are going to make. Determinism and free will, well that’s something else. I understand that free will does not exist; I understand that it is the only rational way to relate to each other, that is to assume that it does, although we deeply know that it doesn’t. Now the question you may ask me is how do you know? And the answer is, well, I did an actually lovely experiment on myself. It was extraordinary really. There is an instrument used in neurology called a magnetic stimulator - transcranial magnetic stimulation is something you can do. Well I...
BINGHAM:
It consists of... What actually happens to you?
LLINÁS:
Well yeah, its an instrument that has a coil that you put next to the top of the head and you pass a current such that a big magnetic field is generated that activates the brain directly, without necessary to op
en the thing. So if you get one of these coils and you put it on top of the head, you can generate a movement. You put it in the back, you see a light, so you can stimulate different parts of the brain and have a feeling of to what happens when you activate the brain directly without, in quotes, you doing it. This of course is a strange way of talking but that’s how we talk. So I decide to put it on the top of the head where I consider to be the motor cortex and stimulate it
and find a good spot where my foot on the right side would move inwards. It was
*pop* no problem. And we did it several times and I tell my colleague, I know anatomy, I know physiology, I can tell you I’m cheating. Put the stimulus and then I move, I feel it, I’m moving it. And he said well, you know, there’s no way to really
know. I said, I’ll tell you how I know. I feel it, but stimulate and I’ll move the foot outwards. I am now going to do that, so I stimulate and the foot moves inwards again. So I said, well what happens? I said but I changed my mind. Do it again. So I do it half a dozen times.
BINGHAM:
And it always moves inwards?
LLINÁS:
Always. So I said, oh my god, I can’t tell the difference between the activity from the outside and what I consider to be a voluntary movement. If I know that it is going to happen, then I think I did it, because I now understand this free will stuff and
this volition stuff. Volition is what’s happening somewhere else in the brain, I know about and therefore I decide that I did it. It happens in science as well. You actually take possession of something that doesn’t belong to you.
BINGHAM:
So what was your, so you’re saying because there’s this straight-forward linkage between the stimulation and the foot moving inward, right and that’s going to happen every time - even if you will yourself to move it out and it still moves in, are
you saying that you never less thought your sensation was of having moved it out?
LLINÁS:
No! The sensation is different - it was I who did it.
BINGHAM:
Even though I was moving it in.
LLINÁS:
It moved it in and the sensation is, well I moved it in. I could not, my system, I could not have a feeling different to what I would have had had I moved it inwards. So I want to move it outwards, when I feel the stimulus, I move it outwards and move it inwards. Did you feel that there was a problem? No I didn’t feel there was a problem, I moved it inwards! But you thought, you decided you were going to move it outwards! Yes, but I moved it inwards. And then you think and you realize
that you are saying it after the fact that you moved it inwards because it moved it in the inwardly manner and you knew this was going to happen so you take possession of it. In other words, free will is knowing what you are going to do, that’s all. Not necessarily willing it. Sorry. Now for other reasons, you may find that the rest of the nervous system other than what it wills basically wants to do that, you properly educate it; you think it’s the most intelligent thing to do and so on. But the feeling that it’s you who’s doing it is a simplification. It is not you who’s doing it, it is many cells deciding to do it.
Edit: Besides, someone would have force the trade to be fair- and as I've said before this entity would eventually become abusive itself. This is my fundamental problem with Igne's complaint and calls for redistribution? Who is going to do it? Who is going to enforce it?
How does any revolution happen? The people would decide in a democratic fashion.
|
On March 31 2014 18:27 IgnE wrote:I spent a long time writing out what in particular, extraction of surplus value, made capitalism a problem both socially and morally, and you seem to have fixated on this issue with markets. Markets are not capitalism, and you seem to be conflating the two here. Trade for mutual benefit is done in simple barter economies. Money, when it is used as a medium of exchange, is not so problematic. It is when money is reified, and becomes a commodity itself that something changes. When money begets money, the picture is different, and money as capital involves turning money into more money by extracting surplus labor from those without capital. None of those things that you are talking about are real problems in non-capitalistic economic systems. To change the subject, for those of you who lionize free will and take a strong stance on bearing the moral burden of every decision a person makes, regardless of circumstance, I want to share a clip with a neuroscience researcher that I found fascinating some years ago. http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-science-studio/enter-the-i-of-the-vortexThe relevant portion begins at around 34 minutes. Llinas, a neuroscience pioneer and expert recounts an interesting experience he had when he decided to perform an experiment on himself. Here is the transcript of the relevant portion: + Show Spoiler +BINGHAM:
Which implies an almost deterministic view of things, which makes the whole concept of free will a little bit difficult to explain.
LLINÁS:
Yeah well, two points there. The fact that it may be a set of fixed action patterns does not mean it’s completely deterministic in the sense that while the pattern of movement may be very similar, its never going to be same again ever. So all you’re doing is defining the boundaries of the possible movement you are going to make or the drive you are going to make. Determinism and free will, well that’s something else. I understand that free will does not exist; I understand that it is the only rational way to relate to each other, that is to assume that it does, although we deeply know that it doesn’t. Now the question you may ask me is how do you know? And the answer is, well, I did an actually lovely experiment on myself. It was extraordinary really. There is an instrument used in neurology called a magnetic stimulator - transcranial magnetic stimulation is something you can do. Well I...
BINGHAM:
It consists of... What actually happens to you?
LLINÁS:
Well yeah, its an instrument that has a coil that you put next to the top of the head and you pass a current such that a big magnetic field is generated that activates the brain directly, without necessary to op
en the thing. So if you get one of these coils and you put it on top of the head, you can generate a movement. You put it in the back, you see a light, so you can stimulate different parts of the brain and have a feeling of to what happens when you activate the brain directly without, in quotes, you doing it. This of course is a strange way of talking but that’s how we talk. So I decide to put it on the top of the head where I consider to be the motor cortex and stimulate it
and find a good spot where my foot on the right side would move inwards. It was
*pop* no problem. And we did it several times and I tell my colleague, I know anatomy, I know physiology, I can tell you I’m cheating. Put the stimulus and then I move, I feel it, I’m moving it. And he said well, you know, there’s no way to really
know. I said, I’ll tell you how I know. I feel it, but stimulate and I’ll move the foot outwards. I am now going to do that, so I stimulate and the foot moves inwards again. So I said, well what happens? I said but I changed my mind. Do it again. So I do it half a dozen times.
BINGHAM:
And it always moves inwards?
LLINÁS:
Always. So I said, oh my god, I can’t tell the difference between the activity from the outside and what I consider to be a voluntary movement. If I know that it is going to happen, then I think I did it, because I now understand this free will stuff and
this volition stuff. Volition is what’s happening somewhere else in the brain, I know about and therefore I decide that I did it. It happens in science as well. You actually take possession of something that doesn’t belong to you.
BINGHAM:
So what was your, so you’re saying because there’s this straight-forward linkage between the stimulation and the foot moving inward, right and that’s going to happen every time - even if you will yourself to move it out and it still moves in, are
you saying that you never less thought your sensation was of having moved it out?
LLINÁS:
No! The sensation is different - it was I who did it.
BINGHAM:
Even though I was moving it in.
LLINÁS:
It moved it in and the sensation is, well I moved it in. I could not, my system, I could not have a feeling different to what I would have had had I moved it inwards. So I want to move it outwards, when I feel the stimulus, I move it outwards and move it inwards. Did you feel that there was a problem? No I didn’t feel there was a problem, I moved it inwards! But you thought, you decided you were going to move it outwards! Yes, but I moved it inwards. And then you think and you realize
that you are saying it after the fact that you moved it inwards because it moved it in the inwardly manner and you knew this was going to happen so you take possession of it. In other words, free will is knowing what you are going to do, that’s all. Not necessarily willing it. Sorry. Now for other reasons, you may find that the rest of the nervous system other than what it wills basically wants to do that, you properly educate it; you think it’s the most intelligent thing to do and so on. But the feeling that it’s you who’s doing it is a simplification. It is not you who’s doing it, it is many cells deciding to do it.
As yes, the still mysterious field of neuroscience. The conundrum of course being that if there is a non-physical aspect of humanity, it is going to screw up the scientific study of the brain and how we operate on a fundamental level. I really do watch eagerly for us to learn more about the brain.
I did focus on one aspect in particular. That's not exactly uncommon, especially in interactions with you. There is something to be said for "exploitation" in the sense that I'm not someone advocating no laws at all, I just don't think people are to be seen as so hampered by their starting situation (as hampered as you portray them). And it's certainly exploitation when large corporations and interests lobby and pay off government officials into making the rules in their favor. But when you talk of "extracting" surplus value, that's where the disagreement occurs. Someone most likely gets the better end of the deal- but that doesn't mean the other person gets a bad deal, either. One may just come out better relative to the first. Nor is that perfect either, but I don't see any workable alternatives, especially ones that don't reduce the rights of the populace.
But we've come back to the first problem.
How does any revolution happen? The people would decide in a democratic fashion.
Yes, but where would it lead? I still contend that trying to implement your ideas would lead to despotism, not freedom. Some entity or charismatic person would take charge. Such is human nature throughout history. But it's harder to argue, because it hasn't really been tried on such a large scale. If the people want to have your type of revolution- then go ahead. I just think it's bound for failure. I've hardly discussed the "moral" aspect at all- I've focused mainly on the probability of such an idea being successful.
Final edit: make the rules of transaction equal and apply them equally, but don't try to make outcomes equal.
|
On March 31 2014 18:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 18:23 hummingbird23 wrote:On March 31 2014 17:52 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism. I didn't mean to say it was "back-to-tribalism." Much of what we have now is funded by capitalistic investments, or kings trying to get the upper edge, or leaders who just felt generous. My point is that in this scenario someone is investing with the idea that later they will come out ahead. They will have to "trade" for it- which is capitalistic. Both must believe that they are going to come out the winner, or they are rich enough to fund it as a hobby. (Which would show they are too rich, yes?) Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see how trading like that is so different than the capitalism those in this thread would support. If you change the ownership structure, then who pays for these things? The people through a tax? Some trade is established? (which is what companies today rely on, in essence). If you really had a moral, fundamental outrage over capitalism it seem that you should be objecting to any scenario where people trade and bet on the future. How is that not "exploitative?" or is your beef merely that you don't believe that currently people are getting a fair return on their work? That the only way to do so is to take ownership of the work from those horrible people who have it and distribute it? And that really tempts me to come back to the idea of the nature of people- but I will refrain from it. I'm not articulating this as well as I would like. But it doesn't seem like you have a gripe with the fundamental idea- trade where both think they come out the winner. Edit again: unless you think that some entity should ensure that the values and trades made are exactly fair- no one comes out the winner, they break even. But this would lead back to my initial question, as well as my overall concern about such an entity. And one would have to exist- it couldn't just "happen" and stay that way. Just pointing out, you need not determine the exact fairness of each individual trade. If you have a large number of people trading with each other and one of them gets more and more of the resources, it's pretty clear who's getting favored in the trades. Hence redistribution. By progressive taxation. But that would be socialist. I disagree, it could be that one of them is either more skilled or does better work- thus his services are naturally valued more highly. It doesn't automatically mean that he's exploiting someone. If he was, people would trade elsewhere. Besides, someone would have force the trade to be fair- and as I've said before this entity would eventually become abusive itself. This is my fundamental problem with Igne's complaint and calls for redistribution? Who is going to do it? Who is going to enforce it?
This "would trade elsewhere" assumes free markets. And there is no such thing, so the positive feedback goes on unchecked until well, a handful of people own everything. That's pretty unstable. Socialist democracies have done a pretty good job of redistribution, especially where the social norms have been equality of opportunity (see the Scandinavian countries).
Just to be clear, my diagnostic criterion here isn't that A commands a larger proportion of resources than B, C etc. It's that as the repeated trades go on, A gets a larger and larger proportion.
I'll put it this way, it's grossly unwise for economics to make pronouncements about human nature. It's far far more nuanced than been dreamed of. For example, to enshrine greed as a fundamental tenet of being human ignores the fact that the desire to accumulate or gain can be changed by the amount of social competition going on. I can go on, but the point is that claiming a particular description of human nature as a axiom of your paradigm is very likely to end up with having no leg to stand on.
|
On March 31 2014 18:49 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 18:26 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 18:23 hummingbird23 wrote:On March 31 2014 17:52 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism. I didn't mean to say it was "back-to-tribalism." Much of what we have now is funded by capitalistic investments, or kings trying to get the upper edge, or leaders who just felt generous. My point is that in this scenario someone is investing with the idea that later they will come out ahead. They will have to "trade" for it- which is capitalistic. Both must believe that they are going to come out the winner, or they are rich enough to fund it as a hobby. (Which would show they are too rich, yes?) Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see how trading like that is so different than the capitalism those in this thread would support. If you change the ownership structure, then who pays for these things? The people through a tax? Some trade is established? (which is what companies today rely on, in essence). If you really had a moral, fundamental outrage over capitalism it seem that you should be objecting to any scenario where people trade and bet on the future. How is that not "exploitative?" or is your beef merely that you don't believe that currently people are getting a fair return on their work? That the only way to do so is to take ownership of the work from those horrible people who have it and distribute it? And that really tempts me to come back to the idea of the nature of people- but I will refrain from it. I'm not articulating this as well as I would like. But it doesn't seem like you have a gripe with the fundamental idea- trade where both think they come out the winner. Edit again: unless you think that some entity should ensure that the values and trades made are exactly fair- no one comes out the winner, they break even. But this would lead back to my initial question, as well as my overall concern about such an entity. And one would have to exist- it couldn't just "happen" and stay that way. Just pointing out, you need not determine the exact fairness of each individual trade. If you have a large number of people trading with each other and one of them gets more and more of the resources, it's pretty clear who's getting favored in the trades. Hence redistribution. By progressive taxation. But that would be socialist. I disagree, it could be that one of them is either more skilled or does better work- thus his services are naturally valued more highly. It doesn't automatically mean that he's exploiting someone. If he was, people would trade elsewhere. Besides, someone would have force the trade to be fair- and as I've said before this entity would eventually become abusive itself. This is my fundamental problem with Igne's complaint and calls for redistribution? Who is going to do it? Who is going to enforce it? This "would trade elsewhere" assumes free markets. And there is no such thing, so the positive feedback goes on unchecked until well, a handful of people own everything. That's pretty unstable. Socialist democracies have done a pretty good job of redistribution, especially where the social norms have been equality of opportunity (see the Scandinavian countries). Just to be clear, my diagnostic criterion here isn't that A commands a larger proportion of resources than B, C etc. It's that as the repeated trades go on, A gets a larger and larger proportion. I'll put it this way, it's grossly unwise for economics to make pronouncements about human nature. It's far far more nuanced than been dreamed of. For example, to enshrine greed as a fundamental tenet of being human ignores the fact that the desire to accumulate or gain can be changed by the amount of social competition going on. I can go on, but the point is that claiming a particular description of human nature as a axiom of your paradigm is very likely to end up with having no leg to stand on.
I think, given the look at history, it's a valid and well supported assumption. I've done nothing but give my thoughts- just like everyone else. I accept that I could be wrong. At any rate, we are not there YET. How is that for a safe proclamation?
I'm of the opinion that things go in cycles- they start off, things get worse, people revolt or somehow the situation changes- then comes either relative freedom or worse despotism. But there is always a tendency towards oppression and tyranny. And that I why no system is perfect, and that is why starting off by concentrating power is madness.
For all the accusations of me (or other conservatives) being "idealists" I'm the one basing my thoughts on what's actually occurred in history instead of blasting it as immoral.
|
On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
Yes, but where would it lead? I still contend that trying to implement your ideas would lead to despotism, not freedom. Some entity or charismatic person would take charge. Such is human nature throughout history. But it's harder to argue, because it hasn't really been tried on such a large scale. If the people want to have your type of revolution- then go ahead. I just think it's bound for failure. I've hardly discussed the "moral" aspect at all- I've focused mainly on the probability of such an idea being successful.
Final edit: make the rules of transaction equal and apply them equally, but don't try to make outcomes equal.
No, outcomes will "equalize" either way in the long run, that I agree. It involves a lot of blood, social upheaval, and generally a great amount of needless destruction and fuckups. Content people don't fall for charismatics, the entity you talk about is merely channeling a great amount of social tension being released to benefit itself. Or rarely, this entity has a greater vision and spends this will in a wiser, more sustainable fashion. Hence why revolutions sometimes lead to failed states, and sometimes not.
The other kind of revolution is relatively new and involves not killing people. I don't get why you're so resistant to the fact that capitalism as it's currently known is untenable as it leads to proportional accumulation of resources. Redistribution is the only way that can hold it at bay. We all get the imperfection of the system, but surely some are more imperfect than others. Capitalism's ally is redistribution, because if the system doesn't design a somewhat workable way to redistribute, it sooner or later ends very very messily.
|
About 9.5 million Americans who were previously uninsured have gotten health coverage under Obamacare, according to a new analysis.
The Los Angeles Times reported the number, which combines data from an unpublished study by RAND Corp. with other publicly available figures. It's one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to asses the law's impact on the uninsured as open enrollment comes to a close.
Source
|
On March 31 2014 17:41 IgnE wrote:
You are wrong. This isn't some kind of back-to-tribalism alternative or an end to markets. We are talking about possible changes in the structure of ownership, the money system, etc. People have been exchanging goods for thousands of years in markets without capitalism, and the work of artists and scientists is in no way dependent on capitalism.
What is the name of the system that is based on voluntary exchange?
|
On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood.
Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening.
|
On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening.
But that doesn't happen with more capitalism it happens with more worker power
|
Norway28865 Posts
On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening.
other data suggests that at least partially due to the constant strife for economic progress, there's hardly gonna be a Bangladesh 110 years from now. (and at least personally I don't think you can view capitalism (or any other economic system) separately from well, everything else.)
but even disregarding that (and it was slightly tongue in cheek in the first place  ), it's my impression that the capitalism of today is very different from the capitalism from 110 years ago. I'm no scholar here and I don't have data supporting the trends I claim to observe, and as such I'd be very happy if someone proves me wrong, but anyway.. it seems to me that this notion that someone in bangladesh can simply start their own clothes-manufacturing store, work hard and eventually expand their store and turn their company into a big one just isn't true anymore, because multinational companies that operate at such a grand scale that it's impossible for a new smaller company to compete on the same level as them. It's kind of the walmart-curse, buying in extreme bulk and having smartly organized logistical operations makes it impossible for smaller companies to compete in price - likewise it's impossible for a smaller clothes-manufacturer to compete with nike or whatever because the infrastructure which makes nike able to produce reasonably high quality products for a very small price simply is not available to them.. 110 years ago in usa, it's a different scenario, many industries are under or undeveloped.
seems to me like the only way for a small breakout-company to become big nowadays is by providing a smart technologically innovative service (like facebook or whatever other app-examples one can come up with), but the old industries have all been overtaken by companies that are so big and have such well developed infrastructure that a new operation cannot possibly compete.
|
On March 31 2014 19:04 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 18:43 Introvert wrote:
Yes, but where would it lead? I still contend that trying to implement your ideas would lead to despotism, not freedom. Some entity or charismatic person would take charge. Such is human nature throughout history. But it's harder to argue, because it hasn't really been tried on such a large scale. If the people want to have your type of revolution- then go ahead. I just think it's bound for failure. I've hardly discussed the "moral" aspect at all- I've focused mainly on the probability of such an idea being successful.
Final edit: make the rules of transaction equal and apply them equally, but don't try to make outcomes equal. No, outcomes will "equalize" either way in the long run, that I agree. It involves a lot of blood, social upheaval, and generally a great amount of needless destruction and fuckups. Content people don't fall for charismatics, the entity you talk about is merely channeling a great amount of social tension being released to benefit itself. Or rarely, this entity has a greater vision and spends this will in a wiser, more sustainable fashion. Hence why revolutions sometimes lead to failed states, and sometimes not. The other kind of revolution is relatively new and involves not killing people. I don't get why you're so resistant to the fact that capitalism as it's currently known is untenable as it leads to proportional accumulation of resources. Redistribution is the only way that can hold it at bay. We all get the imperfection of the system, but surely some are more imperfect than others. Capitalism's ally is redistribution, because if the system doesn't design a somewhat workable way to redistribute, it sooner or later ends very very messily. Anyone can fall for charismatics. Content people maybe less so, but then one simply agitates enough to believe that you're actually oppressed or there is gross injustice that doesn't happen to you or you haven't seen yet. If there's anything the last 50 years have demonstrated, it's the need to focus and gin up tension if you desire radical revolutionary change. The consequences are, for those holding your ideas, a despotic government that quickly becomes corrupt and tyrannical.
I can hardly see why you would continue discussing here if you take capitalism's untenability as fact. You're either wasting your breath at some unenlightened neanderthals or completely mistaken about what opinions or positions you regard as unassailable facts. I think you would be better served labeling us as "capitalism untenability deniers" and pretending the debate is over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
