EPTOn May 09 2018 05:40 Archeon wrote:
Whether or not exploitation is omnipresent and universal depends on where you draw the line of exploitation, which is pretty much dependent on how you feel about it. Every relation between human beings is partly onesided.
We can argue about systems that aren't based on work at all if you define work as exploitation, but societies like that are sci-fi atm and will be until we reach the state where machines will be able to run absolutely 100% of the economy, because else someone will have to work.
Else in our work based society that the person who works the most earns the most is fair and so there will be companies which don't exploit it's workers, which means that it's not universal.
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2018 03:04 IgnE wrote:
"exploitation" isn't merely a feeling, and so commenting on whether you feel exploited, under some affective meaning of |exploited| is a bit beside the point. or rather, you set up this conflation so that you can aver that exploitation is omnipresent and universal: "but that's not different from any other system," and that perhaps because you don't feel |exploited| the western status quo has the best exploitation around, since only a few, marginal people actually feel |exploited|. but the point is that not every system has to be set up to exploit its workers. thats precisely the point.
On May 09 2018 02:30 Archeon wrote:
Ah people who only criticize without actually ever talking about solutions for underlying problems, let alone produce alternatives.
I've known enough people I'd consider self-made-men who produced small to medium companies with very little budget and at times no education to know it's not entirely a myth, at least not in Germany during the "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle).
@exploitation: And that is different in what way in any other system? You can't produce large quantities without having other people involved in the production complex and naturally there are going to be hierarchies with benefits for those that are at the top. It's not like any communist country has actually ever passed that stage. Also exploitation is a very strong word for fairly broad conditions, I definitely don't feel exploited in the company I'm working in, despite being fairly bottom of the pack. That doesn't mean that exploitation doesn't happen especially if you consider the entire global trade situation with Africa, but again that's not any different for any other system.
And yes, intertwining politics and economics is a problem, but again it's not like other systems don't have that (in fact it's part of the plan in communism). I'm not a fan of conglomerates and wish the institutions in place would have enough effect to keep them down, but I understand the difficulties in keeping them down when they start becoming very influential within areas once they grow big enough. "Don't block the deal or I'm gonna move and this area will have 30% of the populace unemployed" isn't exactly something politicians can say no to.
Which is the usual superpower bullies lesser nations case and has nothing to do with capitalism per say. As if the UdSSR or powerful caste systems were ever any different.
On May 08 2018 05:22 TheDwf wrote:
Ah, capitalism and its "self-made man" myths. Anyway, whether the wealth is inherited or not, past some threshold—say, more than a few millions—it can only be built through exploiting the work of thousands of others, and that's what makes it illegitimate. As for "risk taking," when you consider all the situations in which capitalists merely privatize public goods or the results of public research, or passively take advantage of a monopolistic rent, or directly milk the State by selling it stuff (e.g. weapons)... Not to mention "too big to fail" banks and the hundreds of billions of public money to cover their failures and mistakes.
On May 08 2018 04:46 Archeon wrote:
50% shows that our market isn't totally controlled by a new aristocracy, but partly by people who started with very limited budget, good marketing abilities and good instincts.
I'm not denying that rich families exist and that some of the richest people just inherited their wealth or that being rich makes acquiring greater wealth a lot easier, but the fact that they have to compete with others who can achieve similar levels of wealth means that they can actually fall from their throne if they are incompetent. Of course they have an easier road ahead of them, but it's not like that's any different in any other system.
And I'm not sure how your bitcoin example and possibility specification prove that wealth in capitalism is static in any way, they show that wealth is often a mixture of luck as well as instinct/willingness to risk. I never claimed that capitalism is a fair system of equal chances, I claimed that it's a fairer system than any other we know of because you can become the richest man in the world by starting out in a garage.
On May 07 2018 01:24 Big J wrote:
Well it is 50% of wealth that is transferred by inheritance these days, so 5/10 sounds like rather an argument FOR that theory, not against. But really, it is not that easy. Where do IT firms get their money from? From investors. Where did they get it from? From a free trade to satisfy each others needs? In parts. In large parts from inheritance mechanisms. In large parts that money they get from "free" trades they only get because they have a valueable resource - money - to trade with to begin with.
The only function of money is that of a databank. To store information on prices and market weights. It's the oldest IT technology we have. It is not surprising that now, that we have the means for centralized planning through automation and big data, these technologies are getting to the top. Knowledge is power, and we hand a lot of it exclusively to very few people. Thing is, most people do simply not understand the true meaning of a "possibility". A possibility is only a possibility if you actually know about it, in detail. (reason why the homo oeconomicus is a correct assumption - but the realm of possibilities for the individual is quite small at every point in time, as every one of us is quite limited in their capabilities)
Example: People that cry about not getting into Bitcoin when it was getting big, "because they didn't knew"... They actually didn't have the possibility to even get into it, because they didn't know about Bitcoin. The reason some people got into Bitcoin is, that they invested a ton of time reading up on it, or stumbling upon it because it fell into their field of interest.
On May 06 2018 23:02 Archeon wrote:
The bold part is just a result of stability. As long as a system persists long enough the people that are powerful within the system will use that power to grow. It's not like communist systems or class systems were ever any different, the only thing that changes the economic structure within a system is technology, which potentially creates new markets and hence new winners.
We see that currently with information and communication technology, half of the top 10 richest people of the world own IT or communication companies. Which is why the "inherited vast amounts of wealth" story is only half true to begin with, especially in modern times.
On May 06 2018 19:29 Nebuchad wrote:
That entire post is quite driven for someone who isn't really on either side of politics
As for "the facts", I don't want to speak for GH but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he disagrees, as do I, with this notion that capitalism is so great for the world overall.
The poverty is down line is generally coming from an analysis of the numbers coming from the World Bank, which there are reasons to be skeptical of (mainly the way the International Poverty Line has changed over time). On top of that, if I remember my Marx correctly the idea isn't that capitalism is going to make workers' conditions worse - that's more neoliberalism than capitalism and Marx wasn't confronted with that, instead it's that it's going to improve the condition of workers a little bit, while it improves the condition of the ruling class massively at the same time, and thus creates a larger inequality between the two that is seen as harmful. I think you see that demonstrated in the world today.
War is at an all-time low because of the way we do international diplomacy, not because of our economic system. May even argue the opposite btw; since a bunch of capitalists profit off of wars and those capitalists have a ton of money and influence and incentive to give us more wars, we probably have much less conflicts in spite of capitalism rather than thanks to it.
On May 06 2018 17:14 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
How do you feel about the facts (www.gapminder.org, also watch Hans Roslings TED talk) that capitalism overall has been an incredible boon for developing countries?
Poverty is down, child mortality is down, living standards are up, education levels are increasing, war is at an all time low, much less people die in conflicts than ever before etc etc.
How do you feel about the facts (www.gapminder.org, also watch Hans Roslings TED talk) that capitalism overall has been an incredible boon for developing countries?
Poverty is down, child mortality is down, living standards are up, education levels are increasing, war is at an all time low, much less people die in conflicts than ever before etc etc.
That entire post is quite driven for someone who isn't really on either side of politics
As for "the facts", I don't want to speak for GH but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he disagrees, as do I, with this notion that capitalism is so great for the world overall.
The poverty is down line is generally coming from an analysis of the numbers coming from the World Bank, which there are reasons to be skeptical of (mainly the way the International Poverty Line has changed over time). On top of that, if I remember my Marx correctly the idea isn't that capitalism is going to make workers' conditions worse - that's more neoliberalism than capitalism and Marx wasn't confronted with that, instead it's that it's going to improve the condition of workers a little bit, while it improves the condition of the ruling class massively at the same time, and thus creates a larger inequality between the two that is seen as harmful. I think you see that demonstrated in the world today.
War is at an all-time low because of the way we do international diplomacy, not because of our economic system. May even argue the opposite btw; since a bunch of capitalists profit off of wars and those capitalists have a ton of money and influence and incentive to give us more wars, we probably have much less conflicts in spite of capitalism rather than thanks to it.
The bold part is just a result of stability. As long as a system persists long enough the people that are powerful within the system will use that power to grow. It's not like communist systems or class systems were ever any different, the only thing that changes the economic structure within a system is technology, which potentially creates new markets and hence new winners.
We see that currently with information and communication technology, half of the top 10 richest people of the world own IT or communication companies. Which is why the "inherited vast amounts of wealth" story is only half true to begin with, especially in modern times.
Well it is 50% of wealth that is transferred by inheritance these days, so 5/10 sounds like rather an argument FOR that theory, not against. But really, it is not that easy. Where do IT firms get their money from? From investors. Where did they get it from? From a free trade to satisfy each others needs? In parts. In large parts from inheritance mechanisms. In large parts that money they get from "free" trades they only get because they have a valueable resource - money - to trade with to begin with.
The only function of money is that of a databank. To store information on prices and market weights. It's the oldest IT technology we have. It is not surprising that now, that we have the means for centralized planning through automation and big data, these technologies are getting to the top. Knowledge is power, and we hand a lot of it exclusively to very few people. Thing is, most people do simply not understand the true meaning of a "possibility". A possibility is only a possibility if you actually know about it, in detail. (reason why the homo oeconomicus is a correct assumption - but the realm of possibilities for the individual is quite small at every point in time, as every one of us is quite limited in their capabilities)
Example: People that cry about not getting into Bitcoin when it was getting big, "because they didn't knew"... They actually didn't have the possibility to even get into it, because they didn't know about Bitcoin. The reason some people got into Bitcoin is, that they invested a ton of time reading up on it, or stumbling upon it because it fell into their field of interest.
50% shows that our market isn't totally controlled by a new aristocracy, but partly by people who started with very limited budget, good marketing abilities and good instincts.
I'm not denying that rich families exist and that some of the richest people just inherited their wealth or that being rich makes acquiring greater wealth a lot easier, but the fact that they have to compete with others who can achieve similar levels of wealth means that they can actually fall from their throne if they are incompetent. Of course they have an easier road ahead of them, but it's not like that's any different in any other system.
And I'm not sure how your bitcoin example and possibility specification prove that wealth in capitalism is static in any way, they show that wealth is often a mixture of luck as well as instinct/willingness to risk. I never claimed that capitalism is a fair system of equal chances, I claimed that it's a fairer system than any other we know of because you can become the richest man in the world by starting out in a garage.
Ah, capitalism and its "self-made man" myths. Anyway, whether the wealth is inherited or not, past some threshold—say, more than a few millions—it can only be built through exploiting the work of thousands of others, and that's what makes it illegitimate. As for "risk taking," when you consider all the situations in which capitalists merely privatize public goods or the results of public research, or passively take advantage of a monopolistic rent, or directly milk the State by selling it stuff (e.g. weapons)... Not to mention "too big to fail" banks and the hundreds of billions of public money to cover their failures and mistakes.
Ah people who only criticize without actually ever talking about solutions for underlying problems, let alone produce alternatives.
I've known enough people I'd consider self-made-men who produced small to medium companies with very little budget and at times no education to know it's not entirely a myth, at least not in Germany during the "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle).
@exploitation: And that is different in what way in any other system? You can't produce large quantities without having other people involved in the production complex and naturally there are going to be hierarchies with benefits for those that are at the top. It's not like any communist country has actually ever passed that stage. Also exploitation is a very strong word for fairly broad conditions, I definitely don't feel exploited in the company I'm working in, despite being fairly bottom of the pack. That doesn't mean that exploitation doesn't happen especially if you consider the entire global trade situation with Africa, but again that's not any different for any other system.
And yes, intertwining politics and economics is a problem, but again it's not like other systems don't have that (in fact it's part of the plan in communism). I'm not a fan of conglomerates and wish the institutions in place would have enough effect to keep them down, but I understand the difficulties in keeping them down when they start becoming very influential within areas once they grow big enough. "Don't block the deal or I'm gonna move and this area will have 30% of the populace unemployed" isn't exactly something politicians can say no to.
On May 08 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
The "this works better than any other system" almost always neglects to mention that the capitalists will illegally assassinate democratically elected/ and otherwise selected leaders, kill countless civilians, and apply inhumane economic sanctions in order to keep it that way.
The "this works better than any other system" almost always neglects to mention that the capitalists will illegally assassinate democratically elected/ and otherwise selected leaders, kill countless civilians, and apply inhumane economic sanctions in order to keep it that way.
Which is the usual superpower bullies lesser nations case and has nothing to do with capitalism per say. As if the UdSSR or powerful caste systems were ever any different.
"exploitation" isn't merely a feeling, and so commenting on whether you feel exploited, under some affective meaning of |exploited| is a bit beside the point. or rather, you set up this conflation so that you can aver that exploitation is omnipresent and universal: "but that's not different from any other system," and that perhaps because you don't feel |exploited| the western status quo has the best exploitation around, since only a few, marginal people actually feel |exploited|. but the point is that not every system has to be set up to exploit its workers. thats precisely the point.
Whether or not exploitation is omnipresent and universal depends on where you draw the line of exploitation, which is pretty much dependent on how you feel about it. Every relation between human beings is partly onesided.
We can argue about systems that aren't based on work at all if you define work as exploitation, but societies like that are sci-fi atm and will be until we reach the state where machines will be able to run absolutely 100% of the economy, because else someone will have to work.
Else in our work based society that the person who works the most earns the most is fair and so there will be companies which don't exploit it's workers, which means that it's not universal.
No it's not about "where you draw the line of exploitation." It can be measured in surplus labor time. It's a quantifiable structural relation.
You still haven't described how your system would work btw, only that such a system will come.
Oh thanks for reminding me. I nearly forgot.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdK57PMW0AE0mC-.jpg)
