Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

these are all relatively new ideas to me, and i'd need to mull them over a bit before i could really continue discussing this with you. fwiw, i'm certain your understanding of this topic is far deeper than mine. and part of my incentive for even posting in this thread was to put the opinions which i used to hold strongly, which have been progressively weakening for years, on the chopping block. it seems our fundamental disagreement is that you acknowledge our current capitalist system as being "optimal" and as such - we should begin to work within its confines to achieve (insert whatever your personal moral sensibilities believe is "just" or "ethical" within a society here). for much of my life, i was of the position that we had evolved adequately as a species to be able to formulate a new system which is able to achieve more utilitarian ends. it was never socialism or communism or anarchism, but it was certainly influenced to differing degrees by those ideas. these days i have no idea what i believe and i think part of that is because i don't fully understand economics. so thanks for your insights.

edit: heh, and sorry for the derail

I feel like I would describe what we do have as utilitarian

As far as capitalism being optimal (compared to other options), it's difficult to argue against that due to things like the technological progress and upward mobility it provides. Keep in mind that "capital" isn't money, it's resources. Your ability to labor is your "human capital". Cooperative capitalism (worker owned) and state capitalism (government owned) are two varieties that work, and I would rather call them, along with free market capitalism, aspects of overall capitalism. For example, pure state capitalism has problems, but it can also do things that free market capitalism can't (or doesn't tend to). China is doing both, and it's reaping unique benefits of both.

Capitalism is basically this: "using your resources to create more resources." The phrasing is important. The "your" implies that there needs to be some sort of ownership. The model to describe the process illustrates this. It's basically a man has land and labors it and reaps benefits from it. If he is fortunate enough he can have others labor on his land for compensation. They use their human capital for this and get paid in a different form of capital, and the man also benefits from the labor more than he would have otherwise. "Land" may not be an infinite quantity, but in a dynamic economy like ours, "capital" virtually is, so it isn't flawed for others to labor on something they don't own, especially since the "land" they labor on will have all sorts of enhancements that increase the value of their own capital. This system is incredibly difficult to alter because it's so fundamentally sound.

Socialism is a counter to this theory in the way that it declares that there should be no "your", and the proceeds of labor should be distributed based on need. But if we try to fit this into the basic example of a man using his resources to create more resources, it doesn't work, because when there is no "your" and instead is a communal "need", there is little incentive to use your resources to create more resources


I hope that wasn't too abstract. I now have some even more abstract stuff that helps explain it: Russia's pre-industrial history


To keep it as short as can be, Russia has never been stable due to its geographical boundaries providing weak defenses, but it still maintained it's identity due to the ability to retreat north into permafrost that invaders couldn't navigate. The worst time of Russia's history was back in the polis days when the Khanates used Moscow as a slave farm. I forget how long it lasted, but it was for generations that the Crimean Khanate would invade Moscow and enslave or murder the majority of the population. Then Ivan the Terrible happened. Why Terrible? Because in order for Moscow to finally stop the molestation of its people, they needed the scariest leader they could get. And they needed to submit fully to this leader. Without total unification, Moscow knew it was unable to win. Well, Moscow did unify under the iron fist of Ivan, and they destroyed the Khanates. Next they followed Peter and Catherine in a great expansion of national borders, mainly for the purpose establishing national defenses and strategic depth

Why is any of this relevant? Because the sensibilities of total communal unity under one leader and the cheapness of human lives have been in the backbone of Russia's culture ever since. It's been like this for nearly a thousand years. Now why is that relevant? Because it's a philosophical foundation of communism. Long story short, every time Russia is threatened, it moves towards submission to a leader and national unity. This is how Stalin was so easily able to actualize the socialist "Utopia" of communal efforts for the purpose of need.

But it failed miserably because it ignored supply and demand. Because costs were never fit to value and vise versa, the people never reaped any benefits, and after Glasnost and Perestroika, where the USSR opened some of its markets for the world to see, the whole thing crumbled

So yeah, that's my hypothesis explaining the existence of the most anti-capitalist sentiments we've had so far

[rpm]

I feel like I would describe what we do have as utilitarian

this honestly baffles me. please answer these questions:
- do you believe that, say, US-owned clothing companies which decide to set up factories in bangladesh are motivated by personal self-interest, or the greatest good for the greatest number? do you think the outcomes of these ventures reflect the greatest good for the greatest number? or do you think the wealth of these (already very profitable) companies could be spent in a way which would achieve more good for more people (ie the schools or sanitation or food it could provide)

- what about the companies spending $ to lobby for decreased environmental regulation? clearing of old-growth forests? investing in more fossil-fuel extraction instead of renewable eneergy sources? self-interested or seeking greatest good? do you think the results are for the greater good?



i'm half drunk and gotta go. planned to type more, time got in the way. but if you answer yes ("these do create the greatest good") to these, please describe your rationale. and if you can convince me of it, then we may have overcome our differences of opinion/belief. if you answer no (the greatest good was neither the intention or outcome), do you think the workings of the economic system these companies operate in has any influence upon these self-serving (non-utilitarian) business ventures?

[Renton]

this honestly baffles me. please answer these questions:
- do you believe that, say, US-owned clothing companies which decide to set up factories in bangladesh are motivated by personal self-interest, or the greatest good for the greatest number? do you think the outcomes of these ventures reflect the greatest good for the greatest number? or do you think the wealth of these (already very profitable) companies could be spent in a way which would achieve more good for more people (ie the schools or sanitation or food it could provide)

I don't have time to reply to everything right now but this is an easy one.

Basically, yes, outsourcing to Bangladesh is a universal good. It enables the limited human resources of the United States to be put to more valued uses. It minimizes to the prices of goods and services in the world, increasing the standard of living for all. It throws the people of Bangladesh a lifeline which will eventually pull that country out of abject poverty. Note that the clothing jobs that people work in Bangladesh are voluntarily chosen over the dismal alternatives, and that choice is important. If it weren't for the sweatshop job they could be making even less scavenging in the streets or prostituting themselves.

This is the beauty of capitalism, clothing companies act out of self interest and exploit labor in third world countries, yet everyone benefits. A big part of realizing this is rejecting the idea of a zero sum game. Free trade is a positive sum game because everyone who agrees to a trade is getting something of more subjective value than they give, and this is how wealth is created.

[wufwugy]

this honestly baffles me. please answer these questions:
- do you believe that, say, US-owned clothing companies which decide to set up factories in bangladesh are motivated by personal self-interest, or the greatest good for the greatest number? do you think the outcomes of these ventures reflect the greatest good for the greatest number? or do you think the wealth of these (already very profitable) companies could be spent in a way which would achieve more good for more people (ie the schools or sanitation or food it could provide)

- what about the companies spending $ to lobby for decreased environmental regulation? clearing of old-growth forests? investing in more fossil-fuel extraction instead of renewable eneergy sources? self-interested or seeking greatest good? do you think the results are for the greater good?



i'm half drunk and gotta go. planned to type more, time got in the way. but if you answer yes ("these do create the greatest good") to these, please describe your rationale. and if you can convince me of it, then we may have overcome our differences of opinion/belief. if you answer no (the greatest good was neither the intention or outcome), do you think the workings of the economic system these companies operate in has any influence upon these self-serving (non-utilitarian) business ventures?

It seems we're not using the same definition for "utilitarian". I'm going with Google's: "designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive." This looks to me to be what these companies are doing. Not exclusively, but practical at least from a perspective. I guess I don't want to get hung up on the word then

As for your points, capitalism doesn't account for externalities well at all. But neither does morality. Things like environmental destruction don't have an answer yet.

Also, all the outsourcing that Americans lament is making the world a better place than it would be without the outsourcing. It's a tough pill to swallow, but true

Also, about "my rationale", I'm not anti-regulation or anti-welfare. They're both necessary for certain things in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that they too can't be abused

Also, (I keep saying also), as poker players, we should be wary of being results oriented. I mean this in that socialism is results oriented. Socialism is like if you took welfarism and made it the most fundamental aspect of the economy. This wouldn't work because it requires resources already in existence. That's where capitalism comes in. Capitalism is what creates more resources, socialism doesn't. I believe in capitalism and welfarism because they provide for sound economic resource construction as well as providing for the welfare of those who need it. But socialism doesn't do this because it doesn't create the resources in the first place. It just assumes that the need for resources will be enough for them to be distributed

[rpm]

It seems we're not using the same definition for "utilitarian". I'm going with Google's: "designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive." This looks to me to be what these companies are doing. Not exclusively, but practical at least from a perspective. I guess I don't want to get hung up on the word then

As for your points, capitalism doesn't account for externalities well at all. But neither does morality. Things like environmental destruction don't have an answer yet.

Also, all the outsourcing that Americans lament is making the world a better place than it would be without the outsourcing. It's a tough pill to swallow, but true

Also, about "my rationale", I'm not anti-regulation or anti-welfare. They're both necessary for certain things in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that they too can't be abused

Also, (I keep saying also), as poker players, we should be wary of being results oriented. I mean this in that socialism is results oriented. Socialism is like if you took welfarism and made it the most fundamental aspect of the economy. This wouldn't work because it requires resources already in existence. That's where capitalism comes in. Capitalism is what creates more resources, socialism doesn't. I believe in capitalism and welfarism because they provide for sound economic resource construction as well as providing for the welfare of those who need it. But socialism doesn't do this because it doesn't create the resources in the first place. It just assumes that the need for resources will be enough for them to be distributed

hmm i guess i was referring to number 2 on the google definition list of "utilitarian": "relating to or adhering to the doctrine of utilitarianism". of course whether or not that doctrine is worth a pinch of shit is up for debate, but that's what i was referring to, and i think it's one of the more logically-sound groups of ideas if one values co-operation within our species (which seems like it will be necessary for our continued existence in the face of the environmental challenges we face).

i like your points about production and distribution of wealth/resources in capitalist vs socialist economies, that's as succinctly as i've heard that "debate" put, and i agree with your points about the holes in socialist theory/practice. (one more time for clarification, i don't and have never accepted the doctrines of socialism or any of it's children - in that sense i am completely guilty of criticising the food yet bringing nothing to the table. but, you know, if you have a belief the food you're being provided could well be poison.... it's often wise to try to discuss alternatives)

[ISillyDurrrAK]

1. Welcome to Ukraine there are a lot of people who earn that much and don't wanna lynch the government, lol.

And all this crap is coz in 1917 there was a lot of anti-capitalist sentiment.