Should Capitalism be outgrown?

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events, politics and economics.
Bundokji
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Bundokji » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:01 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:44 pm
I think it is not fair to attribute greed to capitalism....it is obviously a characteristic of individuals....and sad to say it is a characteristic of the vast bulk of humanity regardless of any buddhist views about how right or wrong it is.......greed is a factor in virtually every kind of human interaction and will likely remain that way for a very very very very long time.....whatever economic system exists anywhere there will be greedy people actively involved if it is even remotely possible.
chownah
Indeed
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
I don't think what you quoted from Wikipedia is ignorant or dishonest,
So if it's neither ignorant nor dishonest, surely it must be truthful? Do you mean to criticize what is true? Or are you saying one thing and then its opposite to avoid dealing with self-contradiction?

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
but rather, it does not give good reasons why capitalism is bad except the opinion of the people quoted.
Are you trying to say that they do give good reasons, but those are just opinions, so they don't matter? Yet you also say:
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
everything we say here is eventually a matter of "opinion"
So we should not even discuss anything in the first place? Does that not sound contradictory with your involvement in this discussion?

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
The word democracy in a capitalist country has a certain meaning which allows for an unequal distribution of wealth, which would allow the rich to influence politics.
Says who?

Should we rather not go to a dictionary to get the meaning of the word "democracy"?

Disputing this definition of democracy by simply introducing a new definition would be overlooking how everything is connected in the system, or taking one word at a time and comparing what it means in theory with what is happening in practice, and then reaching conclusions that the system is corrupt.
Isn't that the definition of a corrupt system?

I'm going to stop here because I have other things to do, as I just responded to the first few lines of your post and will leave the rest unanswered since it's in the same vein, but the bottom line is I fail to see the logic and the meaning behind these arguments because they appear empty and/or self-contradictory to me.
... in my opinion

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:42 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:44 pm
I think it is not fair to attribute greed to capitalism....it is obviously a characteristic of individuals....and sad to say it is a characteristic of the vast bulk of humanity regardless of any buddhist views about how right or wrong it is
Yet social structures can reward greed or could keep it in check. I disagree with the assumption that since greed is a characteristic of individuals, the social context shouldn't be seen as an important factor in its development. It would be like saying that meeting Clyde wasn't a an important event in Bonnie's life.
... in my opinion

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:17 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:42 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:44 pm
I think it is not fair to attribute greed to capitalism....it is obviously a characteristic of individuals....and sad to say it is a characteristic of the vast bulk of humanity regardless of any buddhist views about how right or wrong it is
Yet social structures can reward greed or could keep it in check. I disagree with the assumption that since greed is a characteristic of individuals, the social context shouldn't be seen as an important factor in its development. It would be like saying that meeting Clyde wasn't a an important event in Bonnie's life.
I don't know what all you include in your idea of "the social context" but the article which kimohara brought before makes an at least somewhat informed statement that:
After the 40-year period, researchers set about determining who were the most successful and what led them to become so. They ran the experiment through the computer several times, to double-check outcomes. Yet, the results could’ve been easily predicted. The computer spit out what’s known as the power law, or the 80:20 rule. A famous concept in economics, the power law says no matter what economy you look at, almost everywhere, 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. What's more, luck was the single greatest determinant in wealth acquisition.
This seems to clearly support the idea that to the extent that 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth can be attributed to greed it seems that economic systems all seem to develop greed to the same extent. If this 80:20 rule is to be accepted then it seems that your idea of "the social context" which is an important factor in greeds development should probably not include economic system as a variable which differentially effects developoment of greed....which seems to lead to the conclusion that capitalism acts pretty much the same as any economic system in fostering greed.
chownah

dxm_dxm
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:37 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by dxm_dxm » Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:57 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:44 pm
I just read that the EPA under obama instituted strict mercury emission standards for air polution and the EPA under trump is instituting lax mercury emission standards for air polution.

What are we to make of this with respect to an evaluation of capitalism?.....are we to think that capitalism drives strict mercury emission standards or are we to think that capitalism drives lax mercury standards? It is the same country and pretty much the same capitalist economic system it seems....Question: what is the difference if it is not the capitalism or the country?...Answer: it is how capitalism is implemented that has changed....it is the level of greed of the INDIVIDUALS involved in implementing capitalism which is the difference.

I think it is not fair to attribute greed to capitalism....it is obviously a characteristic of individuals....and sad to say it is a characteristic of the vast bulk of humanity regardless of any buddhist views about how right or wrong it is.......greed is a factor in virtually every kind of human interaction and will likely remain that way for a very very very very long time.....whatever economic system exists anywhere there will be greedy people actively involved if it is even remotely possible.
chownah
:goodpost:
I see this mistake happening many times on this forum. People notice that humans have this trait called greed, then blame it on capitalism. This is quite funny since capitalism is the system that promotes non-greed and non-corruption - in stark contrast with communism, a system that promotes greed and corruption to such an incredible extent that even the devil would be envious.




Bundokji
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Bundokji » Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:19 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
So if it's neither ignorant nor dishonest, surely it must be truthful? Do you mean to criticize what is true? Or are you saying one thing and then its opposite to avoid dealing with self-contradiction?
Nope. My approach is akin to dependent origination. When there is this, there is that. When this ceases, that ceases.

The system is corrupt when you introduce new criteria (new definitions). I, on the other hand, am not introducing any new definition, but rather, trying to explain how the system is constructed, and how the meanings of certain terms came into being. In other words, my approach is descriptive, while your approach is prescriptive.
fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
Are you trying to say that they do give good reasons, but those are just opinions, so they don't matter? Yet you also say:

everything we say here is eventually a matter of "opinion"

So we should not even discuss anything in the first place? Does that not sound contradictory with your involvement in this discussion?
They give good reasons from their perspective and those who agree with them. More generally, What makes their approach matter or not is the degree to which you find their approach for positive change to be sensible.

Your question "we should not even discuss anything in the first place?" includes a hidden assumption, that to discuss anything, there should not be any opinions, something which i never said. What i am saying is: having an opinion about something does not necessarily make it true. Big difference!

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
Says who?
Do you need a quote (an authority) to evaluate the truth of falsehood of what i said? It could be your approach to studying things evident by you quoting all criticism of capitalism from wikipedia and internet sources instead of analyzing/investigating the system and see how it came into being.

When i said: "The word democracy in a capitalist country has a certain meaning which allows for an unequal distribution of wealth, which would allow the rich to influence politics" i was describing things as i see them without referring to a single "authoritative" source. In a capitalist democracy:

1- They have an unequal distribution of wealth
2- The wealthy have a bigger capacity to influence politics
3- They still call it a democracy

The above appears contradictory only when you introduce an ideal (a definition of democracy that exists only in your imagination) rather than seeing what is taking place. When you look at what is taking place, you would see that democracy, within that system has a special meaning that do not exist in vacuum or isolation from everything else.

So, there can be two ways of dealing with contradictions:

1- The idealist way, which causes the contradiction by failing to see how the original meaning came into being and introducing new meanings which would eventually lead to more contradictions.
2- By letting go of ideals and seeing how things came into being.
fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
Should we rather not go to a dictionary to get the meaning of the word "democracy"?
That would be useful if we both agree on the definition provided by the dictionary. This is why a reference point is needed in the interactions between human beings who are assumed to be independent/free agents, and who are at the same time, conditioned differently. A reference point or a judge will be needed as a "dispute resolution mechanism" :quote:

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
I'm going to stop here because I have other things to do, as I just responded to the first few lines of your post and will leave the rest unanswered since it's in the same vein, but the bottom line is I fail to see the logic and the meaning behind these arguments because they appear empty and/or self-contradictory to me.
In my view, what i introduced is logical and meaningful, and far from being self contradictory. Instead, it does not recognize a self/meaning that exists in isolation from its conditions. It definitely defies dogma.
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:59 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:19 pm
fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:35 pm
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
I don't think what you quoted from Wikipedia is ignorant or dishonest,
So if it's neither ignorant nor dishonest, surely it must be truthful? Do you mean to criticize what is true? Or are you saying one thing and then its opposite to avoid dealing with self-contradiction?
Nope. My approach is akin to dependent origination. When there is this, there is that. When this ceases, that ceases.
So indeed, you are criticizing those approaches in an effort to dismiss them but you claim at the same time they are neither ignorant nor dishonest and then bring up dependent origination as justification for all this mental gymnastics?

:rolleye:

Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
I, on the other hand, am not introducing any new definition, but rather, trying to explain how the system is constructed, and how the meanings of certain terms came into being.
Also Bundokji, a few lines further:
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:55 pm
When i said: "The word democracy in a capitalist country has a certain meaning which allows for an unequal distribution of wealth, which would allow the rich to influence politics" i was describing things as i see them without referring to a single "authoritative" source. In a capitalist democracy:
"I am not introducing any new definition of the word democracy, but I describe the meaning of the word democracy as I see it without referring to a single "authoritative" source."

:rolleye:

Or how to hijack a term while reproaching others of trying to hijack it, and refusing to take the dictionary definition for reference.

It's time we agree to disagree. I have seen enough nonsense, I will not follow up on this conversation.
... in my opinion

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:22 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:17 pm
After the 40-year period, researchers set about determining who were the most successful and what led them to become so. They ran the experiment through the computer several times, to double-check outcomes. Yet, the results could’ve been easily predicted. The computer spit out what’s known as the power law, or the 80:20 rule. A famous concept in economics, the power law says no matter what economy you look at, almost everywhere, 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. What's more, luck was the single greatest determinant in wealth acquisition.
This seems to clearly support the idea that to the extent that 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth can be attributed to greed it seems that economic systems all seem to develop greed to the same extent. If this 80:20 rule is to be accepted then it seems that your idea of "the social context" which is an important factor in greeds development should probably not include economic system as a variable which differentially effects developoment of greed....which seems to lead to the conclusion that capitalism acts pretty much the same as any economic system in fostering greed.
chownah
You take the quote out of context and then you propose inductive overarching conclusions about greed and capitalism by treating a simulation as if it were reality itself and thus making conclusions that vastly escape the scope of validity of said simulation.

The "experiment" was a computer *simulation* designed to model human behavior and try to see if people get rich primarily through *talent or luck*. It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. What the authors want to say is that justifying wealth acquisition on talent is a misrepresentation of the reality.
... in my opinion

Bundokji
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Bundokji » Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:25 pm

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:59 pm
So indeed, you are criticizing those approaches in an effort to dismiss them but you claim at the same time they are neither ignorant nor dishonest and then bring up dependent origination as justification for all this mental gymnastics?
I am not in a position to call people ignorant for simply using a criteria or approach to the truth that is different than mine, nor i can call them dishonest without having access to their intentions.

If you dismiss people who you disagree with as either ignorant or dishonest, then this is your problem, not mine!
Or how to hijack a term while reproaching others of trying to hijack it, and refusing to take the dictionary definition for reference.
Or if you think more deeply, you would see that i am trying to understand the word "democracy" as it is used by capitalists themselves, suspending my own judgements, giving them the benefit of the doubt (as i did with the people you quoted which i refused to call them ignorant or dishonest) and try to infer how they interpret democracy. You, on the other hand, maybe out of fear of them hijacking what the word democracy means, introduced new definitions to hijack a word you think of as being hijacked, thinking of this as a solution to an imaginary problem :popcorn:
It's time we agree to disagree. I have seen enough nonsense, I will not follow up on this conversation.
That is fine. Take care :thanks: :heart:
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

Dan74
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dan74 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:04 am

The example with mercury is salient as it shows that without proper controls, without the essential checks and balances, Capitalism in the modern world leads to destruction of the environment as well as erosion of worker's rights, etc. It seems to be a case of wilful blindness given the examples of many recent 'Capitalist' economies with minimal controls to suppose that it self-regulates to a good outcome. Whether China's pollution or New Zealand mouldy houses, removing regulation inevitably leads to disaster.

So then the question remains whether these excesses can be reigned in with proper regulation. People often turn to Scandinavia as an example of successful Capitalism. What do you folks think?

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:58 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:04 am
The example with mercury is salient as it shows that without proper controls, without the essential checks and balances, Capitalism in the modern world leads to destruction of the environment as well as erosion of worker's rights, etc. It seems to be a case of wilful blindness given the examples of many recent 'Capitalist' economies with minimal controls to suppose that it self-regulates to a good outcome. Whether China's pollution or New Zealand mouldy houses, removing regulation inevitably leads to disaster.

So then the question remains whether these excesses can be reigned in with proper regulation. People often turn to Scandinavia as an example of successful Capitalism. What do you folks think?
Capitalism does not "lead"...people "lead". Did capitalism "lead" to stricter standards or did it "lead" to laxer standards?....the answer is that it did not lead...people did the leading.

This is important because if we point at the system as the culprit will might miss that factor which is really the cause of the problem namely it is the leaders who lead to the problem....it is how the economic system is made to function by the people who have the power to determine how it functions....it is the same in capitalism and communism and in every governmental/economic system.

Personally I think that worker managed businesses are a much more effective way to solve these problems than blaming any governmental/economic system.....but you know there are and will be worker managed businesses which are run by greed and which are not sensitive to people's needs and the environment.....

I think that capitalism in and of itself is value neutral...it is what people do with respect to it which makes the difference.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:09 am

fwiw wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:22 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:17 pm
After the 40-year period, researchers set about determining who were the most successful and what led them to become so. They ran the experiment through the computer several times, to double-check outcomes. Yet, the results could’ve been easily predicted. The computer spit out what’s known as the power law, or the 80:20 rule. A famous concept in economics, the power law says no matter what economy you look at, almost everywhere, 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth. What's more, luck was the single greatest determinant in wealth acquisition.
This seems to clearly support the idea that to the extent that 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth can be attributed to greed it seems that economic systems all seem to develop greed to the same extent. If this 80:20 rule is to be accepted then it seems that your idea of "the social context" which is an important factor in greeds development should probably not include economic system as a variable which differentially effects developoment of greed....which seems to lead to the conclusion that capitalism acts pretty much the same as any economic system in fostering greed.
chownah
You take the quote out of context and then you propose inductive overarching conclusions about greed and capitalism by treating a simulation as if it were reality itself and thus making conclusions that vastly escape the scope of validity of said simulation.

The "experiment" was a computer *simulation* designed to model human behavior and try to see if people get rich primarily through *talent or luck*. It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. What the authors want to say is that justifying wealth acquisition on talent is a misrepresentation of the reality.
You are arguing about the arguement....you are not arguing about the issue. You are short on facts in that you claim that capitalism is the cause of outcomes but you have not brought any facts to support your claims.

The 80:20 rule is an attempt to bring some kind of factual basis into the discussion. This "rule" does not come from the "experiment" discussed in the article but is something which has been around and widely studied since at least 1896. Here is a reference which is a good STARTING point for learning about it and other related issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Check out the other terms which are at the bottom of the article and the links to other articles explaining and discussing them.

If you have some factual information you think will help in understanding this/these issues please bring it on and we can examine it and discuss it.
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:23 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:04 am
The example with mercury is salient as it shows that without proper controls, without the essential checks and balances, Capitalism in the modern world leads to destruction of the environment as well as erosion of worker's rights, etc. It seems to be a case of wilful blindness given the examples of many recent 'Capitalist' economies with minimal controls to suppose that it self-regulates to a good outcome. Whether China's pollution or New Zealand mouldy houses, removing regulation inevitably leads to disaster.
You're blaming capitalism for something I think is not at all specific to capitalism but is much more usefully - and accurately - blamed on greed and short-sightedness.
Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:04 am
Whether China's pollution or New Zealand mouldy houses, removing regulation inevitably leads to disaster.
This is the perfect example to prove my point. China is communist.
Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:04 am
So then the question remains whether these excesses can be reigned in with proper regulation. People often turn to Scandinavia as an example of successful Capitalism. What do you folks think?
I think Scandinavia provides the best model for what we should be working towards, i.e., a basically-capitalist democratic society with strong public services in health, education, pensions, unemployment, etc. Some people might call them "socialism" and I wouldn't care if they did, but it's worth noting that this sort of social safety net has been introduced and strengthened in the US, the UK and and Australia by decidedly non-Socialist governments at various times in the past. The New Deal is the most obvious example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal.
Sadly, these controls and supports have always been eroded by later (mostly further-Right) governments.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:14 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:09 am
You are arguing about the arguement....
Yes. That's exactly what happens in a debate, and what you keep doing yourself all the time on this forum. :smile:
you are not arguing about the issue.
Yes I am, since I just destroyed your completely invalid argument about the issue.

You are short on facts in that you claim that capitalism is the cause of outcomes but you have not brought any facts to support your claims
Have you even read my quote of Adam Smith that shows clearly that according to the godfather of capitalism, people should be motivated not by benevolence but by "their own interest"?

The 80:20 rule is an attempt to bring some kind of factual basis into the discussion. This "rule" does not come from the "experiment" discussed in the article but is something which has been around and widely studied since at least 1896. Here is a reference which is a good STARTING point for learning about it and other related issues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Check out the other terms which are at the bottom of the article and the links to other articles explaining and discussing them.
I am a scientist, I know the 80:20 rule, thank you. But you, on the other hand, don't seem to understand that the 80:20 rule, being an empiric, inductive, ad-hoc law, is not universal and not scientific. It's just that the researchers in the study were proud that their computer model led to a 80:20 situation, which gave it an air of credibility, but it doesn't prove anything per se. This is why you can't use the Pareto principle like you could use a fundamental law of the universe that would be valid in all situations, since it may be disproved any minute in any particular situation.

If you want to see your argument about the Pareto principle being scientifically annihilated, you can check here (despite a conclusion that claims more or less the opposite) or here.
For the Forbes list in 2012, we found that 20% of the richest people own 56.72% of the money. For the world Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in 2011, 20% of the richest countries in the world have 91.62% of the total amount of money.
It is often suggested that the “80-20 result” itself is typical of actual distributions of income or wealth in various populations. That is not
necessarily so.
Can we discuss real issues now? I will not continue discussing the Pareto principle, as it has been demonstrated to be completely off-topic. Thank you
Last edited by fwiw on Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
... in my opinion

Dan74
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dan74 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:45 am

Thanks, folks for responding.

How is China Communist, Kim? Communism means everything is state-owned, there is no money, etc. It has private ownership of the means of production and exchange of money for goods and services, i.e. Capitalism.

Chownah, guns are also value-neutral, they are a lump of metal arranged in certain way and can be used for shooting bottle flung in the air, but given human character, they are generally used to kill. Likewise, I said "Capitalism in the modern world.. leads" and one has to be pretty obstinate to deny that in the absence of regulation, we have abuse of workers' rights and the environment. In the similar way it can be said that easy availability of semiautomatic weapons leads to innocent deaths. Argue about causation all you wish, yes, humans are necessary to pull the trigger, yes, unscrupulous greed is necessary for abuse, so if you wish, Capitalism provides the incentive, seeing that it is concerned with preservation and growth of companies and profits.

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by fwiw » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:48 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:23 am
Sadly, these controls and supports have always been eroded by later (mostly further-Right) governments.
... governments corrupted by super-wealthy capitalists. Some people see this very fact as evidence that unless we improve the economic system, this will always happen, and it's not like we have all the time in the world to solve the excesses of the super-wealthy heads of capitalism these days.

One of the core problems of capitalism is that it celebrates and gives power to sociopaths. Look at how rich and adulated Steve Jobs was, while we know he was using child labor to get that rich. A system that is motivated by profit over benevolence will necessarily lead to such outcomes.
... in my opinion

Dan74
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dan74 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:08 am

Chownah, certainly worker-owned and managed businesses is an interesting model. https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-emp ... ip-working

Kim, Scandinavia is basically a neo-liberal capitalist system with a large social net. There is fairly marginal public owndership which operates in essentially a free-market environment with some protections, but the classical worker-to-capital relationship still holds, as far as I understand it. I do wonder whether the fundamental issues with Capitalism are still present there, or have they been resolved?

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:16 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:45 am
Chownah, guns are also value-neutral, they are a lump of metal arranged in certain way and can be used for shooting bottle flung in the air, but given human character, they are generally used to kill. Likewise, I said "Capitalism in the modern world.. leads" and one has to be pretty obstinate to deny that in the absence of regulation, we have abuse of workers' rights and the environment. In the similar way it can be said that easy availability of semiautomatic weapons leads to innocent deaths. Argue about causation all you wish, yes, humans are necessary to pull the trigger, yes, unscrupulous greed is necessary for abuse, so if you wish, Capitalism provides the incentive, seeing that it is concerned with preservation and growth of companies and profits.
In any real world situation there is never an "absence of regulation".....there is always regulation and not only with capitalism.....there is always regulation with any governmental/economic system. That is the crux of the matter....it is how capitalism is regulated that matters just like it is how communism is regulated and how a monarchy is regulated.

Can you find some governmental/economic system which has no regulations so that your "in the absence of regulation" idea can have some meaning in the real world?

Capitalism has to be implemented....it is not a natural process which arises on its own from nature...it only arises from human endeavor....that is to say it must be implemented by humans.....its implementation depends on who implements it and if greedy people are allowed to implement it you get for example trump.

chownah

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:37 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:08 am
Chownah, certainly worker-owned and managed businesses is an interesting model. https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-emp ... ip-working
You say it is an interesting model....my question is: Model for what? It certainly not a model for a governmental/economic system as far as I can tell. I guess it could be a business model but if so then we should remember that it would have to reside in some kind of governmental/economic system. Would there be much difference whether it was residing in a capitalist system or a communist system or any other sort of system?.....probably not.

I have been a worker/owner/manager at a worker-owned and managed business and while it is great when this sort of thing happens it is a very delicate sort of endeavor in that there is still the struggle among individuals and groups of individuals about what is the best way forward and alot of those struggles are around issues as seen by people with different levels of greed and sensitivities to social ideals. Benevalent people like you and me don't always win.

I don't think that the problems which are often associated with capitalism (in this forum for example) would necessarily disappear with worker owned and managed businesses....it would depend on the workers and their own levels of greed and their sensitivity to social issues etc.

chownah

Dan74
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Should Capitalism be outgrown?

Post by Dan74 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:49 am

chownah, regarding your first post, there are clearly varying levels of regulation. For instance, in NZ, building industry used to have to conform to strict guidelines. Then a government relaxed them, saying that the industry would self-regulate more efficiently, then after a disaster ensued (uninhabitable mould-infested houses), regulation was brought back in.

Many environmental examples about from around the world. The point they make is clear - in the absence of regulation, capitalist enterprises tend to disregard wider social and environmental concerns in favour of short-term gain.

Regarding, your second post, yes, I'd expect so. Yet, it seems worth it. And if so, then governments can of course support and encourage this model.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests