an interesting article discussing the relationship between capitalism and democracy

http://handgranat.org/C_Is_For_Capitalism

4/2/2006 11:00:41 PM

Quote :

"and that's good enough for me!"

4/2/2006 11:01:04 PM

wow

what do they put into the water in asheville anyway?

i mean seriously, you move to commie central, and then you start acting like a commie

you do see this, right?

4/2/2006 11:16:01 PM

Quote :

"Don't be paralyzed by the seeming vastness of the forces arranged against us — those work forces are made up of people just like you, yearning to break free. Find ways to escape from the violence in your own life, and take them with you when you can."

There is no spoon.

4/2/2006 11:23:07 PM

commie? try something thats very anti-state.

crimethinc is primarily an anarchist info source

4/2/2006 11:50:22 PM

Anarchist? Well in that case viva la revolution.

http://ncst.facebook.com/group_profile.php?gid=9569

4/2/2006 11:59:29 PM

Our capitalist system may not be perfect. It may not allow everybody to hold their dream jobs. It is an unfortunate reality that most of the resources will end up in the hands of a few while the many have to resign themselves to the bottom of the pyramid. However, I don't think that the situation is as dire and hopeless for those at the bottom as is painted in this essay. And anyway, the solution it proposes is no better; in fact, it is worse in some respects. I hope I don't have to point out the reasons that it would be worse, much less why it wouldn't be feasible at all.

Actually, I'll say this much about why it wouldn't work. It sounds to me that, in the "gift economy" that is described, you are dependent upon the charity of others. You can be an artist or a mechanic or whatever you actually want to do with your life, but you are dependent upon others for your food and shelter. Well the problem right then and there is that there would be no incentive for you to do anything at all. Assuming that all your basic needs would be taken care of, what reason do you have to contribute anything to society? What incentive is there to give back? The major flaw with the proposed solution would be that there would be massive dead weight. Of course you'll have the exceptions, who genuinely do want to feed and house others, but there would be rampant numbers of people who would simply take advantage of that hospitality.

4/3/2006 12:25:06 AM

do you realize how horribly inefficient such a system would be?

It would be worse than a gov't command economy, which is itself a cumbersome mess compared to a free market.


and that doesn't even get into the problems of how to make such a utopian dream work in practice (their example of the garbage at your house getting taken out voluntarily doesn't quell my concerns)


furthermore,

Quote :

"We're often told it is »human nature« to be greedy, and that this is why our world is the way it is."

sure, but if you are one of the supporters of this plan who has reached an enlightened state without greed, then you should be ok with capitalism. after all, capitalism is totally "democratic"--you can do whatever you want, pretty much. You just can't get paid anything other than the going rate to do whatever you want...but since you're greed-free, that doesn't matter, does it?


and Snewf, aren't you a registered Libertarian? I don't see how--you are (and I don't say that just b/c of this thread) nothing even remotely approximating any sort of Libertarian, other than the fact that you are a social liberal.

4/3/2006 12:46:59 AM

Quote :

"Democracy is, essentially, the idea that people should have control over their lives,"

Well, the idea that the lottery should control your life. Either you are part of the majority, in which what you want is implemented, or you are in the minority, in which what you want/say has no effect whatsoever. At least in a free system you have some say over your life (I refuse to work at McDonalds, I'll take half-pay or starve just to work at Wal-Mart). In a Democracy, if the majority wants you to work at McDonalds, doing otherwise will land you in prison.

And yes, a "Gift Economy" is the most clever system I have ever heard of.

Quote :

"Those who wanted to paint could paint, those who enjoy building engines and machines could do that, those who love bicycles could make and repair them for others."

True, but I must point out, farming is a tough job. Mining is a nightmare for most people. While I have no doubt that someone will step forward to fix cars, bake bread, design machines, there is no mechanism in a "Gift Economy" to direct labor towards what people need most. Maybe everyone got it into their head that we need farmers, so to save lives people that would rather paint go ahead and farm anyway, but there is no one making sure everything we need is taken care off. While I'm sure local issues are visible enough to encourage self-sacrifice, what is to stop a midwestern mine from becoming a ghost town (Mining coal underground is hard work, even for 15 minutes). Net effect, no coal, thus no steel, thus no spare parts to fix stuff.

Something needs to replace the role played by entrepreneurs in a free society, which direct labor where it is needed most by bidding up wages in those sectors. This is why the average coal-shaft miner gets paid as much as three times the average wage. Government can do it, true democracies are eager to sacrifice the few to the pitts in order to gain spare parts for the many. But the only avenue open in a Gift Economy is to guilt people into doing it, such as taking out the trash in an apartment. But mining not only involves doing hard-dangerous work, which we might collectively share (we each mine 1 day out of the year), but you must live near the mine, which will someday require someone to abandon their home and move to the mine and begin the hard labor. But in a society of 300 million, who should go? We all can't go, we all can't share, some among us must suffer, I think they should be compensated for it.

4/3/2006 1:22:23 AM

Quote :

"we all can't share, some among us must suffer, I think they should be compensated for it."

Unfortunately this doesn't really work out that way in a capitalist system. The highest paid jobs are never the toughest ones, and the toughest ones are never that highly paid. This happens due to the power business has over labor given to it by the system itself. Most often it takes labor unions and radical action for workers to exert any voice in the business. The business is bigger, and as such it has an unfair amount of power compared to the individual worker.

4/3/2006 1:30:55 AM

the capitalism of adam smith is not the capitalism of america just as the communism of marx was not the communism of the soviet union.
reality is sticky.

4/3/2006 2:04:02 AM

The difference between both of those is that the systems had to be adapted for the time.

4/3/2006 3:24:27 AM

Quote :

"what do they put into the water in asheville anyway?"

i grew up there

[Edited on April 3, 2006 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2006 10:00:48 AM

The difference between those two is that Capitalism (in just about any form) works. Communism in any more will never work.

4/3/2006 10:04:01 AM

Quote :

"The highest paid jobs are never the toughest ones, and the toughest ones are never that highly paid."

If that were the case, which it is not according to my limited experience, then the people stuck with the tough jobs should quit and get an easier job. But I guess I did over-simplify it a bit. "People are paid in proportion to how difficult it is to get people to do the job."

So, deep-pit mining in PA is hard dangerous work, so people move away for anything less than thrice competing wages. There are not enough truck drivers in Alberta, although the work is easy and safe, so they fetch over six figure salaries. There are people who dream of teaching when the grow up, so teachers are relatively easy to get at even the lowest salaries, so they fetch paltry wages.

4/3/2006 10:21:20 AM

Quote :

"The difference between those two is that Capitalism (in just about any form) works."

Depends on what your specification for "works" is. True capitalis works during the short periods in which it is between huge oscillations from skyrocketing inflation to pennieless depression. So capitalism works less than a 1/3 of the time.

I doubt you really know anything about communism, so it's tough to judge if it works.

Quote :

"If that were the case, which it is not according to my limited experience"

It is to my limited experience, but that is anecdotal evidence and rather unrelated to this conversation.

Quote :

"then the people stuck with the tough jobs should quit and get an easier job"

They are generally stuck between that job and starving, so that's not much of an option.

Quote :

"People are paid in proportion to how difficult it is to get people to do the job."

That doesn't really cover it either. I'd pose for a camera if you gave me a professional model's salary. I'd sit at a desk and goof off and go play golf with other CEO's if you gave me that kind of salary.

People are paid moreso by the power they have over others in their job. The more power they have, the more money they make.

Quote :

"So, deep-pit mining in PA is hard dangerous work, so people move away for anything less than thrice competing wages."

Some of these people don't have the means to move away and buy a new house.

4/3/2006 10:41:18 AM

Quote :

"and Snewf, aren't you a registered Libertarian? I don't see how--you are (and I don't say that just b/c of this thread) nothing even remotely approximating any sort of Libertarian, other than the fact that you are a social liberal."

these days I'm being pragmatic

fixed ideology is dangerous

4/3/2006 10:54:56 AM

sure, i totally agree

but I don't call myself, let's say, a Communist.

4/3/2006 1:00:10 PM

no idealogy is really fixed, they pretty much all change in one way or another over time

it's more of an identifier than anything else.

4/3/2006 1:04:43 PM

Quote :

"Some of these people don't have the means to move away and buy a new house."

You neglected to point out why, if in fact these people are stuck mining coal deep underground, why companies bother paying them so gosh darn much? If they in fact can't do anything else, why do they fetch the highest wages in their county?

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncar0002.pdf
According to this info, miners, on average, receive $21.61 an hour, and that average includes open-pit miners which are nothing more than glorified truck drivers, dragging down the average. Add in the fact that they tend to live in areas with a low cost of living, and they can save up tons of money without trying that hard. Easily enough to move away if they so chose.

As for your comment about managers, my statement still fits. It's hard to find good help these days, and 9 out of 10 managers are incompetent, so if you find a good one pay whatever they ask for.

4/3/2006 3:11:52 PM

Quote :

"You neglected to point out why, if in fact these people are stuck mining coal deep underground, why companies bother paying them so gosh darn much?"

You neglected to notice that one example doesn't prove your broad statement when there are thousands of counterexamples. The fact is that their boss has it much easier, and makes much less money. I'd bet any one of them would be more than willing and able to do his job.

Quote :

"According to this info, miners, on average, receive $21.61 an hour, and that average includes open-pit miners which are nothing more than glorified truck drivers, dragging down the average."

And how much does their boss make?

Quote :

"It's hard to find good help these days, and 9 out of 10 managers are incompetent, so if you find a good one pay whatever they ask for."

I'd bet most of those coal miners could do that job. And I'd also bet a good number of people would be willing to do that job. This completely invalidates your claim.

4/3/2006 4:49:47 PM

Quote :

"I'd bet most of those coal miners could do that job. And I'd also bet a good number of people would be willing to do that job. This completely invalidates your claim."

Irrefutably.

4/3/2006 5:13:24 PM

so you think a substantial number of people would rather not be promoted and make less money for longer hours doing harder work?

My logic stands, you can argue agianst my semantics all you want.

4/3/2006 5:51:38 PM

well doesnt the problem come from people thinking they deserve more than others/think they work harder etc. is that even something that can be erradicted from human nature?

4/3/2006 6:01:28 PM

Quote :

"well doesnt the problem come from people thinking they deserve more than others/think they work harder etc. is that even something that can be erradicted from human nature?"

You think self-righteousness is a part of human nature? Humans have no nature, that's what seperates us from animals. Animals have nature, they do not have the same complex learning system that we have. Everything we do is learned. People learn that behavior from their environment. If society didn't condition that kind of behavior it wouldn't exist.

4/3/2006 6:04:31 PM

Quote :

"Everything we do is learned."

yeah, cause you know, I "learned" that I want to fuck

and I "learned" that I want to be accepted

and I "learned" that I don't want to starve

pfft

4/3/2006 6:28:35 PM

Sex is an interesting issue. While you obviously have no control over when you get an erection, I find it strange some of the things we have conditioned ourselves to associate with intercourse. Female mammary glands have no real purpose in regards to actual intercourse, yet men love to see a nice rack. Some of the strange fetishes blur the line even further. Surely some men are not naturally aroused by mayonaise covered midgets riding a goat, yet it seems strange things like this have arisen. Granted that is an extreme example, but there are many more common ones, boobs, ass, S&M, etc.

As for starvation, how do you explain anorexia and bulimia if you claim they are uneffected by learning?

Social acceptance is a very complex issue that is far from innate.

4/3/2006 6:51:45 PM

"well doesnt the problem come from people thinking they deserve more than others/think they work harder etc"

The lion who does the kill gets to eat first and as much as it wants before giving any away to other lion scroungers or vultures or maggots. I'm not so sure humans are all that different from animals. We are the height of animals, not something that is different from them. We have the most flexibility I suppose to act artificially different than animal behaviors. But proportional ability/effort to award ratios makes sense to me.

4/3/2006 6:53:07 PM

We're better than animals. It would take evolution several generations to make a change that responds to an environmental change. Humans can make that change in a second. We have trancended evolution. We no longer need it. That's what makes us better than animals. Now all we need to do is trancend the primitive competition that drags our society down.

4/3/2006 7:07:25 PM

Quote :

"so you think a substantial number of people would rather not be promoted and make less money for longer hours doing harder work? My logic stands, you can argue agianst my semantics all you want. "

i'm arguing that it seems pretty baseless at best (and ridiculous at worst) to claim that most coal miners could perform as managers.

that's like saying that Mike Tyson would be a great boxing coach.

4/3/2006 7:18:44 PM

“We're better than animals.”

According to the history of science professor I had, almost every disease we’ve cured wasn’t until after it was already on the decline and would have gone out anyways. But on the whole it seems like humans are getting taller (except I think I heard about something maybe in some jungle areas where shorter is more of an advantage with the environment in South America or Africa?), living longer, the level of skin pigment we produce is based on where we live on an evolutionary scale and other changes that suggest evolution is still helping us out. Sure animals might be more predictable and slower to change, but we too have some psychology and patterns. We are the top of the hierarchy/food chain right now. My point is that we are better in that we are higher on the same scale than others, not that we are fundamentally different or belong on an entirely unrelated scale.

I guess I need to see more argumentation for why we are transcendent before I’d buy that you can condition people to be happy with have disproportional effort/ability to reward ratios. I’m sure people could learn to live with such a situation, especially if there was force involved to make them, but would the ones with the extra ability and effort really be happy with the situation?

"those work forces are made up of people just like you, yearning to break free"

Remember I'm yearning to break free. So respond nicely and build your argument, don't attack mine or you'll just drive me into the "vastness of the forces arranged against us."

4/3/2006 7:23:27 PM

No, it's like saying that Dan Marino would be a good sports announcer. Anyone who has done a job for a year could tell other people how to do it. Mid level management is not a complex feild. Its the kind of job a communications major gets.

4/3/2006 7:25:40 PM

Quote :

"According to the history of science professor I had, almost every disease we’ve cured wasn’t until after it was already on the decline and would have gone out anyways."

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote :

"But on the whole it seems like humans are getting taller (except I think I heard about something maybe in some jungle areas where shorter is more of an advantage with the environment in South America or Africa?), living longer, the level of skin pigment we produce is based on where we live on an evolutionary scale and other changes that suggest evolution is still helping us out."

We don't much need skin pigment anymore. We have shelter, people have built little boxes just to manufacture sunlight. And as for us getting taller, how does that help us? I don't deny evolution still exists, but does it help us? Not really.

Quote :

"I guess I need to see more argumentation for why we are transcendent before I’d buy that you can condition people to be happy with have disproportional effort/ability to reward ratios. I’m sure people could learn to live with such a situation, especially if there was force involved to make them, but would the ones with the extra ability and effort really be happy with the situation?"

I've gone into it on a few other threads, it's a lengthy explaination, basically the idea is the reversal of the prisoner's delimma.

4/3/2006 7:29:45 PM

"What does that have to do with anything?"

"My point is that we are better in that we are higher on the same scale than others, not that we are fundamentally different or belong on an entirely unrelated scale. "

We might not be as transcendent as you'd like to think.

"No, it's like saying that Dan Marino would be a good sports announcer"

Someone with special insight into sports might actually make a good announcer, especially one who has the ability to draw in more crowds of listeners. That’s why I always made sure to pair ability and effort. Sure any communications major can put in the same effort (except for the actually playing the sport to get the insight), but they still don't have the ability to draw crowds.

4/3/2006 7:35:10 PM

Quote :

"As for starvation, how do you explain anorexia and bulimia if you claim they are uneffected by learning? "

Affected by learning != learned

4/3/2006 7:54:14 PM

Quote :

"My point is that we are better in that we are higher on the same scale than others, not that we are fundamentally different or belong on an entirely unrelated scale."

Obviously we're all life, you could put us on the same scale as trees if you wanted to, that doesn't make humans start growing roots.

Quote :

"We might not be as transcendent as you'd like to think."

We are. Think about how long it would take an animal to evolve to learn how to operate a car, it would be an eternity. A human can learn it in a few hours.

Quote :

"Someone with special insight into sports might actually make a good announcer, especially one who has the ability to draw in more crowds of listeners."

I know he would, which is exactly my point, a coal miner would have the same kind of insight and it's not as if a manager takes some kind of ability he doesn't have, just like the sports announcer doesn't take any ability Dan Marino doesn't already have.

4/3/2006 8:54:22 PM

Quote :

"Think about how long it would take an animal to evolve to learn how to operate a car, it would be an eternity"

Well, the brain from a mouse learned to fly a jet [simulator].
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm

4/3/2006 9:43:29 PM

"Think about how long it would take an animal to evolve to learn how to operate a car"

I'm not sure thats fair. Cars were designed with humans in mind. Birds learned how to fly thousands of years faster than we did.

4/3/2006 9:51:12 PM

more like millions of years.

4/4/2006 1:24:40 AM

Quote :

"Well, the brain from a mouse learned to fly a jet [simulator]."

They used the mouse brain as seperate electronics simply because it's so simple. You know that has nothing to do with evolution, nor anything in this entire conversation.

Quote :

"I'm not sure thats fair. Cars were designed with humans in mind."

It is, but it's kind of tough to pick out examples then. I was illustrating a point moreso than providing a literally accurate comparison.

Quote :

"Birds learned how to fly thousands of years faster than we did."

The fuck they did. It took them billions of years, it took us a few thousand.

4/4/2006 1:31:04 AM

^ Not all of that was entirely serious.

But yes, you give humans WAY too much credit. And your ideas of re-programming humans to better be what you want them to be is both fool-hardy and going to fail.

And any political-economic system which depends upon re-programming the whole population is not a "system" at all. You want to train everyone into living a fantasy. Even if they don't get it immediately, they will, and your "system" is doomed. They must leave the programming center eventually. Unless, of course, you set a new rule: "act as if you have accepted the programming or we kill you."

4/4/2006 10:31:07 AM

^ if we're already trained to live one "fantasy" what difference is it if we choose to advocate another?

hell, placing oneself in opposition to a system is often the best way to measure its strengths and weaknesses

4/4/2006 3:23:53 PM

In a free society, we are all free to choose our own fantasy. I believe people are very good at brainwashing themselves, my objection is the idea that Kris can brainwash everyone into believing HIS fantasy, which I don't think will hold without punishments such as death and gulags.

4/4/2006 3:36:07 PM

Quote :

"You want to train everyone into living a fantasy."

No a fantasy is beliving in things like "free-will" and "choice".

Quote :

"Even if they don't get it immediately, they will, and your "system" is doomed."

If the system works, then it will continue indefinately. That's the nature of this system is that it is a self sustaining cycle. To say it will eventually break is like me saying "eventually I will drop this rock, and it will not fall to the floor".

To be honest, I don't really know if my system would work at all, how could I? I know that, and I know that times will change, and the system neccesary may be improved or otherwise changed. My point is not to lay down a concrete system and advocate it, you people have requested I do such, so I've tried to give you some idea of what would be required, I just advocate people waking up to reality and view the world around them as the place it really is: A cold dark physical world were nothing unexplainable happens. This way people would stop forsaking progress for free will, as progress most definately does exist, and free will doesn't.

Quote :

"In a free society, we are all free to choose our own fantasy."

The point is that "you" don't do any of the choosing. Your environment does. "You" aren't free to do anything. You will always be chained to knowledge. In fact, "you" don't even exist, your free will is an illusion created out of a great deal of complexity.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/4/2006 5:55:36 PM

Right, but even assuming you are right, what choice do we have but to act as if we had free-will? We are not currently able to foretell everyones decisions. At best, we can say with hind-sight why the decision was made such as it was.

As such, your system is destined to fail because you don't know how to program everyone, because you don't know what circumstaces would trigger the individual to actually accept the programming in leu of pretending they did.

Someday the technology may exist, but right now it damn sure does not.

Secondly, what difference does it make? Just because I was always going to make a given decision given these circumstances, why does that make me any less deserving of punishment or reward?

Punishments and rewards are part of the circumstances which determined my decision, changing or removing them would change the result.

So, until we have the technology to render rewards and punishments obsolete we have no choice but to continue issuing them given in a results based way. Death for murderers, billions of dollars for building google.

4/4/2006 6:21:03 PM

Quote :

"We are not currently able to foretell everyones decisions."

We don't need to be able to do that, even in an elaborate system such as I've described before. We simply need to tell what they will do given a certain situation. And even with that we can test before.

I don't need to know why or what it was that caused you to make a specific decision. I just need to know which you'll make given a certain situation.

Quote :

"As such, your system is destined to fail because you don't know how to program everyone"

I've never claimed I could. In fact, I've VERY SPECIFICIALLY claimed several times that such a system would fail if immaturely implemented.

Quote :

"Secondly, what difference does it make?"

It effects policy. Let's say gambling as an example. Person 'A' says "People should be able to gamble because can be responsible for their own decisions". Person 'B' says "Given the option to gamble, many of our citizens will become addicted and less productive." It's that kind of difference in opinion. But specifically for you, it invalidates the entire concept behind your liberitarian philosophy, that being individualism, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice.

Quote :

"Just because I was always going to make a given decision given these circumstances, why does that make me any less deserving of punishment or reward?"

Because punishement and reward should be given in a way in which best influences productivity. This is not neccesarily the same way as the responsibility may fall. One takes into account how it could effect their environment and further progress, the other lacks any forsight whatsoever.

Quote :

"Punishments and rewards are part of the circumstances which determined my decision, changing or removing them would change the result."

They do, and many times the punishments and rewards do not fall naturally into the most productive place, that is why we collectively must change this so they do. For example, most social environments reward competition and punish cooperation, this is due to the prisoner's delimma. Competition obviously isn't as productive as cooperation, and as such, we should artifically reward cooperation and punish competition.

Quote :

"until we have the technology to render rewards and punishments obsolete"

First off, I'm not entirely sure if that technology would even be logically possible, but assuming it is, it would take away our ability to learn.

4/4/2006 6:49:48 PM

Quote :

"Because punishement and reward should be given in a way in which best influences productivity. This is not neccesarily the same way as the responsibility may fall. One takes into account how it could effect their environment and further progress, the other lacks any forsight whatsoever. "

But if we are all mere machines with all outcomes predetermined based on environmental variables and have been such since the begining of time then isn't the issuance of a punishment or reward regardless of how it affects productivity (a concept arbitrarily defined by machines predestined to define it in that way) always predetermined given the environmental variables at work? Without free will how can we choose to give rewards or punishments in any way other than that which we are programed?

4/4/2006 6:54:36 PM

Quote :

"But if we are all mere machines with all outcomes predetermined based on environmental variables and have been such since the begining of time then isn't the issuance of a punishment or reward regardless of how it affects productivity (a concept arbitrarily defined by machines predestined to define it in that way) always predetermined given the environmental variables at work?"

We have the ability to change our environment to better suit productivity, this is why I live in a house and not in a cave. Much of our environment has been changed to better suit progress, and those changes in themselves were made possible by progress.

Quote :

"Without free will how can we choose to give rewards or punishments in any way other than that which we are programed?"

We will choose them based on our programming, however our programming will change and we in turn will change our reward/punishment system, which will in turn effect our environment and programming. Our justice system is proof of this.

4/4/2006 7:53:31 PM

Quote :

"We have the ability to change our environment to better suit productivity, this is why I live in a house and not in a cave."

So then we have the ability to alter our programing? Or are you saying we have the ability to change the variables used in our programming?

And assuming that is the case, and given your previous statements:

Quote :

"You think self-righteousness is a part of human nature? Humans have no nature"

and

Quote :

"Everything we do is learned. People learn that behavior from their environment. "

What makes you believe that the capitalist / competative system which does not always reward that which is most productive is not the result of humans altering their programing / evironment to suit their definition of progress.

After all, if humans have no nature and therefore every construct and behavior is learned (but chosen to be most progressive) then that would indicate that a competative system rather than a cooperative system was chosen would it not?

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 11:44 PM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

4/4/2006 11:37:59 PM

Quote :

"So then we have the ability to alter our programing? Or are you saying we have the ability to change the variables used in our programming?"

We change our environment which in turn changes our programming.

Quote :

"What makes you believe that the capitalist / competative system which does not always reward that which is most productive is not the result of humans altering their programing / evironment to suit their definition of progress."

Because competition is not the most productive, yet it is always rewarded in capitalism. This is explained by the prisoner's delimma. I'll do a simple game matrix

      Coop  Comp
Coop  3,3   1,4
Comp  4,1   2,2

4/5/2006 12:29:52 AM