Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on July 30th, 2017, 9:15 pm 

Serpent » July 30th, 2017, 7:18 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 30th, 2017, 6:21 pm wrote: I do need to politely correct you that capitalism is not a political ideology. Its an economic system, focusing on privatized use of resources (as opposed to the only other economic system, which is state controlled resources).

I'm familiar with the dictionary. And the slogans.


I wrote a long and thoughtful response, with two definitions one of which is probably what you identify with as capitalism and agreeing with you that its a bad idea. If this is all you can think of to respond with, I'm done responding to you Serpent. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Mossling on July 30th, 2017, 10:25 pm 

I think many people here are conflating Capitalism with greed, and in that case it doesn't really matter what socioeconomic model or political strategy is employed - greed will find a way to flourish if it is not tackled as a specific problem.

More 'greed studies' are apparently necessary - how economic 'arms races' of sorts can appear - 'keeping up with the Joneses' and so forth. And of course how it relates socioeconomically to the ever-advancing military industrial situation, which is difficult to curb since there are very real threats in the world that need to be kept at bay.

People are debating democracy here, but as we arrived at on the 'Barbarity of the Enlightenment' thread - the ultimate 'votes' come from bullets and bombs.

The military has the biggest 'democratic' power because whoever leads it successfully is 'right' in terms of what their vision of a society should be - 'right' in a sense beyond philosophical sophistry, just 'right' economically; physically and thus empirically.

The more 'peaceful' democracy is then built on top of this truth it seems. Thus, it all comes down to the interplay between greed and military organisation - who the military leaders are (and 'would be') and who is being competed with.

As I've mentioned already on this thread, competition within markets is normal, natural, and takes place within and around the sociopolitical dynamics of greed and military governance.

Never mind capitalism - what about economic 'arms races'? This is the source of the real 'toxic competition', it seems. The idea that one needs a bigger and better car/aircraft carrier than one's neighbors - be it domestic or international.

Until universal global human ethics - that appeal to rational nervous systems in general, rather than merely a 'Gods chosen people' - are powerful and tangible enough to bridge the perceived 'yuge' gaps between neighboring cultures, the greedy 'arms races' ain't gonna be curbed.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Serpent on August 3rd, 2017, 10:02 am 

thinker4life » July 30th, 2017, 8:15 pm wrote:
Serpent » July 30th, 2017, 7:18 pm wrote:
I wrote a long and thoughtful response, with two definitions one of which is probably what you identify with as capitalism and agreeing with you that its a bad idea. If this is all you can think of to respond with, I'm done responding to you Serpent. I'm not wasting my time on you anymore.

Just to be fair, I did answer your private message that same day, but for some reason, it's still sitting in my 'out' box.

The reason I didn't detail my answer here is that the subject matter has been covered more than adequately; I didn't want to go over it all again.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 3rd, 2017, 10:28 am 

Moss -

I think many people here are conflating Capitalism with greed, and in that case it doesn't really matter what socioeconomic model or political strategy is employed - greed will find a way to flourish if it is not tackled as a specific problem.


I guess that is a fair point, but also there is a reason behind it. We are talking about a free market where the "strongest" are meant to survive. We are talking about a competitive environment, the encouragement of conflict and infighting to some degree.

I was asking about the possibility of a competitive game where the aim is for everyone to win. I think if we invent such a game we'll be able to apply it to economics in some way. Problem is I don't have any idea what such a game would look like.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Braininvat on August 3rd, 2017, 2:10 pm 

Are we talking John Nash, then? the non-zero sum game?

Sounds like the path of some of these "Socially Responsible" investment portfolios you see advertized in conservation magazines. To be taken with the grain of salt, of course.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 3rd, 2017, 3:02 pm 

Braininvat » August 4th, 2017, 2:10 am wrote:Are we talking John Nash, then? the non-zero sum game?

Sounds like the path of some of these "Socially Responsible" investment portfolios you see advertized in conservation magazines. To be taken with the grain of salt, of course.


I am not going to pretend I understand enough about Game Theory to answer any better than to say maybe? If you could do a good enough job of expressing the complexity of it maybe I could answer better??

I understand the general idea of people accepting lesser gains whilst others get more. tbh most of my knowledge of this is based on the movie! haha.

The idea of what I would like seems logically impossible to me. I imagine there may be a way around the problem though? I can think of some drastic measures, but nothing very applicable to real world situations.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Mossling on August 3rd, 2017, 10:33 pm 

The Tragedy of The Commons is normally cited as a case study when one arrives at non-zero sum game theory.

What I don't get about the way these situations are set up, is that the non-zero sum resource is framed by an existing central administrative power as being available to all, and yet the means by which the resource is harvested and distributed are allowed to be privately owned.

The normal example is cattle grazing on a commonly-owned field, with 'greedy Capitalists' putting more and more cows on there until it is over-grazed. Well the answer seems simple - make the cattle commonly owned - administered and regulated by the central administration, so that the when the cattle are sold, milked, or slaughtered for meat or leather, then the economic benefits are distributed equally between the invested parties.

Not all land is commonly available, so the greedy can do their thing elsewhere. At least there will be the basic benefits available to the poorest in society in this way (as long as there are enough common resources to support the people), and the resources are not ruined.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1138
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 9th, 2017, 5:03 am 

I am not sure who mentioned it, but I think cryptocurrencies will become a world changing force soon enough.

Just starting to look at the possibilities and I think the banks must be crapping themselves. It is the only area where I feel optimistic when I look around about this subject and how the internet is going to affect the economy.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 15th, 2017, 10:08 am 

BadgerJelly » August 3rd, 2017, 9:28 am wrote:Moss -

I think many people here are conflating Capitalism with greed, and in that case it doesn't really matter what socioeconomic model or political strategy is employed - greed will find a way to flourish if it is not tackled as a specific problem.


I guess that is a fair point, but also there is a reason behind it. We are talking about a free market where the "strongest" are meant to survive. We are talking about a competitive environment, the encouragement of conflict and infighting to some degree.

I was asking about the possibility of a competitive game where the aim is for everyone to win. I think if we invent such a game we'll be able to apply it to economics in some way. Problem is I don't have any idea what such a game would look like.


BadgerJelly,

I think moss has raised the right problem confusing this thread, the confusion between greed and capitalism, and you have identified the solution, which is creating regulations that make capitalisms success a win win for all members of society (and no, I'm not talking about communism). Let me try to take it one step further and show why a pragmatic solution to this problem is actually achievable. Here's my solution on why this problem exists along with links to docs that I think could actually help solve the problem:

https://goo.gl/vDPFdB

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I've written to see if it resonates with you, as I think we agree on what the ultimate answer is, and would love your feedback on my proposed path towards achieving that goal.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 17th, 2017, 12:48 am 

Will do when I get some time set aside :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 19th, 2017, 9:36 am 

thinker4life -

Just ha da brief skim over it. It is fundamentally flawed and contradictory. You are essentially talking about something like Plato's philosopher king, the "perfect tyrant." This is a very volatile idea given you don't account for the seduction of power over the ones unwilling take it.

That said I can certainly understand the principle of the ones who don't seek power to act with more conviction and responsibility from the sidelines (I find myself in this situation and would be deeply fearful of what I would become given too much power too quickly and knowing that whatever I would implement would necessarily be directly harmful to some.)

That said I have a little idea of my own that seems so startlingly obvious I am sure someone has mentioned it before. First I'll go about piecing it together and see whether it holds up well enough.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 19th, 2017, 12:06 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 19th, 2017, 8:36 am wrote:thinker4life -

Just ha da brief skim over it. It is fundamentally flawed and contradictory. You are essentially talking about something like Plato's philosopher king, the "perfect tyrant." This is a very volatile idea given you don't account for the seduction of power over the ones unwilling take it.

That said I can certainly understand the principle of the ones who don't seek power to act with more conviction and responsibility from the sidelines (I find myself in this situation and would be deeply fearful of what I would become given too much power too quickly and knowing that whatever I would implement would necessarily be directly harmful to some.)

That said I have a little idea of my own that seems so startlingly obvious I am sure someone has mentioned it before. First I'll go about piecing it together and see whether it holds up well enough.


I'm absolutely not talking about a philosopher king, and I make no reference of such. Where did you come to that conclusion so I can clarify in the text? Can you add a comment to the text that made you come to that conclusion?

All I'm talking about is how we should select for which people take power within our current democratic structure. I'm a firm believer in democracy, now benevolent dictatorship. Hope that clarifies, let me know how I can make this more clear in the paper so I know what gave you another idea.

Its not that I'm not accounting for the idea that power corrupts, its simply that I believe people who don't inherently seek power to control others are more capable of wielding it responsibly and more resistant to corruption. Do you disagree with that? Do you think Trump is more capable of handling power than you, because that's the reality we're faced with right now. Personally from your posts I'd vote for you for president over Trump. Sure you may make some mistakes but I have my money that you'd do much better than him.

I'd love to read your ideas on the topic, send them over when time permits.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 20th, 2017, 2:09 am 

I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic and you need to add a whole other layer on depth to them to explain the structure you see as being better.

I don't believe people who get involved in politics are all power hungry. I actually believe that the vast majority are out to do good from the start and that lack of attention allows corruption to set in. PLUS we all make mistakes and yet nowadays, more so than in the past, if a politician doe something wrong they are too scared to hold up their hands and say "my bad!" They are human and will make errors.

I would not want to be a leader because I would likely cause SO many problems. I would likely cause a lot of problems because I would think long term and today that is not allowed so much, the ignorance people living in the now will always complain about some relatively minute problem compared to the global scale of the issue> I would no doubt start a revolution, and want to. The problem is I don't want a violent revolution so I have to wait until I can do something I find meaningful and not too disruptive.

Better than Trump? I think that is a bold claim. I'd likely be assassinated within 48 hours or lynched (at best.) If I was in charge of the US I'd use force quickly to establish dictatorship and then rebuild ... I would be WORSE than Trump in the eyes of the public yet my intent would be "good". I would want to make a nation of intelligent and healthy people. I would pay the price willing to do so (to some degree.) The willingness of sacrifice is an important factor.

So, no. I don't want power for a very good reason. I FEAR it and know its a volatile thing. I just drip feed off it instead and in some circumstances will take a large quaff of it to drive home some plan. On a personal level it works, but on a national level I would be in completely foreign territory and learning as I went along.

Anyway, to the problems with your presentation ...

1) You sum up the problems of society in one short paragraph and I don't even agree that it is the huge problem let alone the biggest problem.

2) You say this, "Good people's natural intention is not to control", says who? What does this mean? Good people have to be passive? Good people sit idle and let people do as they please? Good people don't interfere? I am sure you see how you could go give more depth to your position here. By the same token you frame those that seek power as wanting to "control people".

3) You list how people should be "rewarded" and talk about "efficiency" and "hard work" as being the pinnacle of human activity. How do you measure this? Who decides?

4) You also seem to insinuate only "bad" people seek power. I don't think this is true and we all know about the age old saying of "power corrupts" so what makes you think the "good" won't turn "bad"? How are we to judge WHO is best suited for power? You say you want those that don't want power to have power. That is contrary even though I get the gist of what you're saying. What about people who simply pretend not to want power in order to gain power? And those that pretend to want power because they don't want power? Not to mention that every human being seeks "power" of some sort.

5) What do you mean by "power"? The title is "On Power", but you've not bothered to explicate your use of this term in any way whatsoever.

I could quite literally pick apart these almost word for word. It is a skeletal proposal. Give more depth to it, show counter arguments, present problems within the system and/or historical situations that have influenced your ideas.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 21st, 2017, 8:05 am 

BadgerJelly » August 20th, 2017, 1:09 am wrote:I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic and you need to add a whole other layer on depth to them to explain the structure you see as being better.

I don't believe people who get involved in politics are all power hungry. I actually believe that the vast majority are out to do good from the start and that lack of attention allows corruption to set in. PLUS we all make mistakes and yet nowadays, more so than in the past, if a politician doe something wrong they are too scared to hold up their hands and say "my bad!" They are human and will make errors.

I would not want to be a leader because I would likely cause SO many problems. I would likely cause a lot of problems because I would think long term and today that is not allowed so much, the ignorance people living in the now will always complain about some relatively minute problem compared to the global scale of the issue> I would no doubt start a revolution, and want to. The problem is I don't want a violent revolution so I have to wait until I can do something I find meaningful and not too disruptive.

Better than Trump? I think that is a bold claim. I'd likely be assassinated within 48 hours or lynched (at best.) If I was in charge of the US I'd use force quickly to establish dictatorship and then rebuild ... I would be WORSE than Trump in the eyes of the public yet my intent would be "good". I would want to make a nation of intelligent and healthy people. I would pay the price willing to do so (to some degree.) The willingness of sacrifice is an important factor.

So, no. I don't want power for a very good reason. I FEAR it and know its a volatile thing. I just drip feed off it instead and in some circumstances will take a large quaff of it to drive home some plan. On a personal level it works, but on a national level I would be in completely foreign territory and learning as I went along.

Anyway, to the problems with your presentation ...

1) You sum up the problems of society in one short paragraph and I don't even agree that it is the huge problem let alone the biggest problem.

2) You say this, "Good people's natural intention is not to control", says who? What does this mean? Good people have to be passive? Good people sit idle and let people do as they please? Good people don't interfere? I am sure you see how you could go give more depth to your position here. By the same token you frame those that seek power as wanting to "control people".

3) You list how people should be "rewarded" and talk about "efficiency" and "hard work" as being the pinnacle of human activity. How do you measure this? Who decides?

4) You also seem to insinuate only "bad" people seek power. I don't think this is true and we all know about the age old saying of "power corrupts" so what makes you think the "good" won't turn "bad"? How are we to judge WHO is best suited for power? You say you want those that don't want power to have power. That is contrary even though I get the gist of what you're saying. What about people who simply pretend not to want power in order to gain power? And those that pretend to want power because they don't want power? Not to mention that every human being seeks "power" of some sort.

5) What do you mean by "power"? The title is "On Power", but you've not bothered to explicate your use of this term in any way whatsoever.

I could quite literally pick apart these almost word for word. It is a skeletal proposal. Give more depth to it, show counter arguments, present problems within the system and/or historical situations that have influenced your ideas.


You're putting words into my mouth, and quite honestly I don't believe you when you say you would be a dictator if you were president. I'm not even going to bother responding to your post other than this because I don't think you tried to understand what I was writing with good intent. Best of luck to you badger. I did like some of your other posts, and I will address your concerns with my paper that have merit, but those that completely take my words out of context I will summarily ignore -- nobody else that's read it has had most of your interpretations, so I don't think it will be a common occurrence for people to misconstrue it so much.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 21st, 2017, 8:08 am 

BadgerJelly » August 20th, 2017, 1:09 am wrote:I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic and you need to add a whole other layer on depth to them to explain the structure you see as being better.

I don't believe people who get involved in politics are all power hungry. I actually believe that the vast majority are out to do good from the start and that lack of attention allows corruption to set in. PLUS we all make mistakes and yet nowadays, more so than in the past, if a politician doe something wrong they are too scared to hold up their hands and say "my bad!" They are human and will make errors.

I would not want to be a leader because I would likely cause SO many problems. I would likely cause a lot of problems because I would think long term and today that is not allowed so much, the ignorance people living in the now will always complain about some relatively minute problem compared to the global scale of the issue> I would no doubt start a revolution, and want to. The problem is I don't want a violent revolution so I have to wait until I can do something I find meaningful and not too disruptive.

Better than Trump? I think that is a bold claim. I'd likely be assassinated within 48 hours or lynched (at best.) If I was in charge of the US I'd use force quickly to establish dictatorship and then rebuild ... I would be WORSE than Trump in the eyes of the public yet my intent would be "good". I would want to make a nation of intelligent and healthy people. I would pay the price willing to do so (to some degree.) The willingness of sacrifice is an important factor.

So, no. I don't want power for a very good reason. I FEAR it and know its a volatile thing. I just drip feed off it instead and in some circumstances will take a large quaff of it to drive home some plan. On a personal level it works, but on a national level I would be in completely foreign territory and learning as I went along.

Anyway, to the problems with your presentation ...

1) You sum up the problems of society in one short paragraph and I don't even agree that it is the huge problem let alone the biggest problem.

2) You say this, "Good people's natural intention is not to control", says who? What does this mean? Good people have to be passive? Good people sit idle and let people do as they please? Good people don't interfere? I am sure you see how you could go give more depth to your position here. By the same token you frame those that seek power as wanting to "control people".

3) You list how people should be "rewarded" and talk about "efficiency" and "hard work" as being the pinnacle of human activity. How do you measure this? Who decides?

4) You also seem to insinuate only "bad" people seek power. I don't think this is true and we all know about the age old saying of "power corrupts" so what makes you think the "good" won't turn "bad"? How are we to judge WHO is best suited for power? You say you want those that don't want power to have power. That is contrary even though I get the gist of what you're saying. What about people who simply pretend not to want power in order to gain power? And those that pretend to want power because they don't want power? Not to mention that every human being seeks "power" of some sort.

5) What do you mean by "power"? The title is "On Power", but you've not bothered to explicate your use of this term in any way whatsoever.

I could quite literally pick apart these almost word for word. It is a skeletal proposal. Give more depth to it, show counter arguments, present problems within the system and/or historical situations that have influenced your ideas.


You're putting words into my mouth, and quite honestly I don't believe you when you say you would be a dictator if you were president. I'm not even going to bother responding to your post other than this because I don't think you tried to understand what I was writing with good intent. Best of luck to you badger. I did like some of your other posts, and I will address your concerns with my paper that have merit, but those that completely take my words out of context I will summarily ignore -- nobody else that's read it has had most of your interpretations, so I don't think it will be a common occurrence for people to misconstrue it so much.

Thanks just the same for taking the time to read it, I just wish your feedback on my paper had been as insightful as your prior posts... it would have helped me develop the paper further, rather than having to write a note like this. I know its not perfect and needs improvement, and I'm open to criticism, but it needs to be from someone who understands and interprets with positive intent.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 21st, 2017, 10:00 am 

I am sorry you feel that way. I was just showing how what you've written needs more refining, or rather more precision. If I thought it was complete rubbish I wouldn't have bother to respond at all. You have the framework down, but too much is left to the reader to interpret (which is what I was trying to show you.)

If I was too harsh for you then at least you now have an honest, albeit overly negative (not my intent), critique to refer to. I was actually thinking what you may be trying to express is something like my own thoughts and that may be why I came across as harsh? I like to be merciless with my own views and try to tear them down.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Eclogite on August 21st, 2017, 11:04 am 

thinker4life » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:08 pm wrote:You're putting words into my mouth, and quite honestly I don't believe you when you say you would be a dictator if you were president. I'm not even going to bother responding to your post other than this because I don't think you tried to understand what I was writing with good intent. Best of luck to you badger. I did like some of your other posts, and I will address your concerns with my paper that have merit, but those that completely take my words out of context I will summarily ignore -- nobody else that's read it has had most of your interpretations, so I don't think it will be a common occurrence for people to misconstrue it so much.

Thanks just the same for taking the time to read it, I just wish your feedback on my paper had been as insightful as your prior posts... it would have helped me develop the paper further, rather than having to write a note like this. I know its not perfect and needs improvement, and I'm open to criticism, but it needs to be from someone who understands and interprets with positive intent.


You asked for Badger's input with these words: "I'd love to read your ideas on the topic, send them over when time permits."

It does not reflect well on you to then reject his observations because you don't like them. He has no reason to put words in your mouth, so he has written of what he thinks you have said. It's cute to try to blame your ambiguous writing on his reading comprehension. Even if it is sub par - which I have no reason to think is the case - he is part of the constituency that, presumably, you would like to convince of your idea. Therefore, it is in your interest to take on board his comments and make appropriate changes.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 21st, 2017, 11:21 am 

thinker -

I should probably not have written this opening:

I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic and you need to add a whole other layer on depth to them to explain the structure you see as being better.


I can see how this really didn't help endear you to my critique now :( I may very well have reaction in a similar manner.

The list of questions I posed are not my personal views or interpretations. They are possible interpretations that could be extrapolated from what you've put down. I do not assume you are suggesting people by "idle" and such, I was just trying to show that you've not mentioned the obvious. The obvious is often easily overlooked because it is obvious.

By this I mean we all understand what "power" means, but it is still a term I strongly feel you need to express in terms of the subject. Some may read it as "money", others as "military might, and others still, as "knowledge" or "influence".
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 21st, 2017, 6:06 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 21st, 2017, 9:00 am wrote:I am sorry you feel that way. I was just showing how what you've written needs more refining, or rather more precision. If I thought it was complete rubbish I wouldn't have bother to respond at all. You have the framework down, but too much is left to the reader to interpret (which is what I was trying to show you.)

If I was too harsh for you then at least you now have an honest, albeit overly negative (not my intent), critique to refer to. I was actually thinking what you may be trying to express is something like my own thoughts and that may be why I came across as harsh? I like to be merciless with my own views and try to tear them down.


Thanks badger for the clarification. I honestly felt we were quite aligned based on your prior posts. I think your point that I neglect to state the obvious is a fair point, sometimes I give the reader too much of the benefit of the doubt or skip steps, that's why i ask for feedback. Your second reply was spot on, where you started your post with a total rejection of my overall ideas, which I felt was a bit harsh considering I felt we were philosophically aligned from our prior communications in the thread.

I will make some revisions and try to thicken my skin a little, and if you can likewise try to pose your criticism as constructive criticism rather than all out attack, perhaps I can create a revision with more clarity that you can critique again. As I said, I appreciate that you took the time to read it and give criticism. I'll make some changes and reply back.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 22nd, 2017, 10:17 am 

Eclogite » August 21st, 2017, 10:04 am wrote:
thinker4life » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:08 pm wrote:You're putting words into my mouth, and quite honestly I don't believe you when you say you would be a dictator if you were president. I'm not even going to bother responding to your post other than this because I don't think you tried to understand what I was writing with good intent. Best of luck to you badger. I did like some of your other posts, and I will address your concerns with my paper that have merit, but those that completely take my words out of context I will summarily ignore -- nobody else that's read it has had most of your interpretations, so I don't think it will be a common occurrence for people to misconstrue it so much.

Thanks just the same for taking the time to read it, I just wish your feedback on my paper had been as insightful as your prior posts... it would have helped me develop the paper further, rather than having to write a note like this. I know its not perfect and needs improvement, and I'm open to criticism, but it needs to be from someone who understands and interprets with positive intent.


You asked for Badger's input with these words: "I'd love to read your ideas on the topic, send them over when time permits."

It does not reflect well on you to then reject his observations because you don't like them. He has no reason to put words in your mouth, so he has written of what he thinks you have said. It's cute to try to blame your ambiguous writing on his reading comprehension. Even if it is sub par - which I have no reason to think is the case - he is part of the constituency that, presumably, you would like to convince of your idea. Therefore, it is in your interest to take on board his comments and make appropriate changes.


I wouldn't bother to reply to your post if you weren't a mod, but it seems the moderators on this site need some education on how to be mods, so I'm here to help.

First let me quote some good wisdom on how to give feedback:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/2 ... criticism/
1. The key points here being, that when you reply to a post where there's contention, you should follow four rules:
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

So let me start by trying to do #1:

I believe your point is that if someone gives you criticism, you should accept their criticism regardless of whether you agree with it or not, because their criticism is valid from their perspective and therefore you should respect and respond according to their criticism.

Let me move on to #2:
I agree that *listening* to someone's criticism is important, particularly if you have, as I did, solicited that person's criticism.

Moving on to #3: From you I have learned that moderators don't always provide feedback in a way that people are always receptive to it. I certainly wasn't receptive to your feedback when I first read it, and I hope that by following Dennet's advice I've made my feedback to you in a form that you will be more receptive to it than I was at first to yours. I also hope you recognize that in responding to this, I am being receptive to your feedback -- I do believe your feedback came from a place of good intentions, and you were genuinely trying to help steer the conversation in the right direction. I appreciate your good intentions and the effort you put in to do so.

Now let me move on to #4, where we differ
I believe criticism should be listened to at all times, and with an open mind. I listened to badgerjelly's criticism, and felt some of it was merited and some of it was not. I explained to him that I agreed with and accepted some of his feedback about my article being too vague in certain areas, and that I would address that feedback. I also described to him specific points of his feedback, like putting words into my mouth, that I did not appreciate. To prove that my statement was factual, I will provide a quote from my paper: "People who are attracted to power are naturally those who want to control other’s behaviors" which is contrasted with a quote from his feedback: "I don't believe people who get involved in politics are all power hungry."

Now I can see why he may have thought I meant "ALL people in politics are power hungry", but that certainly wasn't my intent, which to me should have been clear from my prior posts and even a careful reading of the paper itself. I accept that it will add value to clarify this point so others don't come to the same false conclusion he did about my statement... My intent was not to say that all politicians are power hungry, simply to say the people that *naturally* gravitate towards power *tend to be* power hungry... that its a natural relationship, not that its an absolute. He said I stated an absolute when I didn't, which I felt was putting words into my mouth. That said, I felt assumptions were made about my statement that I didn't write, so I felt he was putting words into my mouth.

I hope we can agree that just because someone criticizes something, does not make that criticism true. Take it to the extreme, I could criticize you and ask why you killed that random person with an axe... but my criticism is clearly invalid because you likely didn't kill anyone with an axe. We need to use our own judgement when we evaluate criticism about which is valid and which is not.

I'd like to add a step where Dennett's advice with my own suggestion, which is to admit when you are wrong yourself, so I'm going to add step #5: Where I was wrong:
My response to BadgerJelly came from my emotional feeling of betrayal. I honestly think highly of BadgerJelly from his prior posts, and was proud to share with him that I felt I shared some of the same beliefs as him. When he started off his response by saying "I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic", I had a negative emotional response of betrayal. I should have tempered that and been more objective in my reply to him, asking him for clarification rather than being upset by his words. That was a mistake I made, which is why you reacted the way you did. Apologies for that. I will try harder not to take things personally, as I know that's a hallmark of good conversation. Hopefully you don't take my criticism of your post personally either, but as one with good intent to help you be a better moderator, which is how I mean it.

That said, BadgerJelly reaffirmed my high opinion of him in his response, explaining that he may have been a harsher critic because he felt the ideas were so close to his own, and that he probably shouldn't have started off his reply with those sentences. That just made me like the guy more and want to spend more effort to refine my paper to fix the flaws he pointed out. Both because it reaffirmed that we're philosophically aligned in spirit, as well as because he was willing to admit his own mistakes in his reply. All around a very good outcome if you ask me.

I will try to spend some time reading his post carefully, and even extrapolating my own additional advice based on his, to improve the paper and see if he's willing to give me a second round of criticism. Hopefully I've shared some advice with you that will help you give better advice as a moderator.

Kind regards with good intentions,
Thinker4Life
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 22nd, 2017, 10:19 am 

Eclogite » August 21st, 2017, 10:04 am wrote:
thinker4life » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:08 pm wrote:You're putting words into my mouth, and quite honestly I don't believe you when you say you would be a dictator if you were president. I'm not even going to bother responding to your post other than this because I don't think you tried to understand what I was writing with good intent. Best of luck to you badger. I did like some of your other posts, and I will address your concerns with my paper that have merit, but those that completely take my words out of context I will summarily ignore -- nobody else that's read it has had most of your interpretations, so I don't think it will be a common occurrence for people to misconstrue it so much.

Thanks just the same for taking the time to read it, I just wish your feedback on my paper had been as insightful as your prior posts... it would have helped me develop the paper further, rather than having to write a note like this. I know its not perfect and needs improvement, and I'm open to criticism, but it needs to be from someone who understands and interprets with positive intent.


You asked for Badger's input with these words: "I'd love to read your ideas on the topic, send them over when time permits."

It does not reflect well on you to then reject his observations because you don't like them. He has no reason to put words in your mouth, so he has written of what he thinks you have said. It's cute to try to blame your ambiguous writing on his reading comprehension. Even if it is sub par - which I have no reason to think is the case - he is part of the constituency that, presumably, you would like to convince of your idea. Therefore, it is in your interest to take on board his comments and make appropriate changes.


I wouldn't bother to reply to your post if you weren't a mod, but since you are I'll spend a little more time on this.

First let me quote some good wisdom on how to give feedback:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/2 ... criticism/
1. The key points here being, that when you reply to a post where there's contention, you should follow four rules:
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

So let me start by trying to do #1:

I believe your point is that if someone gives you criticism, you should accept their criticism regardless of whether you agree with it or not, because their criticism is valid from their perspective and therefore you should respect and respond according to their criticism.

Let me move on to #2:
I agree that *listening* to someone's criticism is important, particularly if you have, as I did, solicited that person's criticism.

Moving on to #3: From you I have learned that moderators don't always provide feedback in a way that people are always receptive to it. I certainly wasn't receptive to your feedback when I first read it, and I hope that by following Dennet's advice I've made my feedback to you in a form that you will be more receptive to it than I was at first to yours. I also hope you recognize that in responding to this, I am being receptive to your feedback -- I do believe your feedback came from a place of good intentions, and you were genuinely trying to help steer the conversation in the right direction. I appreciate your good intentions and the effort you put in to do so.

Now let me move on to #4, where we differ
I believe criticism should be listened to at all times, and with an open mind. I listened to badgerjelly's criticism, and felt some of it was merited and some of it was not. I explained to him that I agreed with and accepted some of his feedback about my article being too vague in certain areas, and that I would address that feedback. I also described to him specific points of his feedback, like putting words into my mouth, that I did not appreciate. To prove that my statement was factual, I will provide a quote from my paper: "People who are attracted to power are naturally those who want to control other’s behaviors" which is contrasted with a quote from his feedback: "I don't believe people who get involved in politics are all power hungry."

Now I can see why he may have thought I meant "ALL people in politics are power hungry", but that certainly wasn't my intent, which to me should have been clear from my prior posts and even a careful reading of the paper itself. I accept that it will add value to clarify this point so others don't come to the same false conclusion he did about my statement... My intent was not to say that all politicians are power hungry, simply to say the people that *naturally* gravitate towards power *tend to be* power hungry... that its a natural relationship, not that its an absolute. He said I stated an absolute when I didn't, which I felt was putting words into my mouth. That said, I felt assumptions were made about my statement that I didn't write, so I felt he was putting words into my mouth.

I hope we can agree that just because someone criticizes something, does not make that criticism true. Take it to the extreme, I could criticize you and ask why you killed that random person with an axe... but my criticism is clearly invalid because you likely didn't kill anyone with an axe. We need to use our own judgement when we evaluate criticism about which is valid and which is not.

I'd like to add a step where Dennett's advice with my own suggestion, which is to admit when you are wrong yourself, so I'm going to add step #5: Where I was wrong:
My response to BadgerJelly came from my emotional feeling of betrayal. I honestly think highly of BadgerJelly from his prior posts, and was proud to share with him that I felt I shared some of the same beliefs as him. When he started off his response by saying "I don't agree with your positions. I think they are simplistic", I had a negative emotional response of betrayal. I should have tempered that and been more objective in my reply to him, asking him for clarification rather than being upset by his words. That was a mistake I made, which is why you reacted the way you did. Apologies for that. I will try harder not to take things personally, as I know that's a hallmark of good conversation. Hopefully you don't take my criticism of your post personally either, but as one with good intent to help you be a better moderator, which is how I mean it.

That said, BadgerJelly reaffirmed my high opinion of him in his response, explaining that he may have been a harsher critic because he felt the ideas were so close to his own, and that he probably shouldn't have started off his reply with those sentences. That just made me like the guy more and want to spend more effort to refine my paper to fix the flaws he pointed out. Both because it reaffirmed that we're philosophically aligned in spirit, as well as because he was willing to admit his own mistakes in his reply. All around a very good outcome if you ask me.

I will try to spend some time reading his post carefully, and even extrapolating my own additional advice based on his, to improve the paper and see if he's willing to give me a second round of criticism. Hopefully I've shared some advice with you that will help you give better advice as a moderator.

Kind regards with good intentions,
Thinker4Life
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 25th, 2017, 1:42 am 

I want to shift the direction of this thread a little, but still continue to look at the direction of "capitalism."

Touched on in another thread is the disparity between private and public sectors. This links into a thought I was having about the counter positions (generally speaking) of socialism and capitalism. It seems clear enough to me that capital power has bled into state power. The capitalists have a good deal more of a say in state matters than some people feel comfortable about.

Capitalism has been successful and over time we've seen that its become more and more accepted. Given the lack of resistance to it I think that the state, the body of "social" power (meaning a body set in place to distribute the will of the people, the social contract they've been given power to manage), has become more and more a capitalistic state. I am not saying this is anything "new" or that before the state was more concerned about X or Y. There has always been some element of push and pull, and this I regard as a good thing.

So, trying not to veer into the complexity of this issue, with this in mind what are we to expect to happen in the future? How will capitalism alter or be replaced (the topic of the thread!)

Today we can say governments are trying to keep the capital structure alive. There is focus on trade, production and also a continual push toward making social projects private projects. Coming from the UK when I was a little guy running around I was slightly aware of the Thatcher regime. Although I was too young to understand what it all meant I got the gist was about shifting certain areas out of the state domain and into private hands. The rail system being one particular item of controversy along with the ever present complaints about the NHS (national health service.)

As things have progressed the capitalistic structure has bled into all state run projects. In the NHS in the UK they once employed their own cleaners and care takers who had pride in the jobs. Although people will say today that the NHS is a state run project this is just not true. The actual industry (the workforce) are in part out sourced. This is a direct result of capital and profit bleeding into the state system.

I am not going to pretend I know much about the ins and outs of this effect across the globe and in other western states. I hope to be corrected and introduced to more information in this area which may well counter my myopic view of things.

So my view is based on the proposal that capitalism is taking over and suppressing social benefits. The primary social project is that of taxing. We all pay to the state to fund the society we live in, to "maintain" our social structures (education, infrastructure, defense, energy, environmental, etc.) Obviously there is a "budget" and this budget is not anything like running a business because the "product" of society is the society itself, the state industry is not in place to merely manage populations, or produce jobs. It is in place by the people for the people. It is a social structure NOT a capitalistic structure. It appears to me we're living in the shadow of the industrial revolution still (I won't bore you with the establishment of the schooling system as being part of the "production" mentality.)

What does this all mean? Where are we heading?

Let us say that capitalism is the primary state mentality. Now the only thing the state cares about is manufacturing profit, not goods, not social care, only manufacturing PROFIT. The capitalistic model is based on an environment of competition. No competition means authoritarian rule and tyranny.

What should perhaps catch your eye is that the "product" the state is producing is no longer in favour of the general citizen. In places it is, but only just enough to keep people voting this way or that way. Any slightly anti-capitalistic regime will be crushed before it can rise. This is because the power of the parties vying for state control must rely more and more on capital grown finance. The capitalists will not favour anyone who openly tries to lessen capitalisms hold. The capitalist doesn't want any social projects, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want people to gain free healthcare, have free schooling or anything else. They want people to pay so they can gain profit. They essentially wish to MANUFACTURE PROFIT. TO do so they will always be looking to take what is free and make people pay for it.

The flaw in the capital model seems to me to be the manufacture of profit fo rthe sake of profit. The way the system works very well is with the whole supply demand mechanism and competition (again there are problems within these too, but want to keep on track.)

What I wish to make clear here is how the capital model in not sustainable the further it reaches. The nation becomes an expanding entity that floods into other nations, which then take up the mantle of the capitalistic idea seeing how it has helped the other nation with its "economic invasion". Eventually there we be nowhere else for capitalism to go, and even today we are seeing this wave return to some degree as it bounces back. This is showing in the form of intentional reduction of social funding (in proportion to population and taxing.) The capital mentality is already starting to consume the idea of state and making it a puppet to produce more and more private ownership of previous publically owned projects that were in place to benefit all without exemption.

Is this view of mine really true to reality and/or future reality? Are my thoughts skewed or generally pointing out some real concerns for the future of capitalism?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 25th, 2017, 11:33 am 

BadgerJelly » August 25th, 2017, 12:42 am wrote:I want to shift the direction of this thread a little, but still continue to look at the direction of "capitalism."

Touched on in another thread is the disparity between private and public sectors. This links into a thought I was having about the counter positions (generally speaking) of socialism and capitalism. It seems clear enough to me that capital power has bled into state power. The capitalists have a good deal more of a say in state matters than some people feel comfortable about.

Capitalism has been successful and over time we've seen that its become more and more accepted. Given the lack of resistance to it I think that the state, the body of "social" power (meaning a body set in place to distribute the will of the people, the social contract they've been given power to manage), has become more and more a capitalistic state. I am not saying this is anything "new" or that before the state was more concerned about X or Y. There has always been some element of push and pull, and this I regard as a good thing.

So, trying not to veer into the complexity of this issue, with this in mind what are we to expect to happen in the future? How will capitalism alter or be replaced (the topic of the thread!)

Today we can say governments are trying to keep the capital structure alive. There is focus on trade, production and also a continual push toward making social projects private projects. Coming from the UK when I was a little guy running around I was slightly aware of the Thatcher regime. Although I was too young to understand what it all meant I got the gist was about shifting certain areas out of the state domain and into private hands. The rail system being one particular item of controversy along with the ever present complaints about the NHS (national health service.)

As things have progressed the capitalistic structure has bled into all state run projects. In the NHS in the UK they once employed their own cleaners and care takers who had pride in the jobs. Although people will say today that the NHS is a state run project this is just not true. The actual industry (the workforce) are in part out sourced. This is a direct result of capital and profit bleeding into the state system.

I am not going to pretend I know much about the ins and outs of this effect across the globe and in other western states. I hope to be corrected and introduced to more information in this area which may well counter my myopic view of things.

So my view is based on the proposal that capitalism is taking over and suppressing social benefits. The primary social project is that of taxing. We all pay to the state to fund the society we live in, to "maintain" our social structures (education, infrastructure, defense, energy, environmental, etc.) Obviously there is a "budget" and this budget is not anything like running a business because the "product" of society is the society itself, the state industry is not in place to merely manage populations, or produce jobs. It is in place by the people for the people. It is a social structure NOT a capitalistic structure. It appears to me we're living in the shadow of the industrial revolution still (I won't bore you with the establishment of the schooling system as being part of the "production" mentality.)

What does this all mean? Where are we heading?

Let us say that capitalism is the primary state mentality. Now the only thing the state cares about is manufacturing profit, not goods, not social care, only manufacturing PROFIT. The capitalistic model is based on an environment of competition. No competition means authoritarian rule and tyranny.

What should perhaps catch your eye is that the "product" the state is producing is no longer in favour of the general citizen. In places it is, but only just enough to keep people voting this way or that way. Any slightly anti-capitalistic regime will be crushed before it can rise. This is because the power of the parties vying for state control must rely more and more on capital grown finance. The capitalists will not favour anyone who openly tries to lessen capitalisms hold. The capitalist doesn't want any social projects, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want people to gain free healthcare, have free schooling or anything else. They want people to pay so they can gain profit. They essentially wish to MANUFACTURE PROFIT. TO do so they will always be looking to take what is free and make people pay for it.

The flaw in the capital model seems to me to be the manufacture of profit fo rthe sake of profit. The way the system works very well is with the whole supply demand mechanism and competition (again there are problems within these too, but want to keep on track.)

What I wish to make clear here is how the capital model in not sustainable the further it reaches. The nation becomes an expanding entity that floods into other nations, which then take up the mantle of the capitalistic idea seeing how it has helped the other nation with its "economic invasion". Eventually there we be nowhere else for capitalism to go, and even today we are seeing this wave return to some degree as it bounces back. This is showing in the form of intentional reduction of social funding (in proportion to population and taxing.) The capital mentality is already starting to consume the idea of state and making it a puppet to produce more and more private ownership of previous publically owned projects that were in place to benefit all without exemption.

Is this view of mine really true to reality and/or future reality? Are my thoughts skewed or generally pointing out some real concerns for the future of capitalism?


I'll bite if you don't mind BadgerJelly. I think the concerns you're pointing out are valid, but they are not a critcism of capitalism as you feel they are. They are a criticism that our system of governance is so beholden to capitalism. The mixing of people in politics and industry has created more of an "industry" mentality instead of a "public servant" mentality in government, as you allude to you in your post.

I don't think its as hopeless as you make it sound. We the people can vote in anyone we want right now - we're still a democratic republic, if there are enough of us who agree. We just need to make everyone aware of the problems you're talking about, which are complex and subtle and not easily explained, along with all the other problems that have come out of the two party system. ("just" probably isn't the right word, that's no small task, but its one I believe that's worth tackling).

Kind regards,
Thinker4Life
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 25th, 2017, 11:33 am 

BadgerJelly » August 25th, 2017, 12:42 am wrote:I want to shift the direction of this thread a little, but still continue to look at the direction of "capitalism."

Touched on in another thread is the disparity between private and public sectors. This links into a thought I was having about the counter positions (generally speaking) of socialism and capitalism. It seems clear enough to me that capital power has bled into state power. The capitalists have a good deal more of a say in state matters than some people feel comfortable about.

Capitalism has been successful and over time we've seen that its become more and more accepted. Given the lack of resistance to it I think that the state, the body of "social" power (meaning a body set in place to distribute the will of the people, the social contract they've been given power to manage), has become more and more a capitalistic state. I am not saying this is anything "new" or that before the state was more concerned about X or Y. There has always been some element of push and pull, and this I regard as a good thing.

So, trying not to veer into the complexity of this issue, with this in mind what are we to expect to happen in the future? How will capitalism alter or be replaced (the topic of the thread!)

Today we can say governments are trying to keep the capital structure alive. There is focus on trade, production and also a continual push toward making social projects private projects. Coming from the UK when I was a little guy running around I was slightly aware of the Thatcher regime. Although I was too young to understand what it all meant I got the gist was about shifting certain areas out of the state domain and into private hands. The rail system being one particular item of controversy along with the ever present complaints about the NHS (national health service.)

As things have progressed the capitalistic structure has bled into all state run projects. In the NHS in the UK they once employed their own cleaners and care takers who had pride in the jobs. Although people will say today that the NHS is a state run project this is just not true. The actual industry (the workforce) are in part out sourced. This is a direct result of capital and profit bleeding into the state system.

I am not going to pretend I know much about the ins and outs of this effect across the globe and in other western states. I hope to be corrected and introduced to more information in this area which may well counter my myopic view of things.

So my view is based on the proposal that capitalism is taking over and suppressing social benefits. The primary social project is that of taxing. We all pay to the state to fund the society we live in, to "maintain" our social structures (education, infrastructure, defense, energy, environmental, etc.) Obviously there is a "budget" and this budget is not anything like running a business because the "product" of society is the society itself, the state industry is not in place to merely manage populations, or produce jobs. It is in place by the people for the people. It is a social structure NOT a capitalistic structure. It appears to me we're living in the shadow of the industrial revolution still (I won't bore you with the establishment of the schooling system as being part of the "production" mentality.)

What does this all mean? Where are we heading?

Let us say that capitalism is the primary state mentality. Now the only thing the state cares about is manufacturing profit, not goods, not social care, only manufacturing PROFIT. The capitalistic model is based on an environment of competition. No competition means authoritarian rule and tyranny.

What should perhaps catch your eye is that the "product" the state is producing is no longer in favour of the general citizen. In places it is, but only just enough to keep people voting this way or that way. Any slightly anti-capitalistic regime will be crushed before it can rise. This is because the power of the parties vying for state control must rely more and more on capital grown finance. The capitalists will not favour anyone who openly tries to lessen capitalisms hold. The capitalist doesn't want any social projects, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want people to gain free healthcare, have free schooling or anything else. They want people to pay so they can gain profit. They essentially wish to MANUFACTURE PROFIT. TO do so they will always be looking to take what is free and make people pay for it.

The flaw in the capital model seems to me to be the manufacture of profit fo rthe sake of profit. The way the system works very well is with the whole supply demand mechanism and competition (again there are problems within these too, but want to keep on track.)

What I wish to make clear here is how the capital model in not sustainable the further it reaches. The nation becomes an expanding entity that floods into other nations, which then take up the mantle of the capitalistic idea seeing how it has helped the other nation with its "economic invasion". Eventually there we be nowhere else for capitalism to go, and even today we are seeing this wave return to some degree as it bounces back. This is showing in the form of intentional reduction of social funding (in proportion to population and taxing.) The capital mentality is already starting to consume the idea of state and making it a puppet to produce more and more private ownership of previous publically owned projects that were in place to benefit all without exemption.

Is this view of mine really true to reality and/or future reality? Are my thoughts skewed or generally pointing out some real concerns for the future of capitalism?


I'll bite if you don't mind BadgerJelly. I think the concerns you're pointing out are valid, but they are not a criticism of capitalism as you feel they are. They are a criticism that our system of governance is so beholden to capitalism. The mixing of people in politics and industry has created more of an "industry" mentality instead of a "public servant" mentality in government, as you allude to you in your post.

I don't think its as hopeless as you make it sound. We the people can vote in anyone we want right now - we're still a democratic republic, if there are enough of us who agree. We just need to make everyone aware of the problems you're talking about, which are complex and subtle and not easily explained, along with all the other problems that have come out of the two party system. ("just" probably isn't the right word, that's no small task, but its one I believe that's worth tackling).

Kind regards,
Thinker4Life
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby thinker4life on August 25th, 2017, 11:33 am 

BadgerJelly » August 25th, 2017, 12:42 am wrote:I want to shift the direction of this thread a little, but still continue to look at the direction of "capitalism."

Touched on in another thread is the disparity between private and public sectors. This links into a thought I was having about the counter positions (generally speaking) of socialism and capitalism. It seems clear enough to me that capital power has bled into state power. The capitalists have a good deal more of a say in state matters than some people feel comfortable about.

Capitalism has been successful and over time we've seen that its become more and more accepted. Given the lack of resistance to it I think that the state, the body of "social" power (meaning a body set in place to distribute the will of the people, the social contract they've been given power to manage), has become more and more a capitalistic state. I am not saying this is anything "new" or that before the state was more concerned about X or Y. There has always been some element of push and pull, and this I regard as a good thing.

So, trying not to veer into the complexity of this issue, with this in mind what are we to expect to happen in the future? How will capitalism alter or be replaced (the topic of the thread!)

Today we can say governments are trying to keep the capital structure alive. There is focus on trade, production and also a continual push toward making social projects private projects. Coming from the UK when I was a little guy running around I was slightly aware of the Thatcher regime. Although I was too young to understand what it all meant I got the gist was about shifting certain areas out of the state domain and into private hands. The rail system being one particular item of controversy along with the ever present complaints about the NHS (national health service.)

As things have progressed the capitalistic structure has bled into all state run projects. In the NHS in the UK they once employed their own cleaners and care takers who had pride in the jobs. Although people will say today that the NHS is a state run project this is just not true. The actual industry (the workforce) are in part out sourced. This is a direct result of capital and profit bleeding into the state system.

I am not going to pretend I know much about the ins and outs of this effect across the globe and in other western states. I hope to be corrected and introduced to more information in this area which may well counter my myopic view of things.

So my view is based on the proposal that capitalism is taking over and suppressing social benefits. The primary social project is that of taxing. We all pay to the state to fund the society we live in, to "maintain" our social structures (education, infrastructure, defense, energy, environmental, etc.) Obviously there is a "budget" and this budget is not anything like running a business because the "product" of society is the society itself, the state industry is not in place to merely manage populations, or produce jobs. It is in place by the people for the people. It is a social structure NOT a capitalistic structure. It appears to me we're living in the shadow of the industrial revolution still (I won't bore you with the establishment of the schooling system as being part of the "production" mentality.)

What does this all mean? Where are we heading?

Let us say that capitalism is the primary state mentality. Now the only thing the state cares about is manufacturing profit, not goods, not social care, only manufacturing PROFIT. The capitalistic model is based on an environment of competition. No competition means authoritarian rule and tyranny.

What should perhaps catch your eye is that the "product" the state is producing is no longer in favour of the general citizen. In places it is, but only just enough to keep people voting this way or that way. Any slightly anti-capitalistic regime will be crushed before it can rise. This is because the power of the parties vying for state control must rely more and more on capital grown finance. The capitalists will not favour anyone who openly tries to lessen capitalisms hold. The capitalist doesn't want any social projects, they don't want to pay taxes, they don't want people to gain free healthcare, have free schooling or anything else. They want people to pay so they can gain profit. They essentially wish to MANUFACTURE PROFIT. TO do so they will always be looking to take what is free and make people pay for it.

The flaw in the capital model seems to me to be the manufacture of profit fo rthe sake of profit. The way the system works very well is with the whole supply demand mechanism and competition (again there are problems within these too, but want to keep on track.)

What I wish to make clear here is how the capital model in not sustainable the further it reaches. The nation becomes an expanding entity that floods into other nations, which then take up the mantle of the capitalistic idea seeing how it has helped the other nation with its "economic invasion". Eventually there we be nowhere else for capitalism to go, and even today we are seeing this wave return to some degree as it bounces back. This is showing in the form of intentional reduction of social funding (in proportion to population and taxing.) The capital mentality is already starting to consume the idea of state and making it a puppet to produce more and more private ownership of previous publically owned projects that were in place to benefit all without exemption.

Is this view of mine really true to reality and/or future reality? Are my thoughts skewed or generally pointing out some real concerns for the future of capitalism?


I'll bite if you don't mind BadgerJelly. I think the concerns you're pointing out are valid, but they are not a criticism of capitalism as you feel they are. They are a criticism that our system of governance is so beholden to capitalism. The mixing of people in politics and industry has created more of an "industry" mentality instead of a "public servant" mentality in government, as you allude to you in your post.

I don't think its as hopeless as you make it sound. We the people can vote in anyone we want right now - we're still a democratic republic, if there are enough of us who agree. We just need to make everyone aware of the problems you're talking about, which are complex and subtle and not easily explained, along with all the other problems that have come out of the two party system. ("just" probably isn't the right word, that's no small task, but its one I believe that's worth tackling).

Kind regards,
Thinker4Life
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on August 26th, 2017, 1:22 am 

I am just trying to figure out what kind of change we can expect in the future. It is clear enough that capitalism needs to be changed, or replaced, in the not so distant future.

The intricacies of economics is not something I am familiar with much yet. I am repluing on my reasoning and broad observations. It is very hard to separate the heart of capitalism from other factors.

I am not talking about the US in particular either. I am talking about the global situation.

I imagine that "intellectual capital" will dictate the shape of the future too. In this respect the US has been left behind.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby hyksos on September 2nd, 2017, 11:16 am 

BadgerJelly » July 17th, 2017, 1:06 pm wrote:It should be pretty obvious that Capitalism has finally started to show certain cracks for the poorer members of society.

We are essentially talking about a system which has led to the constant pursuit of cheaper and cheaper production with profits being confined more and more to a few wealthy individuals..


Image

On understanding what this map is showing :

  • You must realize the entire GREY REGION of the map. Then imagine adding up all the wealth in all the grey regions.
  • The blue region is two sections. Imagine adding up the entire wealth of China, Japan, and a few blue countries in Europe.
  • The red region is the USA. Only the USA .. not Canada. Canada is grey.

Now the punchline. The three regions, red, grey, and blue all have equivalent amounts of cumulative wealth. Literally, this map is showing the earth divided into three regions of equal wealth.

Your first gut reaction to this map is to say "Oh well.. the USA must be super rich and wealthy. Americans must live in the lap of luxury!". This reaction is premature. As Bernie Sanders has told us, (over and over again on TV),

People understand that something is profoundly wrong when the 20 richest people in our country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population — 150 million people.


That super wealth in the USA is not equitably distributed amongst its inhabitants. Far far from it. It is inexorably concentrated in the hands of a tiny investor class.

This map shows us what capitalism has succeeded at doing. In a more cynical tone, the map really only shows us where the super-rich live. It is not a clear measure of how comfortable the inhabitants of those countries are. One can imagine that mainland china has people suffering abject poverty -- probably their numbers are in the millions.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Serpent on September 2nd, 2017, 12:39 pm 

Is anyone familiar with Richard Wilikinson's work?
"The Spirit Level" is a very useful book: https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
and he does a very good talk.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby BadgerJelly on September 2nd, 2017, 1:10 pm 

The Gini Coefficient is a very solid indicator of the state of a country. Correlations between this and violent crime are pretty solid.

Basically, the bigger the gap in wealth equality the more problems we see. This is a correlation that remains true no matter the population size covered.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4375
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
hyksos liked this post


Re: Capitalism: Its decline/reformation

Postby Athena on September 3rd, 2017, 11:14 am 

Humanity has always had problems, and before education for technology, education in the US was about resolving those problems. Without this education, capitalism is a very bad thing and always has been. However, with this education capitalism can be made better as our nation is made better.

This is from the 1917 National Education Association Conference.
"Greater than the love for one's city, state, or country is a love for humanity. What could better express the true American spirit than the enlistment of the volunteers, the purchase of Liberty Bonds, and the contribution to the Red Cross? The well-being and safety of the nation depend upon the intelligence of the citizens. The school must not only prepare the boys and girls for future responsibility, but it must make every opportunity for them to be citizens in the service they render to their school, home, and city. What a splendid illustration in legislation the school can give in the making and carrying out of rules teaching self-government and fair play!
Habits of truthfulness, honesty, and loyalty acquired in school and home strengthen the moral fiber and build up a citizenship that will be able to assume the future responsibilities of the nation. "Our country cannot subsist without liberty, nor without virtues."
Our forefathers laid the foundation of freedom and justice. In the building of the great American nation, the school is the laboratory for citizenship, and its safety and well-being depend upon the character of its citizens. It is their duty to place the welfare of the nation above selfish greed and personal ambition."
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests