Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The World After Capital

worldaftercapital.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: The World After Capital

#31

Post by slx26 »

aninhumer wrote: post #13
narag wrote: post #10

Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx. There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capit…

The argument being made here is not that we don't need the things we call capital, it's that we have enough capital now that allocating it is not the primary problem we need our economy to solve, and that the current system we use to do so (i.e. Capitalism) is limiting our ability to prioritise anything other than the creation of more capital. Therefore I would read the title not as "after capital ceases to exist" bu…

Yes, I also understand that what the author talks about is a change in focus. Similarly, when he talks about the transition from the agrarian age to the industrial, he doesn't imply "land" disappeared, that would be absurd.

I would also add that the author seems to be talking a lot about the transition, so maybe it's not so much "we have enough capital now", than "we're getting there in a few years/decades", and hence the question about what lies ahead. Well, he actually writes that:

> Capital is already no longer scarce in some parts of the world and rapidly less scarce everywhere.

Rapidly is a very relative term in this context.

Re: The World After Capital

#32

Post by java_script »

gt_ wrote: post #9

The foremost claim of Karl Marx was that capitalism would eventually secede to socialism. Most HN readers were indoctrinated to simplisticly demonize Marx despite ignorance of his nuanced academic legacy, and might overlook the glaring similarities here. They should be reminded that Marx laid these foundations ~150 years ago and offers a lifetime of critical research on this very discussion.

Psssh what’s an entire field of study worth when we have an VC techie who invested in MongoDB to teach us.

Re: The World After Capital

#33

Post by commandlinefan »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #27

We're no where close to eliminating scarcity or capital. We're so far from that there is almost no point in giving it serious merit. Probably centuries away. Humans being will be limited by scarcity until we're able to convert matter from one substance to another with ease, and able to freely genetically engineer ourselves to survive on other worlds.

I think that's the most important (and one of the least examined) aspect of "post-capitalism". It's easy for me and, I assume, anybody else to _envision_ a world where there's no more useful work for humans to do and therefore no further need for people to "earn a living". However, it seems pretty obvious that we're not there yet. We might be ten years away, we might be a thousand years away - but destroying civilization now because we figure we might get there in the near future strikes me as unwise. While I see lots of people debating about what to do when we get to the "end of capitalism", I see very few people trying to find any common ground as to how to figure out when we get to that point.

Re: The World After Capital

#34

Post by crankylinuxuser »

sewercake wrote: post #23
Tchakra wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do elaborate.

He's probably referring to Marx's Historical determinism. Marx claimed that there were stages of the development of labour and capital that would inevitably happen based on the forces that govern both. For most people, I would say, even those who study Marx, these ideas have been dismissed, or proven wrong by the failure of the 'working class' to seize the means of production in most countries where such attempts too…

Precisely. This whole recent STEM discussion comes back to the demonization of the Liberal Arts.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics all makes money as a multiplier for the capitalist class. So all of them are highly praised. However, those pesky things like philosophy and art are "worthless" - as in they don't make the owners money.

Marx's works also talk about turning universities into training centers too. Eventually, the cost of education would be the point that either the rich (capitalists) would attend, or regular people would attend to learn how to work in the above (STEM) categories.

Re: The World After Capital

#35

Post by purple-again »

Capital can’t be eliminated because it’s an extension of what we are in the natural world.

You might look at Bill Gates billions of dollars and think it’s an excessive amount that could never been needed. Yet what does he do when he and Jeff Bezos both want to own the Mona Lisa? It can’t be shared and it can’t be copied. One man will take it back to his house and the other will go empty handed.

No amount of wealth in the world will change its property of relativity in problem solving.

Re: The World After Capital

#36

Post by JoeAltmaier »

crapital wrote: post #24
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow how could Marx have gotten it so wrong? Capital can be used to purchase goods consumed by the self (as is the case with almost everybody). Or to collect as collateral against risk. Or to invest. Or, really, all the real reasons we use it.

Have you considered the possibility that you yourself don't understand what capital is, and are confusing it with money? Or no, disregard that, obviously Marx is the one with the major misapprehension here.

Oh I get it! By redefining common words, you create an 'in group' of pseudo-intellectuals who know the 'real truth' about whatever. Thanks, I'll bow out of this.

Re: The World After Capital

#37

Post by erikb »

sewercake wrote: post #23
Tchakra wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do elaborate.

He's probably referring to Marx's Historical determinism. Marx claimed that there were stages of the development of labour and capital that would inevitably happen based on the forces that govern both. For most people, I would say, even those who study Marx, these ideas have been dismissed, or proven wrong by the failure of the 'working class' to seize the means of production in most countries where such attempts too…

One might also argue that the real thing didn't happen yet though. Just because a lot of people attach a label to themselves and then other people come and use that label to do PR against them doesn't mean it was correct in the first place.

That said, I also don't believe in it. From what I'm seeing around me, people usually grab small short term advantages over other people even if they suffer long term consequences together after the "success". Also people really love to give power over themselves to other people. Until these two misconceptions are overcome there can't be any real attempt at communism.

Re: The World After Capital

#38

Post by rufusroflpunch »

haZard_OS wrote: post #18
narag wrote: post #10

Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx. There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capit…

The definition you cite is not quite right (from a Marxian perspective). According to Marx, capital is an accumulation of money used to purchase something so that it may be sold again AND whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

I think that Marx's definition of capital is significantly limited in comparison to what others refer to as capital. In a much more common usage, capital is not just money, but any goods and services saved for the later production of consumer goods, or to meet a specific end. For instance, factory machines, education, tools, etc. are also considered capital.

Re: The World After Capital

#39

Post by gt_ »

haZard_OS wrote: post #18
narag wrote: post #10

Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx. There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capit…

The definition you cite is not quite right (from a Marxian perspective). According to Marx, capital is an accumulation of money used to purchase something so that it may be sold again AND whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

There is (and always will be) no shortage of internet arguments over this exact concern. I will sidestep it and point to social theorist Pierre Bourdieu. Here's an explainer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5MdAjX4NU

Re: The World After Capital

#40

Post by RickHull »

erikb wrote: post #28
Qasaur wrote: post #21

Lots of shaky assumptions and economic misconceptions in this book. Every decade there is always a utopian or a group of idealists who claim that we have the means to meet everyones needs and that capitalism and its economic laws are no longer capable of providing the goods and services that we demand. But these ideas are always incoherent and boil down to arbitrary assumptions about human nature. Let us, for the sak…

> the fact that capitalism, voluntary exchange, and the free market is the _only_ system that is capable of rationally allocating resources in a society Wow. Before one is the _only_ shouldn't one be first _one of_ ? Afaik it's quite clear by now that capitalism and free market are not rationally allocating resources, or is your definition of "rationally" equaling "give more to those who already have too much"?

Rationally can be understood to mean something like:

* Put goods to their highest use

* Allocate capital to those who can produce more rather than consume it

In general, nothing is given to anyone. Increasing capital (i.e. by a single individual or within a single firm) is quite difficult and getting moreso every day. If 1% of the population is a super-producer, 9% are regular producers, and 90% are largely consumers, then the consumers are best off when the 10% producers have most of the capital. Allocating capital to consumers starts fun and ends poorly.

Post reply on HN