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

What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

musingmind.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#61

Post by epistasis »

sudosysgen wrote: post #59
epistasis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with the term "capitalism" is that it means such different things to different people. For example, feudalism is not generally considered capitalism by those that are anti-capitalist, but feudalism was still private ownership of the means of production. Or, in the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders railed against capitalism, whereas Elizabeth Warren embraces the term, and they both had very similar poli…

Feudalism was not private ownership of the means of production. Indeed, uner feudalism, the means of production were not commodified, and de facto the lord did not have the right of ownership to the land, because he was only allowed to use it in one very specific way. Therefore, lacking the right of exclusive control, feudal property does not fulfill the definiton of private property. This is why feudalism is univers…

Well that's a very different definition than "private control of the means of production," however. People focus on different aspects of the myriad definitions of capitalism, and the term becomes meaningless unless some part of the conversation first defines what sort of definition or aspect of "capitalism" one is talking about. However, people often experience a tribally-motivated response to the word before the meanings can be focused on. I'd doesn't make the word "capitalism" useless but it does make it difficult to start a discussion with a general group of people when leading with the word rather than the specifics that one would like to address.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#62

Post by karaterobot »

herghost wrote: post #18

For Capitalism to work properly the government needs to be be empowered, and properly able, to enforce rules that prevent any one organisation from becoming so powerful that it corrupts and undermines the whole system. We don't have that today.

I agree with this if you add "properly incentivized" to that list of conditions. As of now, in the U.S., it seems like the power exists, but not the motivation, and that's at least as big a problem as the other way around.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#63

Post by sudosysgen »

epistasis wrote: post #61
sudosysgen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feudalism was not private ownership of the means of production. Indeed, uner feudalism, the means of production were not commodified, and de facto the lord did not have the right of ownership to the land, because he was only allowed to use it in one very specific way. Therefore, lacking the right of exclusive control, feudal property does not fulfill the definiton of private property. This is why feudalism is univers…

Well that's a very different definition than "private control of the means of production," however. People focus on different aspects of the myriad definitions of capitalism, and the term becomes meaningless unless some part of the conversation first defines what sort of definition or aspect of "capitalism" one is talking about. However, people often experience a tribally-motivated response to the word before the mea…

I agree, we do need a very specific and structured definition of capitalism which analyzes it as a social and political system. Which has been done and achieved consensus almost two hundred years ago, but now it's become almost taboo to mention :)

But yes, confusion about these definitions is due to the fact that we haven't had a serious remise en question of the social order in the anglophone world since the end of WW2.

As for my definition of private control of the means of production, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that if someone may not decide how to use something then they are not owners of such a thing, but merely hold a license to it. It's the same argument for why you can never own a copy of proprietary software, only own a license to it :)

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#64

Post by sudosysgen »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #55
sudosysgen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, using capitalism to explain other issues is just a consequence of being a Materialist. If you adhere to a materialist understanding of the world, you come to the the conclusion that most of the features of our environment (which is validated by analysis) find their roots in the material organization of our world. And the material organization we are operating in is "capitalism". Which is why it applies so much.…

I agree with your assessment of what "capitalism" means, but it's still not a productive term to use if people are constantly confused and misunderstand it. In my experience, many people understand "capitalism" to mean nothing more than "rich people wielding power", so I try to avoid using it in contexts where confusion is possible.

I understand, but the way to fix that issue isn't to avoid talking about capitalism but to actually address what it is.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#65

Post by sudosysgen »

dqv wrote: post #46
mathattack wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is such planning possible? Decentralized models work because centralized planning doesn’t. I concur with the aims. Solving pandemics, climate change and nuclear proliferation require a different toolset than what succeeded for reducing global poverty.

Centralized planning didn't work. And my assumption has always been that it was the result of a slow-to-respond system. Today we have a way to react to economic signals almost instantaneously. I think it's worth trying again in a smaller way i.e. centralized planning of the meat industry (someone smarter than me can figure out what industry is actually best to do a trial run of modern centralized planning).

You might be interested by what Cockshott has to say.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#66

Post by mathattack »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #40
mathattack wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is such planning possible? Decentralized models work because centralized planning doesn’t. I concur with the aims. Solving pandemics, climate change and nuclear proliferation require a different toolset than what succeeded for reducing global poverty.

It is not like decentralized planning always work better. It depends on the task. What works in my opinion is iteration, feedback and experimentation. You don’t merely dogmatically state centralized or decentralized work better. Instead you experiment, iterate and refine. You learn from others.

Can centrally planned iteration and testing work better? I’m not trying to be dogmatic - I’m trying to look for a 3rd option beyond centralized and decentralized.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#67

Post by atlgator »

intended wrote: post #47
atlgator wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Government is empowered. We know that because they have broken up companies in the past for that reason. The issue is Congress is not willing to do it (you can ponder the why for yourself). A solution may be to throw out the politicians before destroying our whole system.

Ah - so Distinguishing between possession of power and actual willingness to use that power. Meaning that it’s not a design issue it’s a political issue.

Indeed.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#68

Post by panarky »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #44
cyphar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "capitalism" is not (as you appear to be implying) synonymous with "market economies". In fact they are two separate economic concepts. There have been economic systems that had free markets (feudal lords bought and sold goods in market economies) and there were also examples of capitalist enterprises that existed without free markets (some people would argue the Soviet Union fits this description, but if yo…

I think it is also important to add that it is a system where capital plays a significant role in the economy unlike say a feudal economy where land was the most important factor in the economy.

While I realize that land is a distinct factor of production in the land-labor-capital-entrepreneurship model, in common usage I'd say land is the ultimate capital.

Capitalists exploit ownership to generate profit for themselves. Sometimes that's ownership of something they produced, like a machine or a building or a work of the mind. More often, it's something produced by labor that they exploit for profit. And sometimes it's something they didn't produce, but manage to own and profit from nonetheless, like land and natural resources.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#69

Post by throwaway894345 »

bjo590 wrote: post #41
philips wrote: post #15

I can't listen to the podcast at the moment. But, along a similar theme Doughnut Economics tries to imagine adjustments that are required to traditional economic models from the 19th and 20th century that are required to keep the biosphere productive for humans. https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ An idea that stuck with me is that markets are powerful tools that need to be embedded into other systems but arent sel…

> It seems too often in debates on big problems the argument is simply we need a market solution not how is the system designed to best utilize a market. "We need a market solution" is politician for private interests want to change laws so that they can expand their businesses.

While I agree, it’s kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Carbon taxes are also a market-based solution which aligns well with public interests, for example.

Re: What If ‘Capitalism’ Isn't the Problem? [audio]

#70

Post by sudosysgen »

panarky wrote: post #68
socialdemocrat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is also important to add that it is a system where capital plays a significant role in the economy unlike say a feudal economy where land was the most important factor in the economy.

While I realize that land is a distinct factor of production in the land-labor-capital-entrepreneurship model, in common usage I'd say land is the ultimate capital. Capitalists exploit ownership to generate profit for themselves. Sometimes that's ownership of something they produced, like a machine or a building or a work of the mind. More often, it's something produced by labor that they exploit for profit. And some…

Capital must be producible. Land cannot be any form of capital because it cannot be produced.
Post reply on HN