Is capitalism a threat to democracy? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#201

Post by tomohawk » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #16

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism

In the absence of big government, big corporate will become defacto government even more easily.

The trust busters in the early 20th century were not part of a big government. You need an effective government, not a big government to police corruption.

As the government has balooned in size, trust busting has become almost non existent. Corruption these days just gets a yawn.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#202

Post by nickik » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #120

nickik wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not talking about an absence of govenremnt. A small government is perfectly able to regulated what is needed to regulate. It is an absolutle isllusion to believe that only a big government can correctly regulated cooperations. In fact, I would argue there is little corrulation either way, both big and small govenrment sometimes have effective laws. The ability to regulated derives from a monopoly on violence,…

I think the confusion is conflating size, or maybe more precisely 'scope', with power.

Exactly. I think its false to assume that a government that directly taxes 60% of all incomes is more effective law maker then a government who taxes 10% of all income is a flase assumtion.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#203

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #58

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism

This is not at all the effect being discussed. The effect being discussed is laid out quite plainly in the subtitle. I'll just quote it here, and save you the effort of right clicking and selecting open in new tab: "The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback." It's a very simple mechanism. Capitalism produces winner…

Optimistically, I think this is somewhat a self-limiting problem.

Capitalism wound up helping workers - sharing far more of the gains with them than in Marx's day. Why? Out of the goodness of capitalists' hearts? Perhaps to some degree, but I think that part of the reason was the challenge of communism. Capitalists wanted to show that capitalism could give workers a better deal than communism, and in doing so, cut much of the ground out from under communism. Why would I want to try to bring about a "communist workers' paradise", if I see that I'm actually better off as a worker under another system?

But after the collapse of communism, the capitalists have seemed to suck more of the money out, leaving less for the workers. That leaves the majority the losers, and becoming angrier and angrier. As you say, they're going to vote for change... unless the capitalists wise up.

The other problem is, people keep offering them change, and the angry majority votes for them, and the promised change keeps on not showing up. Eventually, the angry majority is going to want to do more than just vote...

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#204

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #124

JetSetWilly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit similar to claiming that communism is great, because all the times when it was tried and there were problems weren't real communism. If capitalism tends to inevitably lead to corruption of government and the undermining of democracy etc in the long run, then that's an interesting critique, which can't just be swatted away with "yes but the result isn't capitalism".

But is not the case that it inevitable that it leads to large amounts of corruption. As we can see that in the real world many of the most economically free governments are also amoung the least corrupt. It seems to me that any system of economic organisation that has a goverment will have some level of that problem, its absolutly impossible not to have the problem in concept. The question is what system would you wa…

> As we can see that in the real world many of the most economically free governments are also among the least corrupt.

I suspect that "among the least corrupt" is necessary for "most economically free". Or to put it another way: Corruption destroys economic freedom, because those economically on top at the moment use the corruption to write rules that keep others from being able to challenge them.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#205

Post by jrs235 » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

Why do so many people put democracy on a pedestal? Majority rules scares the shit out of me. We don't need what the majority wants. We need protection for minorities. The greatest minority being the individual. So long as a person isn't physically harming others leave them alone and let them be. Mobocracy, a majority without limits, is worse than a relatively steady and stable dictator.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#206

Post by gimmeDatCheddar » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

spiralx wrote: post #185

gimmeDatCheddar wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape. Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist a…

> Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue. > It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become…

> If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue.

Not true. It is in our best and most rational self-interest to participate in philanthropy and in building a nice society that we can live in, enjoy, and make a profit in. Capitalism and philanthropy and a social safety net are not mutually exclusive, which is why (like I already said) there are capitalists who vote for candidates who want to increase taxes and increase spending on social goods and services.

In fact I'd argue that it's only capitalists who can properly invest and sustain a strong safety net. That's why countries like Switzerland and Denmark are capitalist countries.

> Yes, regulations will interfere with the unfettered pursuit of profit, but that's by intent.

The example of it being hard to enter the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generics is an example of government regulations prohibiting cost-reducing competition.

You can pursue profit while offering a good or a service that is less expensive and higher quality than the alternatives.

> Because it didn't really seem to make much of a point. Yes government spending priorities could be different and I'm sure there's wastage that could be lessened - although I'd guess less than you think. Cronyism exists in any organisation of more than one person.

But the point was that it isn't capitalism that is responsible for that cronyism. And that the wealthy wanting tax cuts does NOT mean that the wealthy need to dismantle the safety net in order to get their tax cuts. We can afford both tax cuts and a safety net if we eliminate cronyism in the government.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#207

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

gimmeDatCheddar wrote: post #206

spiralx wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue. > It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become…

> If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue. Not true. It is in our best and most rational self-interest to participate in philanthropy and in building a nice society that we can live in, enjoy, and make a profit in. Capitalism and philanthropy and a social safety net are n…

> But the point was that it isn't capitalism that is responsible for that cronyism

If by “capitalism” you mean the real-world economic system for which that name was coined by it's critical you are wrong.

If by “capitalism” you mean the abstract theory created to provide propaganda to justify that system after it already existed, you are, well, still wrong, because that propaganda tool serves to protect the actual source of the problem.

> And that the wealthy wanting tax cuts does NOT mean that the wealthy need to dismantle the safety net in order to get their tax cuts. We can afford both tax cuts and a safety net if we eliminate cronyism in the government.

The wealthy don't want tax cuts independent of cronyism and social safety net, they want cronyism in their favor, including particular forms of tax and social safety net cuts.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#208

Post by sli » Fri, May 11, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #130

mschuster91 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telcos can’t cut you off, but ISPs can. Well, ISPs are replaceable (okay, they will offer different speeds). Get cut off, select another ISP (or mobile data). A telco is not easily replaceable though, as the phone number is your unique handle that often cannot be changed easily (which is why you have the right to keep your number in Europe across providers)...

> Get cut off, select another ISP (or mobile data). Comcast customers would like to have a word with you.

Yeah, that particular point is technically true, but in reality it is absolutely false. Far too many people simply do not have competing options. ADSL and satellite are not really competing options if your third option is fiber.

I'd say it's reasonable these days to expect regular people (especially the 18-34 demo) to actually rely on the speeds you get with fiber. ADSL and satellite, by comparison, are slow as molasses.

A number of those folks could probably survive with a mobile data hotspot, but that is really not ideal for a house or apartment.

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#209

Post by Stranger43 » Fri, May 11, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #199

Stranger43 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right is just as bad as history and have mostly manage to erase the economic system Smith wanted abolished, and according to Marx had re-emerged after Smiths dead. Or to put it differently capitalism was never envisioned as a critique of socialism, but as a critique of nationalist mercantilism, which is the same system international socialism was supposed to tackle a century after Capitalism had failed. Though by…

Honestly I have no idea what you mean by the words you say. By no strech of the imagination was did capitlaism fail. In fact the strech from 1870 to 1914 was the largest and strongest period of growth thanks to capitlaism and increasing trend, specialisation and so on. Feudalistic order as a system of economics had long stopped in most of western Europe and even in Russia. The feudalistic titles still being around an…

To pretend that 1870 to 1910(also known as the long depression in literature) was some kind of glory period of equality and democracy is only almost plausible because of the complete dissater that follows, and completely at ods with just about every credible history book written about that period. Wars of conquest still happen doing that period, and new colonies are still being formed.

Where the myth of the glorious 19th century comes in is that it's fundamental to america's founding myth that it was a democracy(as defined by the modern UN) prior to or even doing the 1st world war, and did not evolve into one almost as gradually as the Europeans empires.

Dickens and Rasputin is from the late 19th century, as is the term rubber baron and banana republic and America main foreign policy activity is to topple Latin American states and patrol china in defense of American corporations(in colaboration with Britain, germany and Japan an event that's forgotten in the US but definitely not in china).

The traditional agrarian feudal order with serfs and knights are of cause gone, replaced by mercantist national companies like the British east India company targeted by the Boston tea party and the primary subject of Smiths criticism, but the aristocratic system is still in place and it's a low point in terms of economic equality not a high point(for the west equality peaks sometimes between Nixon taking office and Reagan leaving office, where as global equality might actually be increasing).

But of cause if you are one of the many who have bought the myth that Smiths wealth of nations is about socialism(the fact is that smith never writes a single word about socialism), and that the long depression never happened we are of cause not even talking the same language but thats of cause the core problem with our political discourse. And the reason that the old ideals about the good king/dictator/chairman keeps reemerging as the lone alternative to the bad power brookers corrupting the system.

My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace

Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?

#210

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, May 11, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

I'm disappointed in this thread. Not the post itself, but the discussion, most of which seems 1) utterly divorced from the article, 2) largely (and on several sides) reduced to ideological rhetoric and axe-grinding, singularly both uninformed and uninformative, 3) voluable (approaching 200 comments as I write) and far more noise than signal.

It's about whaat I'd expect if you'd asked a diverse group of 1550s Europeans to civilly diiscuss Catholocism vs. Reformation.

(I've spent a fair bit of time researching the history of the notion of free speech. Among northern Europeans, there's generally been a specific carve-out against free speech to Papists, as they were frequently referred to....)

There are only four references to the key individual within the article, Karl Polanyi. Three of those reference the lack of reference to him. (I've just added a fifth reference, though also of a nonproductive meta-commentary.)

There are several likely reasons for this. One is that "capitalism" and "democracy" are themselves both poorly defined, and cultural shibboleths: signifiers of group affinity far more than semantically functional terms. I'd read economics myself ay uni and would have been pressed to give aa coherent definition until relatively recently. Even now, that's more by calling up a definition, or set of definitions, than something that comes readily to mind.

E.J. Mishan was a Chicago-trained, though very much not a Chicago-scool, economist of the 2nd half of the 20th century. He examined, and questioned, many fundamental precepts of economics, including the meaning and definitions of "free market". (Close to though not identical with "capitalism".)

Mishan notes that "free market" may refer to one or more of the following:

1. The private ownership of capital, or productiive (nonhuman) assets

2. The private management of economic enterprise

3. The decentralization of economic enterprise

4. Competitive enterprise

5. A price system

6. A market system

He also notes that these definitions my either rely on, or oppose, one another. E.g., pricate ownership (1) tends to centralisation, opposing decentralisation (3).

http://booksc.org/ireader/28521331

https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1975.11503319

Other authors, of late Naomi Wolf in Shock Doctrine, have pointed out the affinity of free-market advocates, Milton Friedman in particular, with authoritarian and genocidal dictators. Similar parallels were drawn in the 1930s with fascist Italy and Germany, and you can find similar sentiments in the works of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith.

But for discussion, HN can and should do far better.