31–39 of 39 posts
This term is a combination of spin and wishful thinking by Marxists. Capitalism isn't going anywhere.
This term is a combination of spin and wishful thinking by Marxists. Capitalism isn't going anywhere.
I suspect that Marx thought we were in "late stage capitalism" in 1848. (He may not have used the term, but it seems to fit what he thought and said.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism will never go away. Just as monarchism still exists on various corporate boards in some form. And just as anarchism still exists in some form in a capitalist society. But capital allocation will cease to be the dominant protocol for social organization.
I don't see any realistic alternative. Capitalism creates wealth more efficiently than any other system, and over the long run even the poorest people in a capitalist country will be wealthier than people in countries with command economies. The problems we're having today result from corruption, which can happen with any system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any realistic alternative. Capitalism creates wealth more efficiently than any other system, and over the long run even the poorest people in a capitalist country will be wealthier than people in countries with command economies. The problems we're having today result from corruption, which can happen with any system.
What if, and this is a big what if, computer science could solve the efficiency problem of a centralized economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen some people and some attitudes out there that believe it really is. Some of the same people have no problem biting the hand that feeds them, it seems. Or rather, biting the hand that they're asking "please sir, can I have some more" of.
Perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them is feeding them feces instead of the promised food. Or perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them while siphoning off their wallet is not actually doing them much good. Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, but neither is it good. When combined with proper regulation, it can lead to a lot of growth, while raising the tide for everyone. But when deregulated…
You're complaining that the incentive to create (potentially becoming rich) itself is the problem. Well, okay, but what will replace it, while not causing everyone to do much less ?
Because if people do much less, then our wealth evaporates. And then well, as another comment put it, "some asshole is going to tell you you can't get healthcare".
Historically it can be put like this. There's 2 ways people were motivated:
* "do your job or we'll kill you" (slavery, but equally feodalism, communism, ...)
* "do your job and we'll reward you" (capitalism, and some related systems like mercantilism)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen some people and some attitudes out there that believe it really is. Some of the same people have no problem biting the hand that feeds them, it seems. Or rather, biting the hand that they're asking "please sir, can I have some more" of.
I think the fundamental reason people latch onto it as "Late Stage" is because they see the future of this way of building a society as very grim. And I am inclined to agree with them. Capitalism is one thing, but fundamentalist capitalism, which is preached in the US (not followed, mind you, we have lots of monopolies and very closed markets), is something of a horror show of awful virtues. The trick is, capitalism…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them is feeding them feces instead of the promised food. Or perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them while siphoning off their wallet is not actually doing them much good. Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, but neither is it good. When combined with proper regulation, it can lead to a lot of growth, while raising the tide for everyone. But when deregulated…
The issue with these comments is that you present no alternatives. Wealth is not something that exists by itself. Wealth exists because people create it. We have as much wealth as we do because people create so much. You're complaining that the incentive to create (potentially becoming rich) itself is the problem. Well, okay, but what will replace it, while not causing everyone to do much less ? Because if people do…
If you wish to reduce communism and socialism to the extreme "kill" state, you should do the same with capitalism. Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
The only real benefit is that people who have jobs can shed responsibility for a death due to a lack of working.
But that's talking in ridiculous extremes.
I'd say most people are motivated (not all, but most) to do work because they consider it to be the right thing to do. Most people want to provide for themselves; but capitalism doesn't always let them do so. If they have the wrong skills, live in the wrong area, or are otherwise incapable of earning enough to offset the cost of living, capitalism shifts the blame to them (Learn the right skills! Move to the right area! Don't get sick!) and leaves them behind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with these comments is that you present no alternatives. Wealth is not something that exists by itself. Wealth exists because people create it. We have as much wealth as we do because people create so much. You're complaining that the incentive to create (potentially becoming rich) itself is the problem. Well, okay, but what will replace it, while not causing everyone to do much less ? Because if people do…
> "do your job and we'll reward you" If you wish to reduce communism and socialism to the extreme "kill" state, you should do the same with capitalism. Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself." The only real benefit is that people who have jobs can shed responsibility for a death due to a lac…
People who have $100k jobs, like most here, perhaps. But that's a perspective that only comes with such jobs.
Do you seriously think McDonalds servers have this perspective ?
> Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
In theory, those jobs are meant to convey the message "improve yourself, or ...". Now I get that it probably doesn't feel like that but on the other side I must say that I know plenty of younger folks that certainly can learn how to program, but won't. Instead taking service jobs, being exploited, but also nobody expecting anything of them in terms of achieving something. They refuse to put in any kind of effort (including at those service jobs btw, where they are not exactly working at peak efficiency).
Now I understand this attitude, but let's not pretend that this isn't voluntary self-sabotage (I understand the psychology surrounding it may be hard to break out of, but ... well you have to), or that it's good for society to have lots of people like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental reason people latch onto it as "Late Stage" is because they see the future of this way of building a society as very grim. And I am inclined to agree with them. Capitalism is one thing, but fundamentalist capitalism, which is preached in the US (not followed, mind you, we have lots of monopolies and very closed markets), is something of a horror show of awful virtues. The trick is, capitalism…
I'd love your feed back on my proposal for a kind of post capitalism. It seems to propose some of the things you expect: http://skilesare.github.io/immortality