Goals and Solutions for a Capitalist System
I'd like to discuss solutions to the problems identified here. I assume two things in beginning this topic:
1) One of the main forces moving humanity towards annihilation is the socioeconomic system of capitalism.
2) "Capitalism" is distinguished from other systems by the relationship of employer and employee.
Given these two assumptions, I think it's important to analyze modern business and economics as a main source of destruction.
Big business has organized in the form of the multinational corporation for roughly the last century. A corporation is a legal entity, a fiction created by law -- a product (gift) of governments. Private wealth has now come to dominate the public domain by financing and lobbying government officials and representatives. They only get to where they are if they (a) are already wealthy or (b) have the support of wealth, making the internalization of a certain set of class values nearly inevitable.
If the above is not obvious to you, then there's little reason to continue reading.
Given this analysis, the only question left is: what exactly do we do about it? In other words, what about solutions? What goals are we working towards?
If we want to treat the underlying disease, and not simply the symptoms -- or, to shift the simile, to go to the roots of the trees rather than swing at its leaves and branches -- I think one solution is dissolving, or finding alternative forms of, corporate governance. Change how business is organized and conducted. This will take a shift in ideology, and above all else a collective effort from millions of people. Before elaborating further, I want to clarify a few things.
There have been businesses and markets for centuries, of course --- in many different countries, and with various outcomes. This is true whether that political/economic system is labeled "capitalist" or "socialist" and "communist." They succeed in some ways and fail in others. It's important to realize that the United States in the 1950s and 60s had high economic growth which was much more egalitarian than today, and equally important to look outside the United States to other countries.
As an example, China has made enormous strides in common economic measures, yet they're a "communist" country [hide="Reveal"](and since "communism = evil" has been drilled into Americans heads for decades, especially during the Cold War, many simply cannot see this)[/hide]. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have succeeded and failed in various ways as well.
These countries are neither completely socialist nor completely capitalist. To the extent to which a country's economic system's main form of organization is structured as an undemocratic hierarchy (the corporation), where a few private owners control the distribution of profits, where there are owners/employers and employees/wage laborers, there is capitalism. That is nearly every country, from China to Venezuela. To the degree to which the government regulates/interferes with markets and provides its citizens social programs, there is socialism. That is nearly every country, from China to Venezuela.
If we compare the United States to other countries, by what metrics are we succeeding? How do we compare to these countries using these metrics?
You would think that, given our military and economic power in the world, not to mention what we profess to be our ideals, that we would have some of the best outcomes in a number of fields -- like healthcare, quality of life, longevity, wages, time off, low infant mortality, low levels of homelessness, strong social safety net, etc. It turns out none of this is the case.
Given these lousy results, what do we have to lose by changing things?
By changing corporate governance there are three interrelated possibilities, as I see it:
1) Putting workers on the boards of directors.
2) The co-op model.
3) Stronger unions.
Michael Alpert has some interesting ideas as well. I see all of this as part of a labor movement -- a movement which should have a party representing it, as other countries do.
If we take intentions, beliefs, and feelings out of the equation and look simply at how corporations are currently run, we can see clearly where the problem arises: a small handful of people make all the decisions, especially about where the profits go. The majority of any corporation are its workers, who are shut out of decision-making. They are thanked by management for a great quarter or great year, and that's the extent of it.
What happens to all the profit? Where does this money go? This should be the question for anyone working for a major corporation.
According to William Lazonick, over the last 20 years (but ultimately starting in the 1980s) the answer has been stock buybacks:
What is the reason for this? (I think it has something to do with shareholder primacy theory.) And what can be done about it? How can we begin to organize? What organizations have you found to be working on these issues?
1) One of the main forces moving humanity towards annihilation is the socioeconomic system of capitalism.
2) "Capitalism" is distinguished from other systems by the relationship of employer and employee.
Given these two assumptions, I think it's important to analyze modern business and economics as a main source of destruction.
Big business has organized in the form of the multinational corporation for roughly the last century. A corporation is a legal entity, a fiction created by law -- a product (gift) of governments. Private wealth has now come to dominate the public domain by financing and lobbying government officials and representatives. They only get to where they are if they (a) are already wealthy or (b) have the support of wealth, making the internalization of a certain set of class values nearly inevitable.
If the above is not obvious to you, then there's little reason to continue reading.
Given this analysis, the only question left is: what exactly do we do about it? In other words, what about solutions? What goals are we working towards?
If we want to treat the underlying disease, and not simply the symptoms -- or, to shift the simile, to go to the roots of the trees rather than swing at its leaves and branches -- I think one solution is dissolving, or finding alternative forms of, corporate governance. Change how business is organized and conducted. This will take a shift in ideology, and above all else a collective effort from millions of people. Before elaborating further, I want to clarify a few things.
There have been businesses and markets for centuries, of course --- in many different countries, and with various outcomes. This is true whether that political/economic system is labeled "capitalist" or "socialist" and "communist." They succeed in some ways and fail in others. It's important to realize that the United States in the 1950s and 60s had high economic growth which was much more egalitarian than today, and equally important to look outside the United States to other countries.
As an example, China has made enormous strides in common economic measures, yet they're a "communist" country [hide="Reveal"](and since "communism = evil" has been drilled into Americans heads for decades, especially during the Cold War, many simply cannot see this)[/hide]. Germany, Denmark, and Sweden have succeeded and failed in various ways as well.
These countries are neither completely socialist nor completely capitalist. To the extent to which a country's economic system's main form of organization is structured as an undemocratic hierarchy (the corporation), where a few private owners control the distribution of profits, where there are owners/employers and employees/wage laborers, there is capitalism. That is nearly every country, from China to Venezuela. To the degree to which the government regulates/interferes with markets and provides its citizens social programs, there is socialism. That is nearly every country, from China to Venezuela.
If we compare the United States to other countries, by what metrics are we succeeding? How do we compare to these countries using these metrics?
You would think that, given our military and economic power in the world, not to mention what we profess to be our ideals, that we would have some of the best outcomes in a number of fields -- like healthcare, quality of life, longevity, wages, time off, low infant mortality, low levels of homelessness, strong social safety net, etc. It turns out none of this is the case.
Given these lousy results, what do we have to lose by changing things?
By changing corporate governance there are three interrelated possibilities, as I see it:
1) Putting workers on the boards of directors.
2) The co-op model.
3) Stronger unions.
Michael Alpert has some interesting ideas as well. I see all of this as part of a labor movement -- a movement which should have a party representing it, as other countries do.
If we take intentions, beliefs, and feelings out of the equation and look simply at how corporations are currently run, we can see clearly where the problem arises: a small handful of people make all the decisions, especially about where the profits go. The majority of any corporation are its workers, who are shut out of decision-making. They are thanked by management for a great quarter or great year, and that's the extent of it.
What happens to all the profit? Where does this money go? This should be the question for anyone working for a major corporation.
According to William Lazonick, over the last 20 years (but ultimately starting in the 1980s) the answer has been stock buybacks:
The allocation of corporate profits to stock buybacks deserves much of the blame. Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.
What is the reason for this? (I think it has something to do with shareholder primacy theory.) And what can be done about it? How can we begin to organize? What organizations have you found to be working on these issues?
Comments (72)
Noam Chomsky
Figured I'd throw this here.
It's a really good question. My wife works for a big corporation, and they made billions last quarter. Meanwhile her and other workers constantly get nickeled and dimed, with just slight increases in their compensation. They're always told the same thing "we don't have the money" or "it would not be cost effective" and things like that.....but she doesn't really ask that question much. i think a lot of people are just afraid to be fired and don't want to rock the boat. They aren't given all the information and so it's just assumed that the higher ups "know what they're doing"
If most of the money is going to stock buybacks and dividends, my question is why do they do that? who decides, the CEO? You mentioned that it hasn't always been that way....how and why was it different?
All good questions. The people who decided are generally the board of directors and the CEO. Sometimes the CEO is also the board chairman.
Why do they decide to give so much back to shareholders -- in the form of dividends and boosting the stock prices by buying them back? It's because of a way of thinking that's started to grip academia and corporate America in the 1970s and 80s: the shareholder doctrine, also know as the "Friedman Doctrine." This states that the shareholders are the true owners, and that a company's sole responsibility is to make a profit for its owners. This is what's believed. The policies that followed, starting with compensating CEOs with stocks and allowing buybacks again (rule 10b-18) are both justified by this way of thinking.
That's beginning to change now, as the Business Roundtable and other major business lobby groups have started talking about the "stakeholder doctrine" instead. So far just words.
It indeed hasn't always been that way. I mentioned the 50s and 60s -- there corporate governance was different, and with much better economic results.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-bizroundtable/if-corporations-dont-put-shareholders-first-what-happens-to-business-judgment-rule-idUSKCN1VC2FS
In turn, btw, because capitalism is a failing system in which profitability is at record lows so financial markets are one of the last remaining pressure relief valves before the real economy has to actually explode.
An explosion in speculative activity is what always follows the decay and failure of the real economy. Capital follows the path of least resistance. And the resistance in the real economy is at record levels. The whole thing is being held together by the duct-tape of QE and PPP and record low interest rates. It's bleeding to death. Who in their right mind would park their money there? No sensible capitalist.
I think the only "solution" is to let the whole system collapse, probably better sooner than later... and see what can grow after that.
The "system" is predicated on the idea that "we" can secure a future for ourselves apart and above of the rest of the world. This has turned out to be a mistake... no matter the disavowment of this mistake, at some time we will have to recon with it. If we wait longer, it'll probably be that much harder.
This all probably has a very "Hari Seldon"- vibe to it... but I think it true for the most part. It's just basic (energy) physiques unfortunately.
[silence]
Okay to attempt to give a more constructive response to your question ;-).
The whole system is the problem right?
You can't change the whole system is my answer (and not only mine). It just doesn't work because the system works around little fissures and the like... commercializing ('colonizing') anything and everything that attempts to change it from "within". Politics is futile for much of the same reason... because by the time you get to anything worthwhile, it has to be watered down that much that it isn't worth it anymore anyway.
The way it will/has to go, is breakdown. Parts of the system will breakdown, cease to function and other things will take its place out of necessity. That's the charm of alternative ways of living, things like perma-culture, that they create alternative means of subsistence not directly tied to the mainstream economy... without trying to be overtly political.
Short-term return on investment, yes. The stock price goes up. But this isn't the entire story, as you know. Stock buybacks were nearly non-existent for 30+ years until after 1982. That's why I mentioned rule 10b-18 of the SEC, under Reagan-appointed John Shad. The floodgates opened after both this action and increasing stocks as a portion of CEO compensation. Whether these moves were "ideologically" driven or not is arguable, although it does appear that way to me. I think the appropriation of Friedman's doctrine (and others) served as a nice cover.
https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity
https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy
Both from Lazonick, who's done good research into this. Also a decent interview here, if you're interested:
Quoting StreetlightX
Right -- it's bleeding to death yet being propped up, over and over, by the Fed. The question is what happens this year when they start tapering their buying of corporate debt to fight "inflation"? Whether the financial sector bleeds out slowly or hemorrhages seems the only two options. Unless they find Jesus, of course.
Maybe...but that means enormous suffering that will be felt mostly -- as always -- by the poor and working classes. It means worldwide depression. They've gotten themselves into a game where they're now "too big to fail," and so the government serves as a backstop for them, preventing them from failing. On and on we go.
I'd much prefer massive legal and regulatory reforms, but that's not going to happen either. What's more is that we're really out of time. So if the entire system collapses, perhaps that's the last best hope we have?
There's always the people, of course. That's my real hope. Unfortunately millions of people are far too divided by our media bubbles, too tired from work, too sick from our lifestyles, too medicated, too drugged out, or too "amused" to know or care about the imminent catastrophe already unfolding.
My hope is people too in some way, but not in a typical direct political way, like people voting for reforms to the cosmopolitan global capitalist system that we have. I can't see that happening.
I think solutions will be local, smaller scale, communal etc... just people looking to pick up where the system breaks down, out of necessity or just because it makes more sense. There are already constant efforts at these more grassroots local initiatives, but they are not easy or all that successful because you still have that mainstream monolith they have to compete with that provides 'easy answers' for most people. The hope is that as it breaks down, these initiatives will get more traction as more people are forced-out/realize the terminal state of the system.
I guess my original point was that legal reforms and the like are only of consequence if one believes that the system can be saved. If one doesn't, then they don't really matter. That's the awkward political position I find myself in as of late, I think all traditional political answers are inconsequential because they seem to assume a future that I don't think is even possible.
Which, perhaps, had also the highest register of happiness in the history of the US.
:grin:
It does seem like that’s what the system is based on, ultimately: the accumulation of wealth. More and more profits, more and more money. And why? What’s the point in spending your time collecting coins and paper?
Because it can buy you control and influence, not to mention lots of material goods. It can buy food, women, houses, cars, clothes, jewelry, TVs, etc. All the things we’re supposed to covet.
A certain amount of material goods, and of wealth, is fine. I agree with Aristotle in that case. But when it’s the central need on which you base your sociocultural system, you’re heading for disaster.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-american-polity-is-cracked-and-might-collapse-canada-must-prepare/
The analogy to war and revolution is perhaps too extreme, but if we scale it down we can see that, historically, the changes that benefit the vast majority of humanity (who are not born into the ruling class) all come from groups of people (usually large groups) feeling similar things, expressing that to one another, and putting their asses on the line to change things.
So perhaps it's a topic for a new thread, but why is this so damn hard? It certainly has been hard for me, but perhaps others have different experiences. There are many barriers that prevent not just mass movements/revolution, but even something like forming a small union or local advocacy group, and these barriers are not always bureaucratic.
Whatever goals we have, I’m thinking more and more there’s only one way to get there: through collective effort. That’s not to say we lose our individual identities— but that one person, isolated, simply can’t take on an entire system.
So then isn’t another way of looking at things to say: the “real” problem to overcome is our own unwillingness to get together?
I think that division is part of the whole divide and conquer strategy. Blaming the victims doesn’t seem like the right decision.
Aye, comrade. That's exactly what I would say. Even if I can be insulting, that doesn't mean I can't respect what makes you human, and love that humanity.
Like it or not I guess it is the system which fits our necessities the most. I don't say we have to live in an economical jungle but in a world where the free market is respected as much as the public administration.
I guess that could be the perfect equilibrium
Yup it fits and fits well, like an iron maiden. The maiden embraces and kills us in the process. Love! :roll:
A great thread!
In the UK, there are two groups I know of called 'momentum' and 'compass,' who are trying to create a new progressive politics which tries to address many of the issues you raise. They both support Universal Basic Income (UBI) for example.
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/
https://peoplesmomentum.com/
I am not a member of either of these groups, yet, but I have been keeping up, particularly with the 'compass' group and I like the majority of what they are doing so far. I like the momentum political movement as well but they are strongly connected to the UK Labour party (of which I used to be a member). I left the Labour party when they dropped clause 4.
Tony Blair set the labour party back 100 years in my opinion. I was very disheartened when the vile Maggie Thatcher called Tony Blair her greatest achievement. That was a very bitter truth for me.
The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is.
No, but the system has to be taken on an individual level. It's what "consumers" -- every individual person can do.
In order to bring down capitalism (more like: render it economically unviable), one would need to do things that are counterproductive to capitalism, and those things are sometimes counterintuitive and come with a cost to the "consumer". Don't buy stuff at sales and at discount prices, don't buy fast fashion, buy less, buy relatively good quality, treat your things well so that they last. Don't buy junkfood. Don't buy pseudoluxuries (like storebrand versions of luxury items, like storebrand champagne). Buy as few imported goods as possible.
Capitalism understands only profit. If nobody buys stuff that is on sale, they'll stop putting it on sale. Note that when things are on sale, this means that somebody isn't getting paid properly in the process. This is usually the people who actually manufactured the items on sale. It's impossible to tell whether they'll be paid less unfairly if people buy things at the full price, but the important thing is to fight the idea of "getting something for very little or nothing".
It seems inevitable, though, that there will be suffering in the process. Many people who are involved in the production of relatively cheap and relatively low-quality items will lose their jobs. The fact is that it was ethically wrong to produce and to buy such items to begin with. Everyone involved will need to pay the price for this eventually.
True. But who's blaming the victims?
Quoting Garrett Travers
And more of this is needed.
Quoting Agent Smith
I'm leery about attributing to the current socioeconomic system any idea of natural law, evolution, human nature, etc. Capitalism could very easily be described as regression, from a certain point of view.
Quoting javi2541997
What free markets? Seems to me more a myth than a reality.
Quoting universeness
Excellent! Glad to hear.
Agreed re: Thatcher and Blair.
Quoting baker
I'm skeptical about claims like this. First, I don't like labeling human beings as primarily "consumers." Secondly, as we've seen with environmental issues, businesses love to make things about individual choices ("decrease your carbon footprint," etc). While there's clearly some truth to this (groups are composed of individuals), the emphasis is deliberate -- and what it ultimately does, in my view, is encourages isolated action and discourages collective action. So don't bother joining any groups to fight climate change -- just buy better light bulbs. Don't join a labor union -- just talk to your boss.
Even if you yourself aren't meaning this, I think it's worth pointing out.
Quoting baker
All good ideas that I support wholeheartedly, with the above qualification.
I’m apologize if I misinterpreted your words. It just seems like the problem is that people are being divided and not that they are divided. When you emphasize that fact that they are divided instead of the fact that they are being divided it seems like you’re criticizing the victims for their inability to unite.
I put more blame on those doing the dividing -- and here the media (including social media) plays an outsized role. But it's true, I do also throw some of the blame on "us," too. Whether it's wise to do so, I don't know.
I think parents who face the truth of losing a child due to the current actions of Russian soldiers in Ukraine are justified in feeling bitter about such truth.
I don't compare my level of bitterness towards Tony Blair and the vile Maggie Thatcher with the scenario I describe above but statements like "The truth is never bitter," is just 'silly' in my opinion.
Well, I hope you took my 'silly' criticism as merely my opinion on your viewpoint, nothing more.
It's your magnanimous choice if you don't wish to call my viewpoint silly.
I repeat that it is perfectly legitimate for individuals to feel bitter about certain truths they have had to face in their lives and I think they should not take your viewpoint that 'all truths are sweet.'
Interesting. I’m not sure that we disagree. I never said that feeling a certain way is illegitimate. But I maintain that the truth is the sweetest thing there is. Maybe people are bitter but the truth is not. It is good to learn and acquire knowledge even if it is difficult. But let me ask you this would you prefer to be blissfully ignorant or the opposite?
Perhaps our disagreement is only on how each of us might emotionally react to a particular truth.
My reaction to some truths, such as the leader of my political party being a closet capitalist. A Labour party in which I invested my youthful hope for a socialist country. Tony Blair, who was claimed as the greatest achievement of a creature I truly hated (Maggie Thatcher), was indeed a bitter truth.
That bitterness did make me fight for true socialism with even more determination, ever since however.
I think Thatcher created many more socialists that any other force in the UK, so I think her achievement of Tony Blair has been eclipsed by the number of dissenters against capitalism that she created.
Quoting Average
Some truth can cause bitterness in people, I don't think that makes the person bitter overall.
I think it is a reaction of strength, as the reaction can often result in renewed determination as I have described above. I don't want to feel 'sweet' in such situations, that sounds weak and defeatist.
Unless you are using 'sweet' in the same sense as the modern use of 'wicked' as something good and 'cool.'
Quoting Average
I am not an advocate of 'ignorance is bliss,' but I thought we were discussing individual reaction to truth rather than being ignorant of truth.
That's what I'm here for, brother.
I apologize because I was under the opposite impression.
Quoting universeness
I do think that I’m using the words in precisely the way you outlined. Meaning that I use the word “sweet” to say that the truth is the best thing. I don’t even know what feeling “sweet” would mean.
'Lost in translation' is often an issue. We often call people 'sweetheart,' or we might say that an outcome was 'sweet,' to indicate we are friendly towards the person or are 'happy' about the outcome.
This is what I assumed when you suggested that "truth is the sweetest thing there is." It may be better if you offer clarification for those of us who are a little more 'literalist.'
In my phraseology, I would need something like:
'Truth itself is vital and of greatest importance, regardless of the fact that some truths may cause a bitter reaction is some people', rather than your The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is
I do would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent is clarifying your meaning was poorly spent.
Sorry about that 'messed up' last sentence, it should have been:
I do/would not wish to infringe/restrict/constrict your turn of phrase and I don't think the energy spent, in clarifying your meaning, was poorly spent
This is interesting in that it kindof lays bare some of the assumptions that are being made in enlightenment/liberalist ideology.
Maybe it is the obvious thing to try when confronted with concentrated power, to try to get rid of it, and try to distribute it evenly over the population.... that sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface at least.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating however and experiments to achieve this, haven't been all that successful historically it seems to me. Maybe one can argue over whether it's the idea or the execution that failed... but my intuition is that it's no fluke that capitalism developed in the society that championed individual liberties over everything else.
Power hates a vacuum. If we destroy traditions that uphold certain values, something else will look to fill the void. Maybe it is the case that commerce/capitalists could jump in an manipulate the rest of society precisely because it didn't have to compete anymore with traditional value-systems that have been systematically destroyed after the enlightenment?
The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption?
I appreciate this response. This is a very good question.
I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values.
I can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under.
The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time?
All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige.
Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway.
So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.
The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power.
Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold.
If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that.
Anyway, this ofcourse assumes we always end up with an oligarchy, which isn't a given by any means,... but this would be a reason to favour it.
I think I agree. Question is maybe how does one organise those into a society, practically?
We moderns and atheists usually don't have much time for tradition or religion, but at least those did provide a positive account..
Now we only have secular states that have to guarantee neutrality and plurality, and can't give any 'thick' account of what values our societies should be build around. This has its benefits no doubt, but then again maybe that did open us up for capitalism to fill in the void.
Quoting Xtrix
I think scale is important.
Maybe in smaller groups with little specialisation some form of communalism was the default organisational form. Maybe that is indeed even our dominant instinct because we presumably evolved in such circumstances..
But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical.
And if we need to have these type of power relations anyway, an aristocracy probably makes sense lest we devolve into an other type and even less desirable form of oligarchy.
I appreciate the pushback. That statement of mine was provocative.
Why favor it? Because I ultimately take the side of Plato and Nietzsche. If you're familiar with their thinking, you know; if not, check them out -- they express it much better than me. I'm essentially a student of the Germans, the Greeks, and the Enlightenment (actually a product of a number of influences, of course, but these are the strongest ones).
I tend to like the idea of utilizing our differences as humans for the "good" of the world. That, to me, doesn't mean eliminating classes, in the Platonic sense, any more than we should eliminate a division of labor -- or, for that matter, specialization. The goal isn't to make everything the same. [I think equality is learning not to believe all human beings are the same, but believing others as human beings as a bare minimum, despite differences. Thus to discourage dehumanization, objectification.] The goal is to optimize those differences. I think of basketball as an example -- many different roles of the team.
What I mean by the "Platonic sense" is the myth of the metals. It's a "noble lie" in the sense that it is just a fabricated story, but taking the gods out of the equation if you prefer, that view isn't so terrible. It takes into account all people, and gives all an opportunity to flourish in their own capacities. Thus, an "aristocracy" in the sense of a class of people -- in Plato's sense, the philosopher-kings -- devoted to the task of governing. But they don't have it easy. It is earned, and through a long period of training -- and through a rather ascetic lifestyle.
There's more to be said of all this, but that's a start.
To me, such attitudes are born of exasperation with skewed historical data. Remember it's often the victors that write history.
In many parts of the globe, 'the lot' of the majority of people has improved only due to socialist/humanist movements that have assaulted unjust power bases such as aristocracies/plutocracies/autocracies. The idea that humanist or socialist intentions will ultimately tend towards a privileged, powerful, rich minority who control the lives and opportunities/fate of a poor, uneducated majority who are invariably abused and exploited by that privileged few, is a skewed viewpoint and one that makes me fume to say the very least.
The idea that the privileged few, feel (your nobless oblige) and demonstrate responsibility towards the underprivileged majority is utter nonsense. We would the French have chopped the heads off of such a noble, benevolent group. Why did the Russian and English do much the same. Why have Kings and aristocracies been almost wiped out globally? The regressive and backward house of Lords in the UK and the embarrassing 'honours' system is the best example of the remaining residue of global aristocracy and even that is on the wane.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So we continue the fight against such realities wherever it exists, we don't become apathetic surrender monkeys!
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The lesson to be learned here is that we need sufficient checks and balances to prevent this.
We simply need a system where NO ONE can EVER EVER become a millionaire or a billionaire. NO ONE can occupy a position of power unless they can be easily removed if they show any nefarious behavior. NO ONE can own land. Get rid of currency.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I don't accept either! An Aristocracy is as vile or indeed viler than a Plutocracy. I will continue to fight tooth and nail against both.
I know the basic story (but I am not fluent in either) associated with both and I rate neither. I also don't rate the blood-thirsty Greek or Roman cultures. The Germanic historical cultures are equally steeped in savagery. The enlightenment was a completely different event in my opinion and should indeed be held up as an example of very positive human behavior.
I find much more value and better politics in some early tribal systems where their leader/chief was 'appointed' and was easily removed if they fell out of favour with the majority of tribal members.
But in truth, I don't think we have done very well since we left the wild. Not when it comes to the application of the golden rule of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
I think the fairest human political system has yet to come and I think it's TRUE socialism, which has never been successfully achieved YET. But it exists!
We need to stop giving credence to horrible, failed ancient attempts at creating a decent/benevolent human society with full ability to DEFEND itself and no wish to attack/conquer.
Another member @Garret Travers cites the Epicurean commune as the best human attempt at a decent society. I think this is a good example but by no means the only one. Many ancient tribes seemed to respect each individual in the tribe. Each seemed to be treated fairly and resources were shared, no rich and they respected and looked after their environment.
I am sure your own analysis and your own thinking, free of the influence of the musings of Ancient Greeks or anyone else is also actively considering that which would be a fairer more equitable system for people to live under, based on awareness of those imbalanced political systems applied historically or currently. I personally value this ability in you more than any deference you have to the views of others, ancient, historical or current.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I agree but care must always be taken to discuss/reason/debate with those members of the team/tribe/nation/planet who feel the need to have superiority/authority/power/privilege compared to their fellows. I don't think EVERYTHING or EVERYONE has to be the same but I do demand economic parity and education/food/drink/heat/shelter/justice/medical care to be rights of birth for all from cradle to grave, forever. If that is established then most of the rest is negotiable. Totalitarianism/autocracy/one-party politics/authority which is difficult to remove, must become as impossible as we can make it.
Quoting Xtrix
I understand the definition of aristocracy as 'those most able/suited to govern.' Such would in my opinion be more accurately labeled as a meritocracy. The actions of the historical aristocrats contradicts such a definition of the term. Meritocracy is a rather loose term, its definition would have to be very carefully thought out. I don't think the description of 'those most able/suited to govern,' is good enough.
I reject the word 'class' as a horrible way to catergorise people. I favour a simple old adage. Power of, by and for the people. No group should seek or be given political power until very powerful checks and balances are in place. No position of authority should be given until it can be easily withdrawn by the vote of the people represented. This vote can be called for at any time and removal would be swift, if nefarious behavior has been demonstrated by anyone holding power.
As a 'penniesworth' comment, I am with those who describe Nietzsche as rather narcissistic, a malcontent who was probably a little or a lot, mad. I am a malcontent myself but only because I see such an unjust human global society at the moment. I don't think I suffer from the same skewed self-image as Nietzsche.
I never said I fully believe the basic assumption either (check my last line), but I do think maybe there's something to it. 'That something' is always hard to determine and certainly hard to proof because we are speaking of complex emergent structures... who really knows what the limits are?
And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case...
Quoting universeness
I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes.
One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.'
I always respect and accept your judgment to 'bow out' of a discourse, especially if you think impasse has been reached or you feel that continued discussion offers you little value.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake.
This holds for modern capitalists even more. There is an absolutely disgusting TV show where the rich take the place of the poor and vice-versa. For a week or month (of course behind the scenes they consume...). When one family ended a month in poverty, the father said, when his Lamborghini arrived: "Ah, back in our own world!" Man, I could kick him in the ass, or slap him on his solarium-browned face! I would be arrested by the police. The rich capitalists have a huge machine behind them to guard property and keep people from taking from them.
If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin.
Like I said in my response to Xtrix, when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary. And with that kind of power relations, some will have more power to determine how the system looks like going forward. And because of that, a certain type of personality seems to rise to the top etc etc...
I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions.
Quoting universeness
Well sure, I'm under no illusion that they have been a particularly nice group of people, but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend.
Almost all of 'reality tv' is an attempt to distract the population from focusing on injustice.
They are 'shiny objects' of distraction. Vile programs where the rich are actually ridiculing the poor.
From Dragon's Den, The Apprentice etc. All those 'Real housewives of Miami' type clone shows. Rich, creations of plastic surgeons flaunting their wealth and meaningless intrigues for the poor people to watch and be convinced that such should be their own aspirations. Such rancid shows anger me very much as well.
Quoting EugeneW
If they are not careful, they will need a lot more Police because they will need to arrest me too and as time goes on, too many others for them to handle.
:strong:
It's the old adage of 'power corrupts and total power corrupts totally,' but this has only been historically true due to a lack of the necessary checks and balances. As it turned out, Lenin was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, he was not much better than Stalin.
Surely the lesson learned must be that NO ONE can achieve such power and influence as that currently held by individuals such as millionaires. billionaires, totalitarians etc.
We need to get on with creating the powerful and fit-for-purpose checks and balances and not become unhelpfully apathetic due to too much focus on past failed attempts or the complexity involved in dismantling the current societal imbalances. So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies.
I think so too.
Quoting universeness
What would "true" socialism be, in your view?
Quoting universeness
Fair enough. But I feel it best to at least once credit my major influences.
Quoting universeness
Agreed.
Quoting universeness
I like meritocracy as well. That is indeed more of what I mean, as "aristocracy" has connotations of illegitimate power -- handed down to children regardless of their merits.
Well that is a big question and we would need to sit in a room for a great number of sessions with many others to memorialise/document what I see as True socialism but I can start with two prime directives and two basic 'rules' if you like:
Prime directive 1: No one can be placed in a position of political power without adequate checks and balances. Any nefarious conduct will result in swift removal from power. Removal from power must be easy.
Prime directive 2: The military is not under the full control of the sitting government. There are at least two further publicly elected bodies who hold equal control and can block any military commands given by the government until the people sanction the order by vote, if required.
Rule 1: Every member of all three elected bodies are monitored by 'legal scrutineers' and other public representatives and a non-political free press which is owned and ran as a public cooperative and cannot be manipulated by commercial interests.
Rule 2: No rich people. Small businesses yes, entrepreneurs yes, individual freedom yes but no multi-millionaires or billionaires, all required large national or international concerns will be publicly owned or be full cooperatives.
We can debate the problems you envisage with these 'starter suggestions,' if you wish.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, but having the merit to participate in governance must never mean you are able to abuse the power you have been entrusted with. No personality cults or cults of celebrity will be able to maintain their position of authority if they abuse it. The checks and balances must be able to identify and stop them.
No individual personality or group should ever be able to achieve autocratic or totalitarian control. This must be made as impossible as possible by means of powerful checks and balances or else we will never achieve true socialism.
Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view.
And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...
I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers.
Quoting universeness
We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are.
Quoting universeness
Yeah, after WWII never before we had so much consensus and momentum to draft up systems to prevent future atrocities. But even then the powers that be couldn't resist the temptation to introduce rules that consolidated their power, essentially making the UN toothless going forward.
Geo-politics is a game of countries doing what the can get away with. Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced.
Quoting universeness
Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there.
I agree, but technology such as the internet, offers the global mass of humanity more opportunity to debate, form groups, organise, protest, harass current imbalances in local and national political systems, with a global viewpoint in mind. So perhaps we really can now 'step outside these power-dynamics' if we unite to do so.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Again I fully agree. As a legal practitioner, you are of great need to all true socialists. Run after those who find and abuse 'loopholes,' and attempt to circumvent the rules. We need you to totally defeat their attempts. I don't think rules are a solution to EVERYTHING. I think they are necessary but they must be wise and constructed in such a way that they demonstrate firmness when they are required to and demonstrate the correct flexibility in the case by case basis of the realpolitik.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Putin is causing something really bad to happen right now. I hope that the final outcome of what he has started will be exactly what you suggest above. Do what you can when you can to help, that's all that can be asked of you individually. You have a very important skill to offer as a legal practitioner.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Keep the faith brother/comrade/fellow earther! We won't progress if we are not determined to succeed.
I go with Obama on this one "OH YES WE CAN!!!" :strong: :strong: :strong: :grin:
Nice rant, seriously I can appreciate some real passion shining through. It made me think of this songs :
[...]
[i]In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing
Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through[/i]
[...]
Ultimately I'm probably more of an ecologist than a socialist. The laws of physics, ecology and biology take precedence over what we want, over what we can agree to.
I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.
Take care.
I know the song 'in the year 2525' very well, it was an old favorite of mine during my 70's..80's teenage to young man period of music. A song which, (if you pardon the pun) was way before its time.
Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists.
In union and in fellowship, thank you for the exchange of views.
The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.
Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialists don't seem to get.
But since you were already listening to that song in the 70's and 80's, I probably won't change your mind at this point ;-).
Thank you too.
10 000 tears... Very appropriate in this thread. :wink:
Great words, by the way! Men have survived 2 000 000 years. They will survive another. Im curious how it looks in 2 000 000 000 years!
Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only.
Sure I could live with a little fucking up, I'm no fanatic.
Large particle accelerators are fine, as are nuclear powerplants ;-).
No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.
I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by @Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.
I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists.
Sorry, that was a wee typo. It should have been 10,000 YEARS but in the next sentence I state my opinion that these 10,000 years were mainly years of tears and slaughter. The past 10000 years is the period we humans have decided, just about covers the historical period of 'human civilisation', before that period we don't think there were human settlements that we could describe as civilised.
I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems...
But I suppose there are different blends of socialism. I wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything, my bad.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I am not sure that I understand all of your intended meaning based on the wording you typed above but I think it's true to suggest that there are different blends of people who claim the label of socialist and there are plenty of people who pretend to be socialist (from Hitler to Putin with many others in-between) when the label they have underneath the socialist label reads nefarious bas****. I subscribe to all of the basic tenets of 'traditional socialism' such as control over the means of production, distribution and exchange and from each according to their ability to each according to their need, nurture people not profit, etc.
But my socialism is completely democratic and socialism can never ever be imposed on any 'significantly sized group of dissenters,' great effort must be made to accommodate the main wishes of any large group of dissenters who live under a socialist system which has the consent and can maintain the consent of the majority of the population it represents.
We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction.
What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward?
There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?
What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?
I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism?
This is a major, pressing concern in my opinion. Any true socialist must unite with all and any groups trying to immediately halt and reverse such on-going damage before it becomes too late.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Human Industry is defined as "economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories." As technology advances, the word 'automated' is being associated with 'industry,' more and more. Such human-based activity cannot 'soil/destroy' the very nest we live in. It's plain dumb to do that.
An example to consider, is a poor person/group living near that which is often called part of the 'lungs' of the Earth (The rainforests) decides to start chopping down trees and planting some crop to try to make some money to feed his family or improve his lot in life. Why does he need to do this?
I don't blame the poor person/group for this behavior, I blame the excesses of the global rich and powerful and the imbalanced use of the Earth's resources. We simply must find ways to be able to provide the basic needs for every human living on this planet without destroying the Earth.
So yes, we make people poorer BUT ONLY RICH PEOPLE. We dilute power and authority but only totalitarian/autocratic/aristocratic/plutocratic/celebrity/unfettered capitalistic power.
We develop systems to produce economic parity for all. UBI or Universal Baisc Income is an example of such an attempt. Give every citizen £2000 pounds a month, no questions asked. No citizen can then claim they are not treated fairly, economically.
True socialists continue the struggle to get the balance correct before it's too late and our species goes extinct.
NY times today.
Just thought I’d drop it in this thread to remind ourselves what’s really going on here.
Plenty of money to use on things that matter — preventing war, aid to the suffering, prevention of climate change, raising wages, healthcare, infrastructure, etc etc.
But no. The profits — which all workers, their communities and their tax dollars helped to generate — must go back to the shareholders. The stock price must go up.
We all know who owns the stocks. (Spoiler: it’s not Joe Sixpack.)
Whatever little money is left … that’s your cost of living increase — which rarely keeps up with inflation (especially now). That’s maybe a new building and be equipment. Maybe.
I guess it’s up to the wealthiest stock-holding citizens to save the world. Fun to watch as they play astronaut and buy Twitter on a whim.