Solidarity
What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle?
This is a practical question, and I ask to get real experiences -- leaving aside any general theory of the importance of grassroots movements.
I have my own experiences with said barriers, of course -- things like taboo, busyness, despair, apathy, lack of a coherent goal, etc. But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out.
So I open it to the forum as well.
[hide="Reveal"]Why is this an important question? Because I make two assumptions: (1) that most of the worlds problems, including existential ones like nuclear war and climate change, are caused by the failures of those in power. Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery. (2) That at the heart of these decisions is bad philosophy, or bad religion. The prevalent religion, in my view, is -- in particular -- capitalism and, behind this, nihilism. Thus, the only way to combat this trend is by the large majority of the world using their numbers to overthrow the status quo -- and in order for that to happen, people must come together. That people aren't coming together is therefore the problem we need to solve -- because it's something every one of us can actually do something about. [/hide]
This is a practical question, and I ask to get real experiences -- leaving aside any general theory of the importance of grassroots movements.
I have my own experiences with said barriers, of course -- things like taboo, busyness, despair, apathy, lack of a coherent goal, etc. But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out.
So I open it to the forum as well.
[hide="Reveal"]Why is this an important question? Because I make two assumptions: (1) that most of the worlds problems, including existential ones like nuclear war and climate change, are caused by the failures of those in power. Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery. (2) That at the heart of these decisions is bad philosophy, or bad religion. The prevalent religion, in my view, is -- in particular -- capitalism and, behind this, nihilism. Thus, the only way to combat this trend is by the large majority of the world using their numbers to overthrow the status quo -- and in order for that to happen, people must come together. That people aren't coming together is therefore the problem we need to solve -- because it's something every one of us can actually do something about. [/hide]
Comments (87)
Wow! I would never imagine tandem like this one. Don't you think it could be contradictory? Capitalism has as a main goal to pursue wealth, so at least has a goal in their own existence. But nihilism is literally the opposite.
How can capitalism help me out if I am nihilistic and I am suffering about my own existence?
The problem with group identity is that it requires an other for the group identity to have meaning. In order to accept everyone you have to give up yourself, in other words, which is funny because we eventually give up our-selves anyway, in the end.
Genuinely, X. Money and status. If I could right now, I would buy an enormous tract of land and begin building the largest commons ever witnessed in the history of mankind, way out in New Hampshire, or Appalachia, or Colorodo, or something. A community founded on the principle of the primacy of thehuman consciousness, as off grid as we could make it. But, as it stands, I lack funds, and I lack the people willing to take an oath to that principle. I fear there is no hope for a truly strong circle anymore, given our political climate. I fear we are headed towards a catastrophe, and the Ukraine situation is making that feeling all the more poignant. But, that may just be me moving beyond my rational mode, and into my more emotional one that sometimes takes hold like it does with everyone.
Don't open this can of worms with him, he'll explode your head with a textbook of messages, hehah!
Wow! I should carry my armor then!
It's gonna be a bloodbath. A friendly one, of course.
I don’t agree with this. I think that they carefully calculate the consequences of their actions.
It’s a matter of definition— the main thesis in this thread is about obstacles to joining together with others. Do you have experiences relevant to this? That’s what I’m interested in hearing, if any…
Quoting praxis
I don’t think you have to give yourself up, but I think you’re right in this case that there exists an “other”— namely, those in power.
Quoting Garrett Travers
This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.
Quoting Average
I do too. They’re still stupid decisions. Stupid is a childish word, of course. Irrational is better.
Well calculated, totally irrational decisions.
Yea. You.
If I want to join some obstacles to others, they need to be logical. We can have a few different points of view but this doesn't imply we can get an achievement together, I can be agree in this aspect. Nevertheless, I think it is quite complex to join theories which are so opposed to each other.
Nihilism seems to br connected to all of those who suffers from existence. It is hard for them to have a main goal. But capitalism or socialism have a common goal which is the commitment of govern an economy or state
Me? What does that mean?
I see what you mean now. Yes, if people have no goals and don’t care about anything, it’s impossible to join together towards an end. Those in power certainly have a goal— to maintain their status and to increase their power. Perhaps they have visions of an ideal society, or an interest in space (Bezos).
I think while the majority is divided and isolated, the ruling minorities are very much in solidarity.
:grin:
That can't be right. Human beings have been making dumb decisions for millennia, certainly well before 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' were glints in our minds' eyes. The only difference between 'then' and 'now' is that we now possess superior means of destruction such that the consequences of our bad decisions have become horrifically magnified. If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. 'Nihilism' and 'capitalism' are nothing more than modern, highly intellectualized expressions of latent structures rooted within the constitution of the human being. If we want to change the world, we must first change ourselves.
What metric or criterion are you using to measure rationality?
What do you have in mind when you mention human nature? I’m not trying to score intellectual points, I’m just curious.
What reason is there to suspect that this might be the case?
The fact remains: one can practice amicable relations and work with others without any solidarity.
Yes. I'm glad to see us finally find some agreement, bud.
First, I want to acknowledge that term 'human nature' is loaded and doesn't pick out just one conceptual framework or level of analysis. With that caveat in mind, I'll say that I am thinking about in terms of the biological constraints on human thought, feeling and behavior. These constraints, when combined with various environmental factors, seem to produce something akin to 'attractors' toward which human behavior tends. Another (slightly different) way of looking at it is in terms of so-called human 'universals'. This might include things like fear of loud noises, formation of binary conceptual distinctions, division of labor by gender, engagement in moral hypocrisy and much more besides.
For this can be said of men in general: that they are ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites and dissemblers, avoiders of dangers, greedy for gain; and while you benefit them, they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their life, their children, when need is far away, but when you actually become needy, they turn away.
Agreed. It's not always desirable. Solidarity is simply organization of human resources around a common goal or ideal. If the goal is evil, then solidarity becomes a means to achieving evil ends. See the Nazis.
Furthermore, (and also to your point) solidarity is difficult to achieve because it's difficult to get people to agree on ideals and goals. Getting a small number of people organized around trivial goals (like when to eat dinner) is difficult enough. Trying to get large numbers of them organized around unimaginably ambitious goals (like overthrowing the present world-order) is exponentially more difficult. It usually requires copious amounts of manipulation and control (e.g. propaganda, violence, etc.).
What metric or criterion do you use to detect evil? I’m just curious. I personally think that words like evil can be used by people to refer to whatever they happen to dislike for whatever reasons they find convenient at the moment.
I don't know anyone who wants to form a political group, union or strong social circle (what is that, by the way?) The sorts of people who do tend to be monomaniacs and cranks, from what I have seen. You mention apathy as a barrier - I generally think a bigger problem is bewilderment - not knowing what needs to change or how to articulate problems/solutions to being with.
Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed.
True, but I'm talking about today. At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. But as you mention, this is a very different time, and the problems we face are no longer localized. This is the era of multinational corporations and governments with nuclear weapons. Is nihilism really behind it all? I think so, yes. Acting as if all that matters in life is the accumulation of "stuff" to me qualifies as nihilism.
Quoting Theorem
We should change ourselves. But there are many structures to a human being. I hear the argument a lot that capitalism is an extension of human nature, or best reflects human nature -- and this betrays a rather cynical view of human beings, I think. I don't agree with it. I think this too is itself a result of capitalism.
Quoting Average
Simplified: acting in a way that is counter to your goals. In this case, making choices that, while they may increase short-term profits, increase the likelihood of catastrophe or, in the case of nuclear war (and even climate change) -- annihilation.
One could argue that perhaps death, suffering, destruction, and extinction is the goal of some people -- and thus these decisions are rational. But I make the assumption that this isn't the case -- i.e., that most people aren't psychotic. That includes corporate and political leaders.
Quoting Average
Look at the financial sector, for example. Look also to the coordinated effort of business in the 1970s, the elaborate Koch network, lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable, etc.
But even in my own experiences -- you see wealthy people "having each others' backs" all the time. They have the resources and the connections to do so. Legal help. Financial help. Getting into good schools, where one meets other wealthy people, and so on.
It's not to say people within this class don't disagree -- it's that their privileged status, and the desire to keep this status, trumps these disagreements.
Quoting NOS4A2
No it doesn't. It just means a number of individuals share an interest/goal, and come together to achieve that goal. Especially when it cannot be achieved alone -- which is common.
Quoting NOS4A2
What "it"? Solidarity? This is meaningless. You're talking about something else.
Quoting NOS4A2
No you can't.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't know of many either. I've heard a lot of interest in a union, in jobs I've worked. And I think almost everyone I know wants strong social supports -- family, friends, whatever. A group of people they trust and can rely on. All pretty common. Not many people want to form a political group.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's why I started this thread here. But as I mention there, I think the real issue is collective action, coming together -- not so much ignorance of the problems. But that's arguable.
Sounds like defeatism. But so be it.
Probably accurate. But could we reignite the many groups which already exist in these spaces? Have they been so corrupted that they are not salvageable? We have unions here in Australia that could work well again. Lethargy seems to be a key problem. Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do.
It seems to me that a key problem for change is the view that the bad guys have already won and the situation is hopeless. That worldview seems to me to be one of capitalism's greatest protective factors.
I think it's something like 'the will to cause gratuitous suffering in others', usually born out of resentment or hatred, which is usually born of out of a refusal to recognize and correct the defects in one's own culture or self. I don't know. Thoughts?
I agree. I think it's a terrible thing to cheapen the word through such usage.
Would you consider it evil if those “others” were serial killers? I personally don’t think that it would be evil. Maybe you mean innocent people though and I don’t want to misconstrue or misinterpret your ideas.
At what point does suffering become “gratuitous”? Or what is necessary for suffering to be “gratuitous”? I’m assuming you mean uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted and not given or done free of charge.
I don't know. I think so. Should we put serial killers to death? Yes, probably. Should we torture them mercilessly before doing so? I'm not convinced it's a good thing to stoke that fire within ourselves, giving expression to the malevolent impulses that we're supposedly condemning and protecting ourselves against.
Quoting Average
Yes, basically. I don't know the exact point at which suffering becomes gratuitous, but it's usually pretty clear when you encounter it. Suffering is often necessary for growth and for meaning in life. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about actions that are taken such that the primary goal is simply to make the 'other' suffer (perhaps as much as possible) with no consideration for their health, growth, etc., etc.
I’m on board with torturing them mercilessly. Not because I’m some kind of sadist but because I think it would help deter others from engaging in similar behavior as well as being a form of justice. But I understand your position on the subject and if you’d prefer to avoid this kind of discussion I completely understand.
I agree that it would probably act as a deterrent. I also agree that it would more fully satisfy the retributive impulses in (some of) those who have been wronged, prevent blood feuds, etc. That said, I have major qualms with granting the State the power to torture. I worry about false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power. Generally speaking, I don't want to live in a world where most people consider torture to be a legitimate form of punishment. If anything, I feel we should be pushing in the other direction. The world is brutal enough as it is without encouraging that kind of sentiment amongst the general population. But maybe I'm just being naive.
The state doesn’t need permission to do anything. Historically It does whatever it wants. As far as false accusations, false convictions and abuses of power go you could make the same argument against execution or any form of punishment.
What do you mean exactly by “in the other direction”?
This seems like an over-simplification. There are usually plenty of internal and external forces constraining the actions of the state. Widely held cultural taboos (such as those against the use of torture) can make it less likely (though certainly not impossible) for the state to engage in such actions.
Quoting Average
To me it's the 'merciless torture' part that makes the difference here. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where an innocent person can't (normally) be mercilessly tortured due to an accidental miscarriage of justice, especially when you consider that the frequency of accidental wrongful convictions in the US has been estimated at 2 - 10%. Is the merciless torture of even one innocent person by the state worth a % reduction in violent crime? My gut says "no".
Quoting Average
Away from cruelty and brutality.
I would argue that this only constrains what the state does in front of everyone but not what it does in secret.
I don’t have as much faith as you do in statistics. I believe that things like courts and prisons are actually weapons in the hands of a ruling class. Meaning that they are used not for the sake of “justice” but instead to defend their supremacy.
Of course this isn’t what I’m advocating. But let’s discuss the question in hypothetical terms. If it could be proven that no one would be wrongfully convicted would you have a problem with the policy I’m proposing? If so how would you argue against it?
Where do you think that 'capitalism' and 'nihilism' come from?
Human beings.
But so do cupcakes. Are cupcakes therefore part of human nature?
I agree with this 100%. It’s like a despair— a kind of defeatism. Why bother? Nothing we can do —it’s hopeless.
This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.
Which is exactly why the push for “individualism” is so handy for those in power. It’s about freedom, individuality, liberty, etc. — and that all sounds pretty good! Until you realize it’s yet another narrative, another bedtime story to lull us to sleep and keep us voting for the rich assholes who don’t give a damn about any of us.
I partially disagree. Being forced to do something in secret is itself a constraint. It's usually a lot harder to do something in secret, especially if it's complex or large in scope in which case the probability of being 'found out' goes up exponentially. When information gets leaked the state will have to spend additional resources trying to cover it up, and sometimes they won't succeed. And that can cause real problems for the state, especially if that information falls into the hands of rival political groups, or other enemy states who can then use it to turn their own populations against them, or to build coalitions of other states against them, etc.
Quoting Average
I don't doubt that this occurs, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything that occurs in the US criminal justice system qualifies as 'corruption'.
Quoting Average
Since I live in the US I'd probably start by arguing on legal grounds. "Cruel and unusual" punishment is (theoretically) prohibited by the Constitution. On consequentialist grounds, I might query the value of torture as a deterrent over an above to the death penalty and the 'barbarizing' effect that the legitimization of torture has on the wider culture and on international relations. On metaphysical grounds I might try to argue on the basis of basic human dignity. On purely moral grounds I might try to argue that "two wrongs don't make a right" and highlight the moral hypocrisy of engaging in the very practice that we're condemning. Those are some of my initial thoughts.
No. But cupcakes are little different to philosophical outlooks, which are direct expressions of human thought, feeling and action.
Do you mean the basic human dignity of the serial killer?
If you know anything about the 13th amendment then you know that slavery is acceptable under the constitution as a form of punishment.
I wish you would clearly state your precise meaning when you use words like barbarizing because historically concepts like civilization and barbarism have been used to justify atrocities.
The practice I’m condemning is the destruction of innocent life and not the punishment of the guilty.
And also the shaper of human thought, feeling, and action. Christianity is an expression of thought, feeling, and action as well -- and vice versa.
Systems of beliefs and values shape how we interpret the world and ourselves; these are worldviews, paradigms, perspectives. To argue that nihilism or capitalism is simply an expression of "human nature" either isn't claiming much (since many things may be considered an expression of human nature), or is claiming too much (namely, that it is inevitable, since human beings are primarily motivated by x, where x can be selfishness, greed, personal gain, etc.) The former is a truism, the latter is unjustified (in my view).
Yes. They are still human, right?
Quoting Average
I don't see forced labor as intrinsically 'cruel and unusual', though it can certainly become so.
Quoting Average
Barbarous (adj) - savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal
Quoting Average
How do you draw the line between 'guilty' and 'innocent'?
True.
Quoting Xtrix
My original point was that human beings have been doing terrible things for a very long time. I'm not advocating for defeatism or cynicism. We should try to make things better, starting with ourselves and working outward from there.
I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be.
I don’t think so.
The US is already savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal in my book and has been for a long time. One look at the CIA and it’s track record should be enough to prove that.
I think I would base it on who is the predator and who is the prey. Otherwise I would be forced to conclude that serial killers are innocent and their victims are guilty.
Biology says otherwise.
Quoting Average
So, let's move in the other direction.
Quoting Average
The predator can become the prey.
I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. The nazis are a good example. But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas.
I wouldn’t shed a tear if the predators of this world became someone’s prey. But I think what you’re trying to get at is the question of whether or not they would then be classified as innocent. Maybe I should revise my metric because If someone is running around with a hammer savagely beating people to death and someone comes along and takes that hammer away from them and then proceeded to give them a taste of their own medicine I have a hard time believing that this would be a bad thing. So maybe it’s not as simple as predator and prey. Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence.
It worked ok for me.
It plays a pretty significant role.
Quoting Average
Agreed, which is why I think we should play it safe and just avoid 'dehumanization' whenever possible.
Quoting Average
So because person A would (or wouldn't) do X to me, therefore it's ok for me to (not) do X to them?
Quoting Average
So I should just discard one of the main things that differentiates me from them (e.g. my commitment to humanitarian ideals)?
Quoting Average
'Innocent', 'guilty', 'warranted', 'unwarranted'. All of these concepts are vague at the boundaries and can be weaponized in the ways you've described above. Even 'reasonable' people will sometimes disagree on how to classify things. Generally, this is why I tend to advocate for something like a principle of 'least force' or 'least punishment' where we always go with the minimum punishment necessary to protect the rest of society from that person. This way when the fuzzy cases arise (or when we inevitably get things wrong) the consequences are minimized.
I don't deny that there are downsides to this approach.
How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment?
No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this.
Many "collaborations" have as their goal an utopia. And I'm not making here a cynical remark about "human nature". It's that people want things that are realistically, practically, physically not possible. For example, it is not possible on planet Earth that everyone would live a first-world lifestyle. It isn't, because there just aren't enough natural resources for that.
And while many people try to "make life better" for themselves and others, they also have some measure of awareness that there are practical limits to how much better a particular person's life can get. It's because of this awareness that their heart isn't quite fully in their activism.
We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. Therefore, I also disagree that we don't have effective alternatives. Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.
If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business.
There are other alternatives as well.
If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you.
Quoting Xtrix
Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue.
Once people are relatively materially comfortable, they feel no real, urgent need to get together with others, other than for the purpose of obtaining more power or for entertainment.
That's what others have mentioned earlier. It is indeed an important factor, which is why I created this thread, which specifically addresses this.
But as I mentioned there, I'm no longer completely convinced that this is the most important obstacle. The problems are pretty well understood, as are the goals/solutions. The case of climate change is a good example. Plenty of solutions, plenty of goals.
I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others.
Yet we can see that every right, every privilege that was won through a revolution is eventually taken away from people, usually indirectly.
For example, women have won themselves the right to paid work, but the trend is that more and more employers try to diminish that (such that a woman must sign her resignation papers if she wants to get the job in the first place).
I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.
I never once said others don't want to get together with me.
The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context, you'd see that this was an acknowledgement of aspects of human beings which have indeed been around forever (I don't see how anyone could disagree with this), but which in today's world have much bigger effects, and are in fact encouraged in an economic system that prioritizes personal gain.
Quoting baker
I don't understand the "or." It's not either-or.
They make things happen because of strong communities. That people often come together in desperation and under harsh conditions was exactly my point.
Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested.
Rather, the love of comfort and convenience.
The theme of this thread is solidarity, but above, you're talking about different settings, where some of them have a category of relating to other people that other settings don't. While one may be solidary with acquaintances, strangers, and also with friends and family, there is another category of relating that applies only with friends and family. This is having cordial relations with people.
See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person.
I've brought this up before with you in the covid thread, and I'm bringing it up here only because you said in your OP:
Quoting Xtrix
:roll:
You repeatedly take me out of context, put words in my mouth, "disagree" for no reason, and initiate this "bad faith" with condescending comments like Quoting baker
...and I'm the one assuming the worst?
Your tone is often disrespectful and condescending.
So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect.
I'm perfectly willing to do so, as is obvious above -- until condescending remarks get made.
So again, I'm not interested in interacting with those who are impolite and choose to posture and lecture.
That wasn't intended as a definition. It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved.
Quoting Xtrix
I wasn't denying the existence of alternatives. Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. And I'm not claiming that all corporations are anywhere close to being maximally efficient. Nor, am I claiming that efficiency is the only important consideration, though it certainly is important.
Unfortunately, I don't have a formula for this.
That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. You have the attitude that others should make the first step, others should take responsibility for the quality of communication. Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. I just used you as an example for your thread topic.
But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything.
So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism."
I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism.
Quoting Theorem
I think co-ops are very efficient.
Yes, I do. There's a long record of it, if you care to go back and look. Taking this exchange on this thread, it's very obvious. Going just fine until you decide to through in your disrespectful comments. Always nice to see you take zero responsibility for it, as usual.
Quoting baker
You're just making this up. My tone was very measured and very respectful, until YOU decided to be impolite. After that, you're correct: I don't "turn the other cheek." I respond in kind.
Now perhaps I shouldn't lower myself to your level of communication, which is very poor and disrespectful indeed. Others have pointed this out -- and perhaps they're right. But I can't help myself. I don't like posturing, rude people who pretend to know things they don't know, while taking no time to understand another's arguments.
Quoting baker
Yes, which is why no one likes you.
But it's never your fault, so just forget about it.
Bottom line: you make rude comments to me, expect the same in return. Don't learn that lesson? Too bad. Learn some manners, or shuffle the fuck back to where you came from -- I'm not interested.
I agree, and I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't try to define it.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure, I can agree with that. No markets are 'absolutely' free. Yet, it seems accurate to say that some markets have been encumbered with more constraints than others at various times throughout history. I think the word 'free' is still appropriate, so long as we recognize that it's being used in a 'relative' rather than an 'absolute' sense.
Quoting Xtrix
Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history?
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not attributing everything positive to capitalism. I think that capitalism, as currently practiced in the western world, has some major (and potentially fatal) flaws. But that doesn't mean I'm going to just ignore it's positive aspects.
Quoting Xtrix
They can be. I've worked for a couple of co-ops. My observation has been that co-ops are efficient until they reach a certain size, at which point they typically have to either split or re-organize into a more traditional hierarchy. When they decide to split they effectively become two separate organizations and (in the long run) evolve in different directions. This isn't a 'bad' thing, per se, but it maintains egalitarianism at the expense of the original solidarity. When a co-op decides to organize into a hierarchy, traditional power politics arise. The organization retains its solidarity, but now at the expense of the original egalitarianism.
In my experience, there is an natural trade-off that arises between egalitarianism and solidarity as an organization scales.
That's exactly the point, though. How (1) are we defining capitalist? And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? China is a fairly large and booming economy, by many metrics. Is that capitalism? Is the US economy, with its massive state intervention, from the Federal Reserve to tax cuts to subsidies, etc. capitalism? Are they particularly efficient? Efficient at what?
Western economics are mixed economies. Those that have a higher social welfare system, like the Nordic countries, fair far better in terms of outcomes. Maybe that's what we mean by capitalism?
It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts?
Their level of confidence will rise or fall depending on unfolding events as their campaign ensues.
A majority has struggled against a minority since the time we were emergent from the wilds.
If you study any insect or animal 'society,' the most successful and long lasting ones are those who show the best ability to 'work in common cause.'
The Lions would kill and consume all the young bison born if the adult bison had not figured out how to crowd around their young as a wall of horned protection that frustrated the Lions.
The original humans who became the first of the 'Rich' and 'Powerful' were simply those who were physically strongest and could intimidate a significant number of others.
If in those early days, all of those intimidated by the one or the few, could have been 'brave' and 'wise' enough to unite and kill those few who wished to impose their will on the majority, then we would not be facing threats from f***wit's like Putin today.
Everything that has happened to create the societal imbalance today between a powerful, sycophantic global elitist minority and an abused, cowed global majority has been possible because of this early inability of an intimidated majority to prevent a determined nefarious elite from imposing their will.
How do we fix this now before we are made extinct due to it?
Understand that what I have said above is true and help in any way you can to unite the majority of people globally.
The global, powerful elite, are fierce and will use every erg of energy and measure of power they have to stop such from happening because they are convinced that they can maintain their legacy of privilege without courting/causing their own destruction. They are most willing and indeed are actively seeking to significantly reduce the current number of the majority to a number that is easier for them to handle, will consume less resources and still number enough to be able to maintain and service them.
One great hope in our favor is that, just like us, they fight a lot amongst themselves. Individuals like Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Modi, Boris Johnstone and many other such individuals are all cut from the exact same nefarious lump of human shit, (as are all billionaires or multi-millionaires, in my personal opinion). I am surprised that they are not more successful at global unison as they absolutely have a common cause.
If we don't do better towards the idea put forward in the OP and we don't unite and take power away from the current nefarious minority who monopolise it then I don't think the Universe will miss us too much but it will take the Earth a long time to recover and try again with another species. Perhaps an evolution from the termites or ants.
I thought we were using the definition you provided earlier:
Quoting Xtrix
Do you still agree with this definition? I personally think it's a little narrow (of which more below), but it's the one I thought we were using.
Quoting Xtrix
My understanding is that economists use a concept known as 'pareto efficiency' - the state at which any change in the allocation of resources within the economy would result in a lower standard of living for one or more individuals. This is usually broken down into categories of 'efficiency in production' and 'efficiency in distribution'. Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly, so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc.
It seems hard to argue that capitalist economies (per your definition above) have not been particularly adept at solving problems related to the efficient production and distribution of goods on an incredibly large scale. That's not to say that they are maximally efficient, or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't think the waters are as muddy as you are suggesting. By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. Looking at it through a broader lens, it's generally understood that economies are capitalistic to the degree that they are based on things like private ownership, profit motive, unregulated price systems, competitive markets, unlimited capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, wage labor, etc. It's true that no real-world economy is perfectly capitalistic, but such is always true of the real-world. The lack of a perfect definition, and the existence of fuzzy boundary conditions does not undermine the fact that some economies are clearly more capitalistic than others. Admittedly, China's economy is highly 'mixed', but it seems fairly clear that China's growth was invigorated by the incorporation of many of the practices listed above.
Again, I'm not arguing that capitalism is an unalloyed good. I'm simply arguing that there is enough consensus around the definition of capitalism to effectively categorize most economies as broadly capitalist or not. This doesn't seem controversial to me. Also, the historical data seems to confirm a correlation between increased productivity and efficiency with the adoption of 'capitalistic' practices within an economy.
So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured?
Quoting Theorem
Which is what I am using as well. And when you look at GDP, unemployment, real wages, productivity, etc., the results vary. China does very well in many of these metrics, and not so well in others. The US has seen increased productivity and stagnant wages for 40 years, along with huge wealth inequality. I wouldn't call that efficient distribution.
If you're talking about the ability to produce and distribute goods -- then yes, the modern world generally has improved as technology has improved. I don't think this has much to do with centering our economy on the relationship between owners and workers. I don't see why the major decisions have to be in the hands of a tiny fraction of society, rather than the entire community.
If we reject these notions in politics, we should reject them in the workplace.
Quoting Theorem
The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution?
Again, take China. Are they capitalist? Are they communist? Their manufacturing doesn't seem to be one or the other. We know the state is involved on every level, and that they made the decision to open their economy to the rest of the world in the 1980s and 90s. Why some vague notion of "capitalism" gets credit for their current economy and not the communist government is obvious, at least in the West -- where communism=bad, capitalism=good.
So I repeat myself: it's just not that simple.
Quoting Theorem
In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state.
It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so.
If you get rid of the Walton family, Wal Mart will go on just fine. If you get rid of the owners of major car companies, cars will still be made. If you replace the leadership roles appointed by board directors to those appointed/voted for by workers, you also won't sacrifice efficiency and productivity. Co-ops are productive and efficient too.
Correct, it can't be measured directly. It's practically infeasible. Like all scientists, economists build idealized models of observable phenomena. These are always approximations. For extremely complex systems (like economies) it's not feasible to measure the exact state of the system at any given time. Therefore, various proxy measures have devised to estimate the state.
Quoting Xtrix
I feel pretty confident that it's a combination.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, correct.
Quoting Xtrix
I agree. That said, it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from.
True. Like the people. Like workers. Etc.
It doesn’t mean everyone is the same, it means decisions are made by the entire community— voting is one way, and still pretty limited. But at least it’s something.