If not capitalism then what exactly?

Slothrop · Aug 29, 2007

Sorry if this is a naive question, but why should we subscribe to a revolution / withering away of the state / end of capitalism through whatever means if we don't know what's going to happen at the end of it? Doesn't it kind of require a leap of faith to believe that we aren't going to end up with some kind of Mad Max-esque dystopia?

gek-opel · Aug 29, 2007

IdleRich said:
I just don't accept that - why is it paradoxical?

It is paradoxical because capitalism in its current phase is more than just a system by which we allow economic interaction to be regulated. It is a life-world, a time-line of its very own, bending and warping perception (of narrative, of the possible) in infinitely subtle ways (ie- rampant post-modernism)... it is true that you can sit there and pipe-dream yourself some alternative systems. But these will just consist of some shuffling of the cards already dealt. I am not certain that this is sufficient to constitute a system to effectively regulate the world... and I am not the dictatorial type who would imagine such a system... I'm also unconvinced (as you can probably tell) by the potentials of communism, and anarchism appears an absurd contradiction in terms (unless you dissolve language, power relations will inevitably exist). Tho I agree with them that we must destroy the state as well... but the best tools to achieve this are capitalistic processes themselves...

gek-opel · Aug 29, 2007

Slothrop said:
Sorry if this is a naive question, but why should we subscribe to a revolution / withering away of the state / end of capitalism through whatever means if we don't know what's going to happen at the end of it? Doesn't it kind of require a leap of faith to believe that we aren't going to end up with some kind of Mad Max-esque dystopia?

No this is all perfectly accurate. There are no guarantees, and history tells us that such projects frequently lead rapidly into terror. However, the alternative is the ossification of humanity itself.

IdleRich · Aug 29, 2007

"It is paradoxical because capitalism in its current phase is more than just a system by which we allow economic interaction to be regulated."

Maybe so but, this bit needs more justification than just stating it:

"It is a life-world, a time-line of its very own, bending and warping perception (of narrative, of the possible) in infinitely subtle ways (ie- rampant post-modernism)... "

Are you certain it "bends perception of the possible"? And if you are certain are you certain how it bends it?
You make these grand pronouncements without any arguments in their favour.

"it is true that you can sit there and pipe-dream yourself some alternative systems."

Obviously, I think I mentioned one such pipe-dream earlier.

"But these will just consist of some shuffling of the cards already dealt. I am not certain that this is sufficient to constitute a system to effectively regulate the world..."

But a minute ago you were certain that it was not? And why should they consist of a shuffling of the cards already dealt? Again I would like to see an argument for this.

"but the best tools to achieve this are capitalistic processes themselves..."

But please, please can you go in to some detail about this? I think it sounds as though it could be interesting if you could put some flesh on to the bones of this idea.

Gavin · Aug 30, 2007

Are you certain it "bends perception of the possible"? And if you are certain are you certain how it bends it?
You make these grand pronouncements without any arguments in their favour.

One example, not a great one, but it always pops into my mind, is from the Zizek movie where he talks about how global annihilation from a meteor is seen as more credible (enough for enjoyment of a film) than an end to capitalism, a historically contingent economic system. Or think of all the "End of History" hype proffered by many prominent intellectuals after the collapse of the USSR, that nothing else but liberal democratic capitalism could/would prevail.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"One example, not a great one, but it always pops into my mind, is from the Zizek movie where he talks about how global annihilation from a meteor is seen as more credible (enough for enjoyment of a film) than an end to capitalism, a historically contingent economic system."

I'm not sure about that though - I think there are loads of sci-fi worlds which posit non-capitalist systems. I'm not a big fan of Star Trek, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I've got a feeling that the human society that that imagines is some kind of utopian one without money where all they do is go around exploring space.
There are also surely other things where the main characters land on another planet or go through the time-tunnel/black-hole etc to find a weird non-human and non-capitalist society. Perhaps these don't show an end to capitalism as such, more suggest that it never had to arrive but if I'm right about Star Trek it must mean that capitalism is somehow assumed to have been discarded.
As an aside, it's not really that surprising that global annihilation from a meteorite is dealt with more often either. It's something that's easy for people to comprehend, dramatic and does have a real (if small) and calculable chance of happening. I guess it's very hard to quantify the chance of capitalism collapsing in the same way.

"Or think of all the "End of History" hype proffered by many prominent intellectuals after the collapse of the USSR, that nothing else but liberal democratic capitalism could/would prevail."

A few people - however prominent - saying something doesn't make it impossible for anyone else to think otherwise. People have often been wrong and the solution to something always seems impossible until you have it. I don't really see that as an argument.

zhao · Aug 30, 2007

IdleRich said:
But why? If it's "almost certain" that such a society existed in the past it ought to be relatively easy to show me some evidence that might help me see through the trees of time and convince me of its existence and it is surely germane to the original question regarding alternative systems to capitalism.

people love to discredit anarcho primitivism and the noble savage. but consider the opposite: humans have ALWAYS lived the way we do now, what with the slavery and systematic oppression and heirarchy and power and subjugation and exploitation, even under drastically different conditions such as small population and abundance of resources, for (arguably) millions of years.

is that believable if you really think about it?

whether an egalitarian paradise existed for 4 million years prior to the advent of language/power/civilization is not necessarily the main point. (even though a reasonably good case for this has been made many times) the important thing is that these (maybe fanciful) claims allow us to open up to the idea that the way we live today may not be the only way. and that it may prove to be a very recent development and brief way of life.

the important thing is to realize that what we believe today may be tainted by invisible ideology, and hidden agendas -- and that it may not be nearly as rational or factual as we think.

the way we look at the world and ourselves, it may be a very limited view, which excludes multiple other ways of perceiving and understanding, which are all just as valid, if not much more valid.

this is the only way to envision a future. if there is to be one.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"people love to discredit anarcho primitivism and the noble savage. but consider the opposite: humans have ALWAYS lived the way we do now, what with the slavery and systematic oppression and heirarchy and power and subjugation and exploitation, even under drastically different conditions such as small population and abundance of resources, for (arguably) millions of years.
is that believable if you really think about it?"

OK, so you're arguing that from rationality rather than physical evidence?
I do find it very believable sadly - although of course the alternative is also conceptually possible. I was under the impression however that compelling evidence from bones etc had shown that people were less healthy, pysically smaller and didn't live as long as they do now which seems to suggest that, however much you think it likely that people would have been nice to each other with the cumulative effect of a better life for everyone, that simply wasn't the way that things were.

"the important thing is that these (maybe fanciful) claims allow us to open up to the idea that the way we live today may not be the only way. and that it may prove to be a very recent development and brief way of life."

Fair enough.

"the way we look at the world and ourselves, it may be a very limited view, which excludes multiple other ways of perceiving and understanding, which are all just as valid, if not much more valid.
this is the only way to envision a future. if there is to be one."

Well this is what I'm asking you to expound upon - I realise that to say "there are other ways of being" is important as a first step but I've heard it enough times. I want to see or hear the next step - suggest some of these other ways and how we get to them?

zhao · Aug 30, 2007

IdleRich said:
OK, so you're arguing that from rationality rather than physical evidence?

physical evidence, what we DO know:

last, relatively brief ice-age was 10,000 years ago. prior to that earth was much more lush and full of vegetation compared to now.

upper cranial development of Homo Erectus has been proven (recently, 1970s) to be the same as Homo Sapien - extending the history of "humans" on earth to 4+ million years.

loads of evidence of Gatherer Hunter societies eating 99% plants, and very little hunting.

Civilization as we know it arose after the last ice-age, when resources became scarce.

loads of evidence of centralized power as we know it to NOT exist prior to civilization, prior to division of labor (makes sense don't it).

there are people on earth today who live much the same as what our ancesters probably lived - tribes of Indonesia, Africa, etc. and findings of many studies of their societies and lifestyle all reinforce the Primitivist theories.

IdleRich said:
I was under the impression however that compelling evidence from bones etc had shown that people were less healthy, pysically smaller and didn't live as long as they do now which seems to suggest that, however much you think it likely that people would have been nice to each other with the cumulative effect of a better life for everyone, that simply wasn't the way that things were.

the oldest fossils we have found is 195,000 years old. not old enough to prove anything about the 4 million years of "human" life on earth before the last ice-age.

the impressions you are under is/was the impression i was under. and all of us who grew up in the modern world. but I have begun to question these impressions -- whether they are tainted by civilization and our way of life. capitalism wants to justify itself, and thus paints a picture of our ancesters in the image of itself -- "humans are violent, competitive, and ruthless by nature", etc., and to me these claims seem more and more unreasonable, to put it lightly.

IdleRich said:
Well this is what I'm asking you to expound upon - I realise that to say "there are other ways of being" is important as a first step but I've heard it enough times. I want to see or hear the next step - suggest some of these other ways and how we get to them?

i think the studies of "primitive" societies in Indonesia and Africa are fascinating. these people show many amazing attributes perhaps we all had at one point. we in the west with our prejudices deem these people "less" than us, but in many ways they are far more "advanced", and live more "efficiently". their communication, social organization, can all be indicators of not only where we come from, but also where we can go. I don't know enough about the subject to go on, i am learning too.

people have said that the underlying cause for war is resources not being enough for everyone. i think any significant change of the social order can only happen when human population is reduced significantly.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"upper cranial development of Homo Erectus has been proven (recently, 1970s) to be the same as Homo Sapien - extending the history of "humans" on earth to 4+ million years."

When? Where? Who by? Links please.

"loads of evidence of Gatherer Hunter societies eating 99% plants, and very little hunting"

Likewise.

"loads of evidence of centralized power as we know it to NOT exist prior to civilization, prior to division of labor (makes sense don't it)."

Depends what you mean by centralised power. In the usual sense it surely couldn't exist before civilisation so that's a totally trivial thing to say. If you're saying that a group of ten, twenty or whatever people didn't have any kind of leader before civilisation as we know it then it's a totally different claim and I would need to see some of this "loads of evidence".

"there are people on earth today who live much the same as what our ancesters probably lived - tribes of Indonesia, Africa, etc. and findings of many studies of their societies and lifestyle all reinforce the Primitivist theories."

And loads of them don't. There are many incredibly violent primitive tribes such as the Yamonami studied by Chagnon. Again lots of the studies that claim to reinforce primitivist theories have been discredited when another group of investigators go along and find that the tribes was paid by the previous film-crew to act as though they run around naked all the time and don't have a word for "bad".
Which studies are you thinking of?

"the oldest fossils we have found is 195,000 years old. not old enough to prove anything about the 4 million years of "human" life on earth before the last ice-age."

What about all these ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fossil#More_than_4_million_years_old

"the impressions you are under is/was the impression i was under."

I still am under that impression. I would like to change but I can't be gullible enough to accept some nonsense as fact just because I want it to be true.

"i think the studies of "primitive" societies in Indonesia and Africa are fascinating."

Me too.

"people have said that the underlying cause for war is resources not being enough for everyone. i think any significant change of the social order can only happen when human population is reduced significantly."

That may well be true but in that case for most people the cure is going to be worse than the disease.

Mr BoShambles · Aug 30, 2007

rockypoppy2 said:
nowhere do you mention exploitation in all that, or take into account humanity... Just what do you think our socio-political problems arise from?

Can you give me examples of who you believe are exploited by capitalism? In free capitalist societies social mobility is possible for all, therefore who exactly is exploited? If you don't like your working conditions, levels of pay or future prospects - well you can always leave and seek something better. In the 'West', these economic freedoms are underpinned by a formalised system of property laws, an independent judiciary and a representative political structure.

That social mobility is not as prevalent in some parts of the world (i.e. less economically free societies) can be attributed to inadequate/antiquated politico-legal structures that are restrictive and therefore not conducive to rapid capitalisation. For instance in much of Latin America where the politico-legal institutions still favour the preservation of the traditional status quo (rich landowners over the masses) it is more difficult for individuals to climb the socio-economic ladder. However clearly reform of the politico-legal system is required. Crucially, by formalising property rights and recognising the legitimacy of (mainly 'poor') peoples houses, land and businesses, it is not only these people that would benefit. The traditional elite would also gain from this process and therefore the whole country would become wealthier. As Hernando De Soto argues:

‘Legalising property is hardly mere charity to the poor. Creating an orderly market that makes owners accountable and gives their homes clear titles worthy of financing will generate an expanded market, encourage law and order and put money into the pockets of the elite.’

The idea that Western states and/or MNC's unfairly exploit the natural resources of other territiories is, IMO, often mis-understood. Capitalist growth generates new wealth through innovation and a continual drive to realize the potential of assets more efficiently. Often this process of capitalization has involved realizing the value of assets which weren’t previously considered as valuable assets at all. Oil for instance was a non-valuable asset until its potential as a new energy source was recognised. However, once it became a sought after commodity, people who claimed legal ownership of oil-rich land were able to capitalise upon their new found asset by selling the rights of extraction to business enterprises with the relevant knowledge and equipment. Thus it is not a necessary function of capitalism to under-develop some lands in order to develop others. In the much vaunted case of oil, the popular wisdom that the ‘West’ has exploited and looted the resources of foreign lands is patently untrue; a point Theodore Dalrymple makes well,

‘If anything, the direction of the exploitation has been precisely the opposite, for merely by virtue of their fortunate geographical location, and with scarcely any effort on their part, the people of the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere have enjoyed a high standard of living thanks entirely to the ingenuity of those whom they accuse of exploitation and without whom the oil resource would not be an economic resource at all.’

Where the majority of people living in a resource rich territory do not substantially benefit from the extraction of natural resources by foreign companies - as is sadly the case in many oil rich states - is largely due to the lack of strong politico-legal structures. Predatory elites pocket huge personal wealth without reinvesting much back into the economy. And furthermore these elites are less likely to relinquish their position in favour of encouraging greater economic freedom and the evolution of stronger more accountable institutions. The capitalisation of assets such as oil resources generates wealth where it did not previously exist. The problem lies in the unfair expropriation of profits by the local governing elites not by the MNC's.

Solving the problem of weak politico-legal structures is a whole other debate which I am happy to have if people are interested. For a long time I lambasted capitalism as the cause of the worlds ills. But actually the majority of human suffering does not stem from greater social mobility, economic freedom and the security of a well established, legally grounded, social contract. In fact suffering is far more prounced in places where social and economic freedoms are restricted by intransigent elites unwilling to recognise the potential for everyone to benefit through politico-legal reform. Countries where such problems exist are often held up as examples of the failure of capitalism; yet in truth they are examples of internal failures to create an environment conducive for capitalism to flourish for the benfit of all.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"That social mobility is not as prevalent in some parts of the world (i.e. less economically free societies) can be attributed to inadequate/antiquated politico-legal structures that are restrictive and therefore not conducive to rapid capitalisation"

But is it not the case that these politico-legal structures are maintained with the help of western companies? In other words western capitalism exploits the advantages it can gain from the lack of human rights in some parts of the world. The company that can best exploit children as sweat shop workers in the east can sell most cheaply to those in the west and thus provide better value for those of us who buy their products.
The same goes for BP with its pipeline and a million other examples of which I'm sure you're aware where meeting the demands of the market in the west is best achieved by ignoring human rights somewhere else.
I'm guessing that this is part of the exploitation that Rockypoppy is talking about.

adruu · Aug 30, 2007

‘for merely by virtue of their fortunate geographical location, and with scarcely any effort on their part’

sounds like almost every high income group on the planet today.

we are really far from asking ourselves about utopia when the current system is showing signs of not being able to police itself, or fulfill any of its major obligations at all. your question is just an academic smokescreen to excuse the current problems. Inject even a little accountability and fairness into the system first, even at a rhetorical level, before getting into arguments about what utopia would work better.

Friedrich von Hayek’s words in The Road from Serfdom:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance…

To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.

Tactics · Aug 30, 2007

my two pence

john eden said:
I think those texts highlight a central problem which has been touched on by other posters - can you actually sit down in 2007 and describe a workable way for an entirely new world to operate?

in short I think so...either it has existed, does exist (in someone's head, on paper or on a computer) or can exist

I just don't think there's any hope of such a system being implemented in the UK, US or other such places - again in short, there's no hope here for a system change. the system just needs to be straigtened out in terms of fairness BUT unfairness needs to exists it seems for this system to work so...

other ways of 'working' can co-exist with capitalism - I just don't think everywhere on Earth needs to run the same way. its like having an annoying person at work - you don't get on and would never par outside of work BUT you talk when you need to to get the job done and buss up from time to time over some shared joke

BUT THAT'S IT

Mr BoShambles · Aug 30, 2007

IdleRich said:
But is it not the case that these politico-legal structures are maintained with the help of western companies?

Yes I agree there are many examples of this historically (ITT/Anaconda and the overthrow of Salvador Allende; United Fruit and the banana republics etc) and, to a lesser degree today.

In other words western capitalism exploits the advantages it can gain from the lack of human rights in some parts of the world. The company that can best exploit children as sweat shop workers in the east can sell most cheaply to those in the west and thus provide better value for those of us who buy their products.

But is it up to MNC's to impose human 'rights'? Certainly they should adhere to the laws of the land in which they are operating just like any other local enterprise. But in these countries children work because they have to, as the children of poor families in the West worked through much of the industrial revolution (and of course in pre-capitalist times as well). They are not being forced to work by corporate slave drivers cracking the whip but rather out of need. Such practice surely will end once the economic necessity disappears - a product of the increasing capitalisation of these economies - and the masses demand politico-legal reform and the recognition of basic rights. The wages paid by MNC's in the main exceed the wages paid in other jobs (as research by Jagdish Bagwati suggests) and the conditions are unlikely to be worse either. That workers work (what by our standards are) long days, may of course be through choice. Longer hours = more money = the potential to save and invest etc etc. So MNC's bring better employment opportunities, capital investment in infrastructure, the creation of tertiary industries which generate employment for more people, and technical skills which are passed on to workers. And yes they distribute ever cheaper goods around the world. On balance I think they are positive force.

Mr. Tea · Aug 30, 2007

zhao said:
people love to discredit anarcho primitivism and the noble savage. but consider the opposite: humans have ALWAYS lived the way we do now, what with the slavery and systematic oppression and heirarchy and power and subjugation and exploitation, even under drastically different conditions such as small population and abundance of resources, for (arguably) millions of years.

Umm...there was actually a hell of a lot more slavery, systematic oppression &c. a few hundred years ago - or, throughout much of the world, at any time in the past - than there is now.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"Yes I agree there are many examples of this historically (ITT/Anaconda and the overthrow of Salvador Allende; United Fruit and the banana republics etc) and, to a lesser degree today."

So you accept that MNCs acting "capitalistically" have been known to join with dictators etc in repressing and exploiting people?

"But is it up to MNC's to impose human 'rights'?"

No, it is up to the MNC's to get away with as much as they can to increase profits, this is pretty much the definition of capitalism. Unfortunately this often leads to decreases in human rights.
I don't say it is up to avalanches to protect small villages but I still think it is right to stop them crushing them.

(Some people on the other hand might argue that a company is made up of people and it's every person's duty to increase human rights and certainly not to act to decrease them in the name of profit.)

Mr BoShambles · Aug 30, 2007

IdleRich said:
So you accept that MNCs acting "capitalistically" have been known to join with dictators etc in repressing and exploiting people?

Yes I accept that there have been cases where MNC's have acted to reinforce the existing status quo - a status quo predicated on exploitation, economic unfreedom and social injustice. But can you cite me examples of where an MNC has entered an economically free and socially mobile country and caused this situation to be reversed or to deteriorate?

No, it is up to the MNC's to get away with as much as they can to increase profits, this is pretty much the definition of capitalism. Unfortunately this often leads to decreases in human rights. I don't say it is up to avalanches to protect small villages but I still think it is right to stop them crushing them.

MNC's by helping the economic potential of a country be realized, actually assist in generating a shift in power relations away from the rigidly ascribed master-serf towards a freer society. Rural-urban migrations, increased extralegal activity, and increased expectations amongst the 'poor' lead to ever growing pressure on the traditional elites to reform the politico-legal institutions for the good of everyone. As this process occurs I believe demand for 'rights' to be recognised will grow. These changes are internal within the dynamics of a society but by stimulating economic change, MNC's are overwhelming a help and not a hindrance to such developments.

IdleRich · Aug 30, 2007

"Yes I accept that there have been cases where MNC's have acted to reinforce the existing status quo - a status quo predicated on exploitation, economic unfreedom and social injustice."

Yes, but it's not just that they have acted to reinforce that but that they have acted to reinforce that precisely because that is what capitalism demands that a company in their position should do.

"But can you cite me examples of where an MNC has entered an economically free and socially mobile country and caused this situation to be reversed or to deteriorate?"

Possibly that is difficult to do in a country that already totally free (whatever that means), however you mentioned "the overthrow of Allende" and the United Fruit Company was instrumental in turning Guatemala back in to a dictatorship after it had begun to have free elections.
I guess your point stands, it may be possible for a well-established and free country to stand on its own two feet and resist the anti-democratic urges of predatory MNCs although the involvement of MNCs tend to be bad news for those countries which haven't yet become democtratic or even started on that journey.

"MNC's by helping the economic potential of a country be realized, actually assist in generating a shift in power relations away from the rigidly ascribed master-serf towards a freer society."

You just accepted that that is not necessarily the case. In fact, I would say that that is only the case if it is more profitable for that to happen, in many cases it is not. Many MNCs find it quite handy not to have to worry about human rights when they shift villages to build their dam, bridge, tunnel whatever.

As this process occurs I believe demand for 'rights' to be recognised will grow.

I wish I could share your faith.

What did you think about this bit by the way?

"Some people on the other hand might argue that a company is made up of people and it's every person's duty to increase human rights and certainly not to act to decrease them in the name of profit"

rockypoppy2 · Aug 30, 2007

Mr BoShambles said:
But is it up to MNC's to impose human 'rights'?

ok, some interesting points. what would you say to the argument that governments seeking to encourage capitalist investment/mnc's etc... ban trade unions, actively move to lower wages, decrease legislation towards job security etc... as has been well documented in the Far East. And if that is the result of the political system of said country behaving too greedily in wanting to catch up with the rest of the world/pocket the money, then who's fault is that. Once again im talking about capitalism as more than just economic policy, as something that influences everything in our lives. The emphasis on inequality capitalism places in order to operate is not, in my opinion, restricted to economics nor conducive to the environment i would prefer to be living in.

Mr BoShambles said:
children work because they have to, as the children of poor families in the West worked through much of the industrial revolution (and of course in pre-capitalist times as well).

children work because they have to help their parents pay the rent (poor america/ and many "modernising" cities) buy the food (because they are no longer growing it) pay for healthcare, pay transport, pay for union representation (some cases) pay electricity bills (again some cases)

have you read upton sinclair's - the jungle. a bit biased but it gives a chilling account of the "efficiency" and "willingness" upon which people subject themselves to this work.

Mr BoShambles said:
And yes they distribute ever cheaper goods around the world. On balance I think they are positive force.

And yes, they create false markets to taunt us with goods we dont actually need, use up our resources in making them and some to dispose of them.

have you also considered the increasingly disposable culture we are developing, where we need to produce more and more for companies to sell more and more to remain profitable. i accept you argument about some resources not being fully appreciated before capitalism but surely you can agree that the earth is a finite resource, and this expansion cannot continue forever.

also i'd like you to consider war, and its driving force in the global economy right now, how america is inches away from economic meltdown because its investing billions into arms to destroy other places.

If not capitalism then what exactly?

Tight but Polite

entered apprentice

entered apprentice

IdleRich

booty bass intellectual

IdleRich

there are no accidents

IdleRich

there are no accidents

IdleRich

jambiguous

IdleRich

This Is It

BBP!

jambiguous

Let's Talk About Ceps

IdleRich

jambiguous

IdleRich

wtf?