If not capitalism then what exactly?

[Mr. Cheese]

Thanks for the thought-provoking post, hundredmillionlifetimes. Would it be too much to ask you to elaborate on the interesting passage below? Specifically, how, for example, capitalism’s “anti-organicist” element taken to its extreme would manifest itself. Thanks in advance.

Ironically, then, it is capitalism's radical/progressive elements (anti-organicist, anti-egotistical, anti-identitarian, anti-patriarchal, fragmenting of Oedipus) which need to be emphasised (the "accelerating capitalism" you refer to above), insisted upon - via overidentification strategies, for instance - to the exclusion of the reactionary tendencies that facilitate its continuation, in order for it to be obliterated.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

You're attempting to personify/territorialise the discussion. I haven't been anywhere near London in seven years, and never lived there (apart from a three-month summer sojourne as a student]. This is cyberspace, not your living-room.

Yes, I was wryly territorialising your point, because I think it showed a tendency to generalise. You assume that everyone feels the same way (projection perchance? ).

Hilarious: if you don't 'feel' unique, then what's your insistence on the "personally" for?

Let me explain: 'personally' means 'I am a separate entity that thinks in this way'. It doesn't follow that I meant 'I am the only person who thinks this way'.

In any case, I only added the 'personally' as a counterweight to your generalisations - to make it clear that I cannot claim to speak for everyone and neither can you.

Of course, every person actually is unique, as in unrepeatable (for obvious reasons).

So, in conclusion, I know that I am unique but I don't feel it.

 

[Gavin]

You talk about corporations 'manipulating' desires and urges. Do they create these desires and urges or merely exploit them? Give me an example of a 'created desire.'

They channel libidinal urges towards consumer goods, which inevitably fail to satisfy desire (partially because desire is unquenchable, mostly because goods are inadequate to the task). They are fetishes -- they are objects given a supposed magic power to satisfy our deep needs for social bonds, for love, for prestige, increasingly for security. They fail every time, but they keep us coming back by carpetbombing us with ad-porn that has been designed, by psychologists, to manipulate our emotions.

This is really asinine, 101-level stuff. Are you really going to argue that there's some deep instinctual need for Burberry plaid?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

They channel libidinal urges towards consumer goods, which inevitably fail to satisfy desire (partially because desire is unquenchable, mostly because goods are inadequate to the task). They are fetishes -- they are objects given a supposed magic power to satisfy our deep needs for social bonds, for love, for prestige, increasingly for security. They fail every time, but they keep us coming back by carpetbombing us with ad-porn that has been designed, by psychologists, to manipulate our emotions.

This is really asinine, 101-level stuff. Are you really going to argue that there's some deep instinctual need for Burberry plaid?

No, no, I agree with you on this absolutely, especially as you have echoed my thoughts on the primacy of governing, essential desires. The only caveat I would offer is that every now and then, these fetishised goods *do* lead to love, prestige and security (smart suit/flash car/name-dropping on a date etc - it's worked for me); or are the seeming cause behind a sometimes actual effect (voodoo); or are taken for those that do (by association); or are temporarily amusing or curious (aesthetics - the pure play of novelty-seeking/curiosity?). In other words, it's not all doom, gloom and pointless floundering in the abyss - there are shades of grey and reasons to be cheerful (if only for a short while).

The thing is, now that we know all about how we can be led so easily by the nose, what is the alternative? How can we be free? If we are to go heavy on the tools of persuasion, we may as well start by scooping our own eyes out, to avoid the charms that evolution has so artfully conferred upon women, to exploit our libido. All is temporary fulfilment of one's desires (which cannot be changed, as they are the human condition) or the anticipation of them. There is no getting off the merry-go-round.

 

[Gavin]

No, no, I agree with you on this absolutely, especially as you have echoed my thoughts on the primacy of governing, essential desires. The only caveat I would offer is that every now and then, these fetishised goods *do* lead to love, prestige and security (smart suit/flash car/name-dropping on a date etc - it's worked for me); or are the seeming cause behind a sometimes actual effect (voodoo); or are taken for those that do (by association); or are temporarily amusing or curious (aesthetics - the pure play of novelty-seeking/curiosity?). In other words, it's not all doom, gloom and pointless floundering in the abyss - there are shades of grey and reasons to be cheerful (if only for a short while).

The thing is, now that we know all about how we can be led so easily by the nose, what is the alternative? How can we be free? If we are to go heavy on the tools of persuasion, we may as well start by scooping our own eyes out, to avoid the charms that evolution has so artfully conferred upon women, to exploit our libido. All is temporary fulfilment of one's desires (which cannot be changed, as they are the human condition) or the anticipation of them. There is no getting off the merry-go-round.

Hopelessly drunk on your own postmodern jouissance, with a handy bag of sociobiology for justification if the going gets rough. You don't happen to be a college professor, do you?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Hopelessly drunk on your own postmodern jouissance, with a handy bag of sociobiology for justification if the going gets rough. You don't happen to be a college professor, do you?

Half-chewed arguments 'supported' by vain recourse to ad-hominem caricatures. You wouldn't happen to be a 1st year undergraduate, would you?

Anyway, as the title of the thread demands: what's your plan to get us out of this awful fix?

 

[Gavin]

Half-chewed arguments 'supported' by vain recourse to ad-hominem charicatures. You wouldn't happen to be a 1st year undergraduate, would you?

Anyway, as the title of the thread demands: what's your plan to get us out of this awful fix?

If I told you, then my ideas would just become commodified reifications objectified on the interweb. I gotta hold these cards close, mang.

 

[zhao]

i haven't read the entire last 3 pages but is Mr. Bohannan on about the virtues of "free market economy" as if it isn't a lie any highschool graduate should be able to see through?

American economic system resembles a feudal serfdom more than anything else.

have you heard? in 2007 the average CEOs in the US make 360 times the wages of full time employee. back in 2000 it was 500 times.

upward mobility is reserved for those already on top.

free market my skinny chinese ass. it's about as giant a farce as "democracy".

"who is oppressed by capitalism"... jesus...

the american way of life is built on genocide, slavery, war, lies, murder, and rape since the beginning and to this day. setting up bannana republics, screwing people in south america, middle east, asia, all over.

sorry to bore you guys with stating the obvious it's 5:30 AM and i should have gone to bed a long time ago

 

[mixed_biscuits]

If I told you, then my ideas would just become commodified reifications objectified on the interweb. I gotta hold these cards close, mang.

Poor.

 

[zhao]

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?

many many times have democratically elected local governments and leaders been toppled by wester / American business interests in order to more effeciently exploit the natural resources.

you should ask the people in Tanzania or Venezuela these questions.

these "it's not perfect but it's the best one we've got" proclaimations really give me a headache / the creeps. but i might keep reading as there are good points made on all sides. cheers.

 

[zhao]

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.

see this is the problem - when i say people may not have always lived the way we do ----- all that our minds can stretch to is a few hundred years ago.

a few hundred years ago is the same period of development as 2007. changes take place in terms of tens of thousands of years, and the kind of change i was talking about may have taken hundreds of thousands as human society changes with the changing environment.

 

[IdleRich]

But is anyone going to have a stab at answering the original question?

 

[zhao]

But is anyone going to have a stab at answering the original question?

one of my worst pet hates is when Americans wave their arms in the air high-fiving eachother in response to the collapse of the USSR - "we won! we are the best! Capitalism is what God intended! look, all the poor people wanna come here because Capitalism is AWESOME!!!" fucking ignorant yahoos.

capitalism's global "take over" in recent 100 years (minor fraction of a blink of an eye) after arising out of the murky and random happenstance of history is entirely arbitrary -- under those circumstances, which could have easily been different, sure it works a little bit better than the dictatorships that attempts at Communism became. so the fuck what.

and my earlier point -- what we have now is not even *really* capitalism as envisioned by its founders, which specifically involves free market economies. there is no such thing today. much much much easier for haves to get more and for have-nots to lose everything. the system in America resembles a feudal Serfdom more than anything else. where millions of serfs work for a few lords.

"...the gap in pay and compensation between workers and bosses is growing. ... CEOs at the biggest U.S. companies averaged $10.8 million in pay ... Meanwhile, the survey says, the top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers ... were paid an average of $675.5 million. That is equivalent to 22,255 times the annual pay of an average American worker--or more in roughly 10 minutes than the average worker makes in a year, the study says. (In this survey, the "average" worker's salary is around $30,000 a year.)"

Forbes article - More In A Day Than In A Year

so if one really takes even a half well rounded look at the picture, the original question of this thread is... based on false assumptions or atleast over-simplifications, and thus beside the point and is unanswerable / does not need to be answered.

 

[vimothy]

I like this dude.

This is my first contribution to dissensus but I have been following the debates on some recently posted threads and it seems that capitalism and economic globalisation cop some quite astounding criticism.

Get used to it!

This is the basis for capitalism. Each individual is free to realize his/her own economic potential. So we sell our labour to the highest bidder. If we want to earn more we learn new skills (through education and/or practical experience) which makes us more desirable and increases our labour value. We can live frugally and save some of our wages until we can invest in capital assets (land, buildings, tools, machines) which increase our ability to generate wealth. This is a socio-economic ladder that can be climbed by everyone living in a capitalist society.

Problem being, no one on this board believes this happens.

Economic competition between individuals drives efficiency. If someone else can produce the same good for less, or a better quality good for roughly the same price as we can; well then why would anybody buy our goods? As efficiency increases less people are required to produce the same quantity of a specific good and this therefore frees up labour and consequentially deepens and diversifies the capitalist division of labour. How else would all the technological advancements that we have today been practically possible? While ever the division of labour was master-serf (feudal/pre-capitalist) what opportunities and incentives existed to innovate and improve?

And they either don't understand this, or don't believe it is a good thing.

But damn, man: good post.

 

[vimothy]

But is anyone going to have a stab at answering the original question?

Should be a larf...

 

[vimothy]

I'm just struggling with the idea of 'anarcho-communism' - surely to put in place and maintain a collectivist economic system requires the exact opposite of anarchism, namely a vast and all-powerful State? The only economic system I can see being compatible with anarchism is Vimothy's beloved libertarianism.

Libertarian state = free market and private property

Anarchism = something much less coherent (IMHO)

 

[IdleRich]

"and my earlier point -- what we have now is not even *really* capitalism, which specifically involves free market economies"

Strictly true I guess but presumably not what HMLT/Gek/Gavin would say.

"the notion that no matter how crazy and insane and unjust the modern world may be under capitalism, the daily oppressiveness of work, commute, schedule, politeness, transaction, poverty, war, global warming and pollution, etc"

None of these problems are specific to capitalism though are they? The question is surely, what is the system that will escape all these crazy injustices so that no-one has to work or travel to do it? The system that will finally save us from the terrible scourge of politeness.
You can list again and again all of the problems that capitalism has failed to solve and arguably exacerbated but how do you propose solving them?

 

[rockypoppy2]

i think the thing with capitalism is that its sold as much as a fantasy as the romantic notion of communism or socialism was. with capitalism people constantly dream of better things and are sold the (often) lie, that if they work hard they will achieve this.

if they are unselfish - then they may work hard for their children/nation/whatever to achieve something better, but its still a dream.

and its not true that all these dreams can possibly become realities because someone's got to do the dirty work - grow our food, harvest it, make our plastic toys...etc...

sure technology is going to facilitate these things, and gradually there will more automation etc... but someones always going to be on the shit side of things while others are living it up.

i mean come on, the notion that everybody can draw equal pay, have equal opinion and influence is nice aswell, its another dream which under the constraints of the society/economy we live in today, cannot be realised.

its these dreams of future success (and the idea that your personal future success is solely dependant on yourself rather than a group or collective and thus all the more tangible and rewarding should you work hard enough to achieve it) that let this system prevail

 

[vimothy]

and my earlier point -- what we have now is not even *really* capitalism as envisioned by its founders, which specifically involves free market economies. there is no such thing today. much much much easier for haves to get more and for have-nots to lose everything. the system in America resembles a feudal Serfdom more than anything else. where millions of serfs work for a few lords.

Founders? What do you mean founders? Do you mean "what we have now is not really capitalism as envisaged by classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo"?

Manchester liberals (the corn laws people) began lobbying in opposition to the protectionist strategies of their contemporary governments - there was less market freedom (and (much) less understanding of what that entailed) at that time.

 

[zhao]

Do you mean "what we have now is not really capitalism as envisaged by classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo"?

yes yes... sleep deprivation shall be my excuse for the rest of the day.