|
GunnerJ posted:The economy has to grow to meet the needs of a growing population at the very least, and those needs go beyond basic physical survival into a consideration of how to empower people through improved material conditions. Note here that economic growth is being conceived of as a means to and end, not an unlimited end in itself. We know that the pursuit of economic growth can lead to the potential for meeting everyone's needs, but it does so as a side effect, as that Adam Smith quote illustrates. The problem is that pursuing economic growth as an end in itself with meeting everyone's needs as an option that is not strictly necessary to its goals is that a lot of awful poo poo (such as the actual immiseration of many, many people to increase the profits of a few) goes along with it unless checked. The fact that we have to check economic growth as an end in itself is what people itt are pointing to as very telling about the limits of the capitalist system. Then they're getting in response "lol but poor people don't want to be poor anymore." Hey yo, no poo poo. Not really what's at issue. Yes, thank you. 4 drat pages of liberals appealing to "economic growth" over and over again without ever once realizing that their arguments basically boil down to a belief in "trickle down economics." The peasants of the third world get invoked over and over again, without ever considering the class relations of peasants to their landlords and the reason they're poor in the first place, which is that they're being ruthlessly exploited through rent, debt, or overt feudal ties. "Economic growth" means nothing to them because all the gains from new productivity are siphoned up to the parasitic landlords.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it's an incredible coincidence that distribution overwhelmingly favors the capitalist class!!! Haha. Yes shocking that capitalism has some humans with elevated leveles of power and some of them are named capitalists. Very clever you noticed. Also we're a representative democracy and some power is skewed towards the representatives. It's just all in plain sight. Haha no it's not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Haha. Yes shocking that capitalism has some humans with elevated leveles of power and some of them are named capitalists. Very clever you noticed. Also we're a representative democracy and some power is skewed towards the representatives. It's just all in plain sight.  *rubs chin thoughtfully* hrmmmmmmn
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes, thank you. Africa has a GDP PPP average of $2k. Either you're cool with that or you support growth. To be clear because this thread is this thread, development means investment and capital and infrastructure, not "ending western exploitation (+ magic)" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:All 3 of those countries have major flaws I wouldn't want to replicate, but ideally yippy would have one system internationally, not separate national systems. I wish the worldwide gangster communist computer God was real 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Africa has a GDP PPP average of $2k. Either you're cool with that or you support growth. You didn't read a single word of what you just quoted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Africa has a GDP PPP average of $2k. Either you're cool with that or you support growth. This is, again, magical thinking. Growth yes, but how, and in what way? If it's growth along the line of the capitalist model, which the bulk of Africa has been pursuing since decolonization - then "growth" will largely be seized by the bourgeois, landlords, foreign creditors, or warlords. Or, it could be growth along the lines of a cooperatist, or socialist model in which growth is redistributed into investments for literacy, public healthcare, housing, food, and etc. - the basics of what's considered a "decent standard of living." African countries are also in a better position to pursue growth sustainably with renewable energy, because it's not as capital intensive and they aren't reliant on pre-existing grids. It's much easier for them to adopt solar and wind power because their energy needs aren't that great to begin with - they're essentially starting from scratch. So yes to growth, but it should be growth according to a model of necessity to social utility, not growth according to a model which demands an ever increasing accumulation of capital indefinitely. Just take for instance advanced capitalist countries that are experiencing population declines like Italy or Japan. The needs of their societies are going down, not up, due to a population decline - yet they're still tied to a system which demands constant economic growth to guarantee returns on capital investment. If they had socialist economies they'd be more capable of handling their demographic declines, because a socialist society can handle economic contractions in ways that a capitalist society can't. Without profit being a necessity, the goals and interests of society can become radically different. Deimus posted:You didn't read a single word of what you just quoted. He's falling back to script, because liberals aren't capable of dealing with critiques of class from the Left. They've been conditioned not to acknowledge class relations to begin with according to the utopic belief that liberal capitalism represents a classless society. asdf32 can't acknowledge the disproportionate class power of capitalists over society, because his faith is placed in representative democracy - regardless of all the evidence which demonstrates its capture by capital interests. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Lmao at the capitalists in this thread arguing that economic activity should be subject to the democratic will of the people. Just lmao.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Haha. Yes shocking that capitalism has some humans with elevated leveles of power and some of them are named capitalists. Some gross obfuscatory language. asdf32 posted:Also we're a representative democracy and power is skewed towards the representatives. And some outright lies. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Sup folks, just a lil reminder that "But communism was bad!" doesn't actually oblige anyone to ignore the inherent systemic flaws of capitalism. Or, if you want to keep busting out that sick burn, don't complain about communists doing the "In America they lynch blacks!" thing to any critique of communism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
20th century communism/socialism is dead. It's time for some 21st century solutions to the problem of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Sup folks, just a lil reminder that "But communism was bad!" doesn't actually oblige anyone to ignore the inherent systemic flaws of capitalism. Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism. Unless you mean such clear and crippling contradictions as "some people rich, some poor -> capitalism DOOMED" and it's not just 'communism was bad'. communism was worse, to the point where it was either overthrown or abandoned in all but name by the only states that adopted it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism. Unless you mean such clear and crippling contradictions as "some people rich, some poor -> capitalism DOOMED" See, now you're already making slightly more interesting arguments. Good job, keep it up! quote:and it's not just 'communism was bad'. communism was worse, to the point where it was either overthrown or abandoned in all but name by the only states that adopted it. That is, nonetheless, irrelevant to the question of capitalism's flaws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm pretty sure I cut into this argument the last time you used it, I don't believe so, or at least I can't find the remark in question. rudatron posted:but that's not a sufficient explanation. You've moved the cause into the territory of strict policy, leaving the area of power and governmental structure that create that policy untouched - ie, the 'stagnant bureaucracy' argument still works, simply by reincorporating your data ("Why didn't they accurately diagnose and correct this problem? Why was the bureaucracy incapable of actively fostering innovation"). It's those failures of structure that are the more troubling questions, that have to be answered, and that are not by your sources. It's a sufficient explanation for its scope. Asking what structures kept the problem from being corrected is a valid and important line of inquiry; in fact, the essay even devotes a small space to discussing that, though there are other works by other authors that do a better job of it (e.g., Keeran & Kenny). But the central question in Ball concerns stagnation purely in economic terms, and therefore focuses rightly on the socialist mode of production in context. JeffersonClay posted:Seems to me all people exist on some continuum of altruism and self-interest, and socialization and education can maybe shift the bell curve around a bit. Eliminating self-interest entirely sounds like an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. I don't think anyone has suggested the elimination of self-interest as a possibility, let alone an immediate goal. The very ontological status of an individual human being entails certain requirements and tendencies; the point is to gradually work towards structuring society so as to eliminate (or at least minimize) the contradictions between individual and group needs. but if you should happen to see someone say something like "I believe there should be no self-interest" in a Marxist discussion, gently remind them how Marx felt about idealism. Constant Hamprince posted:Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism in your own words, please spell out these scarequote systemic flaws. wanna see what you think socialists are saying
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
That a complex politics/economic system has "contradictions" (however technically defined) is also irrelevant, not unique and not bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism. Unless you mean such clear and crippling contradictions as "some people rich, some poor -> capitalism DOOMED"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
as an american i benefit every day from an economic system that exploits peoples around the world to ensure that i have access to cheap goods, but that's fine because economic growth will eventually trickle down to them
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
cams posted:as an american i benefit every day from an economic system that exploits peoples around the world to ensure that i have access to cheap goods, but that's fine because economic growth will eventually trickle down to them Not only is it fine, hell, I'd say that its moral!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
*insert matty ygelasias op ed here*
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
modern american capitalism as it exists is an existential threat to humanity if it is not put in check. before the end of my lifetime, the consequences of it will be felt, most likely by the people whom it exploits. i'll probably be dead by the time the poo poo starts washing up on my shore, which is cool i guess,
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Most of the 'inherent systemic flaws of capitalism' you guys keep citing are only inherent to laisses-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism. No it's not. Any form of capitalism seeks to grow exponentially because capitalism fails when investments can't guarantee a return on capital. If nobody can expect to make profit on capital, or if they can expect to lose capital on massive bad investments, then financial markets collapse and the effects ripple throughout the real economy. If capitalism stagnates to the point where capital accumulation is no longer possible, you're basically talking about a system of bourgeois feudalism. "Some people rich, some people poor" isn't a dooming class relation of society, but a dystopic relation of power. What dooms us is the way that capitalism demands the constant and increasing exploitation of resources to the point of exhaustion, and eventual ecological collapse. What exactly do you think "laissez-faire, ayn-rand-boner libertarian capitalism" consists of? We're already doing massive ecological damage under the nominally regulated model in the United States, where the Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee is a climate change denier, and both presidential candidates are pro-fracking. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:"Some people rich, some people poor" isn't a dooming class relation of society, but a dystopic relation of power. What dooms us is the way that capitalism demands the constant and increasing exploitation of resources to the point of exhaustion, and eventual ecological collapse. lol but the ussr polluted a lot??? checkmate marxailures
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:lol but the ussr polluted a lot??? checkmate marxailures N-n-nooooo! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:No it's not. Any form of capitalism seeks to grow exponentially because capitalism fails when investments can't guarantee a return on capital. If nobody can expect to make profit on capital, or if they can expect to lose capital on massive bad investments, then financial markets collapse and the effects ripple throughout the real economy. If capitalism stagnates to the point where capital accumulation is no longer possible, you're basically talking about a system of bourgeois feudalism. sweet imma put the starbucks logo on my heraldric crest and complain about how land values in the duchy have gone to poo poo since those drat turkic horse-archers settled next door when capitalism stagnates you get japan, not the sudden reimposition of serfdom
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:sweet imma put the starbucks logo on my heraldric crest and complain about how land values in the duchy have gone to poo poo since those drat turkic horse-archers settled next door
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:sweet imma put the starbucks logo on my heraldric crest and complain about how land values in the duchy have gone to poo poo since those drat turkic horse-archers settled next door gaaaaahhh~!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
"when worldwide markets begin to stagnate, it will be just like what happened to japan when only japan began to stagnate within the larger system." hm yes good point
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:sweet imma put the starbucks logo on my heraldric crest and complain about how land values in the duchy have gone to poo poo since those drat turkic horse-archers settled next door 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that feudalism is a system of property relations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
cams posted:"when worldwide markets begin to stagnate, it will be just like what happened to japan when only japan began to stagnate within the larger system." It is. Reminder that zero growth doesn't mean zero profit. Declining growth doesn't mean zero profit either. Capitalism can, has and will survive stagnation and decline. The stuff about "requires growth" is Marxist pseudoscience/scary bedtime story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It is. And just how do you think that profit is generated? lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
at first i thought people didn't understand marxism, but the reality is they don't understand capitalism either
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that feudalism is a system of property relations. your definition of feudalism branches of from that of mainstream history when a 19th century journalist read ivanhoe so please spare me
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Actually it is a system of fancy titles and swords and poo poo, like in hit TV series Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:at first i thought people didn't understand marxism, but the reality is they don't understand capitalism either Majorian was right lmfao
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:at first i thought people didn't understand marxism, but the reality is they don't understand capitalism either
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:And just how do you think that profit is generated? lmao Heh how do you? No it's not growth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh how do you? No it's not growth. Yeah no poo poo, the profit has to be generated by increasing the rate of exploitation, which means a massive transfer of wealth from workers to capitalists. That eventually leads to *drum roll* REVOLUTION!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
The capitalist class makes profits even when the economy is declining. This is why capitalism is so good, it's win-win!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The capitalist class makes profits even when the economy is declining. This is why capitalism is so good, it's win-win! Sure the bank foreclosed on your house and now you and your family live out the back of a station wagon, but think of their portfolios!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:08
|
|