@FantasticalEconomics @rauder @turtle_green so what you're saying is that it's better to change from lead ammunition in the machine gun to lead-free ammunition than to just stop shouting your friends, family and neighbourhood with it?
#Capitalism is what's doing the damage. Tinkering with isn't going to stop it doing the damage; destroying the planet is intrinsic to its operation. We need to stop using it.
@simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green
Simon, want to point out that it is something more basic that is destroying the planet than “capitalism.”
The Soviet Union, aka communists, were terrible for the environment. China has done & is doing terrible things to the environment.
They got rid of capitalism & still mess up the planet. So I think it makes sense to focus on solving other problems than getting distracted by simply attacking #capitalism & hoping everything will be green.
@rauder @simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green Correct!
It's perfectly possible for people to do massive environmental damage under just about any economic system. Greed is perfectly possible with capitalism...and communism, and socialism, etc. It's perfectly possible for people under ANY of these to do environmental damage for their own enrichment. Capitalism doesn't demand it, or "perpetual growth", any more than any others do, despite common (and loud) claims to the contrary.
@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green
"greed isn't actually possible with #communism"
I'll have to add that to the collection.
"But yes, you CAN wreck the environment under any economic system, that's true. However, #capitalism requires it, which is unusual."
No, it's just false. Capitalism requires no such thing.
Of course private-property capitalism requires eternal growth
Private accumulation requires financial institutions, borrowing and lending to mobilize the accumulated resources
Lending requires interest as the price of borrowing
Interest requires eternal growth
This is mathematically unavoidable unless interest rates converge to zero, which is a ridiculous idea
@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum @RD4Anarchy
@magitweeter @simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum @RD4Anarchy There are too many flasehoods here to address in one comment. Let's take the first "Private accumulation requires financial institutions, borrowing and lending to mobilize the accumulated resources"
Nope. I can get paid in cash and save it, if I so choose. Now, are banks beneficial? Yes, to most; that doesn't mean they're required.
If by «save it» you mean stash the bills away, yes, of course that's an individual option, but you're not the only actor in the market. As long as there's a demand for borrowed funds and a supply of loanable funds, there will be a price for borrowing. Private-property capitalism requires financial markets to arise simply because of the incentive to lend and borrow.
@simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum @RD4Anarchy
@magitweeter @simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum @RD4Anarchy "Private-property capitalism requires financial markets to arise simply because of the incentive to lend and borrow."
Heck of a leap from "there is an incentive for this to happen" to "there is a requirement for this to happen". To encourage something is not to force it.
@AlexanderKingsbury @magitweeter @simon_brooke @rauder @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum
>>Heck of a leap from "there is an incentive for this to happen" to "there is a requirement for this to happen". To encourage something is not to force it.<<
This is hilarious coming from someone who insists that greed is the common denominator of humanity: "but hey, it's ok to encourage it" 🤦♂️
@RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @magitweeter @simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum
My point is that “greed” is still a problem, even in “non-capitalist environments.”
I have seen bad decisions made, I.e. contrary to the mission of a non-profit org, by people who are greedy to increase their own power, authority, self-importance. No “profit” motive.
@RD4Anarchy @AlexanderKingsbury @magitweeter @simon_brooke @FantasticalEconomics @turtle_green @AdrianRiskin @HeavenlyPossum
2/ I submit it is helpful to look at capitalism like fire.
Fire has been extraordinarly valuable in improving human capabilities and quality of life, yet it needs to@be carefully managed or it become wildly destructive. Capitalism is the same, it needs to be well managed to channel its power in productive ways.
You neglect the social and political institutions required for upholding capitalism, which are coercive and violent by necessity.
Cue the “capitalism is just the economic system, the violent part is not capitalism”
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum "You neglect the social and political institutions required for upholding capitalism, which are coercive and violent by necessity."
No, I understand that social and political institutions are violently enforced; that is not unique or inherent to capitalism.
"Cue the “capitalism is just the economic system, the violent part is not capitalism”"
Correct. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one, not a legal one.
@AlexanderKingsbury Capitalism is unique in that it pretends to enforce an allegedly voluntary economic order by means of coercive social and political institutions
It delegitimizes itself
And no, not all social and political institutions are violently enforced. The ones required for capitalism definitely are
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum "Capitalism is unique in that it pretends to enforce an allegedly voluntary economic order by means of coercive social and political institutions"
It does nothing of the sort. Again, you confuse it for a legal or political system.
"And no, not all social and political institutions are violently enforced."
I never said "all".
@AlexanderKingsbury It's very easy to defend capitalism when you don't care about actually implementing capitalism
@AlexanderKingsbury I'm gonna post an analogy that my fellow anticapitalists such as
@AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange will no doubt find accurate and entertaining
You say “i have this amazing piece of software that will solve many economic problems”
We keep telling you your software can only run on a nuclear-powered computer that emits lethal amounts of radiation
You respond “that's a hardware problem, i'm talking about the software”
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "And accurate"
Fine. I'd submit to you that you can A. plug the computer into a different power source, or B. accept and understand that all nuclear reactors that produce usable amounts of power, including the sun, emit lethal radiation; fortunately, some humans have learned that with the principles of time, distance, and shielding, that problem can be mitigated.
@AlexanderKingsbury A. yeah, but then the software doesn't run; B. yeah, but then you can't actually use the computer
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "A. yeah, but then the software doesn't run; B. yeah, but then you can't actually use the computer"
Then your analogy needs a lot of work. Computers don't care where their electricity comes from, so long as the voltage, frequency, current capacity, etc. are right, and you can indeed use electricity from properly shielded reactors. Many people do.
"Accurate".
@AlexanderKingsbury «so long as the voltage, frequency, current capacity, etc. are right» Yes, and this computer needs to be sitting immediately next to the reactor, otherwise the parameters are wrong and it doesn't even boot
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "so long as the voltage, frequency, current capacity, etc. are right» Yes, and this computer needs to be sitting immediately next to the reactor, otherwise the parameters are wrong and it doesn't even boot"
So you need to make up entirely imaginary things to make your "accurate" analogy work. Got it.
@AlexanderKingsbury And you have to make up an entirely imaginary economic system untethered from any considerations as to its actual implementation in reality
Making up imaginary things is how we got here, so i'm sure you don't complain about it
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "And you have to make up an entirely imaginary economic system untethered from any considerations as to its actual implementation in reality"
Again, I understand you think that.
"Making up imaginary things is how we got here"
And again.
"so i'm sure you don't complain about it"
Hey, you're the one who can't come up with a workable analogy without resorting to fantasy. And it still isn't workable; just remote in to the PC.
@AlexanderKingsbury Yeah, except the radiation makes remote access impossible
By now you've devoted more effort into nitpicking the analogy than discussing how to actually implement your fantasy economic system in reality
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "Yeah, except the radiation makes remote access impossible"
How? We remote into machines in high radiation areas all the time.
"By now you've devoted more effort into nitpicking the analogy than discussing how to actually implement your fantasy economic system in reality"
Hey, it's your analogy. It's fine by me if you don't actually care how "accurate" it is.
@AlexanderKingsbury Because if the reactor isn't powerful enough that all outgoing signals are scrambled into unreadability by the radiation, then the computer doesn't even power on
The longer you keep doing this, the more you prove that you have no interest in discussing how to actually implement capitalism
It's all fantasy for you
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "Because if the reactor isn't powerful enough that all outgoing signals are scrambled into unreadability by the radiation, then the computer doesn't even power on"
Again, shielding. This is just demonstrating the idea that just because YOU can't understand how something (like capitalism) can work doesn't mean it can't.
I can think about two things at once. If you want to drop your "accurate" analogy, go right ahead.
@AlexanderKingsbury And just because you wave around a magic word such as “shielding” or “voluntary transactions” doesn't mean you've implemented a working system
You've dodged the question of enforcement since it first came about
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "And just because you wave around a magic word such as “shielding” or “voluntary transactions” doesn't mean you've implemented a working system"
Right, except shielding is exactly what we use on nuclear reactors. And voluntary transactions happen every day. They work, in the real world, all the time.
"You've dodged the question of enforcement since it first came about"
That's certainly a claim you can make.
@AlexanderKingsbury So do coercive transactions
Capitalism isn't a system where some transactions are voluntary, it's a system where all transactions are
Without a mechanism to prevent or redress those transactions, the entire system is tainted by coercion
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "So do coercive transactions"
Yes, and they work. They're just generally immoral.
"Capitalism isn't a system where some transactions are voluntary, it's a system where all transactions are"
NOW you're starting to get it.
"Without a mechanism to prevent or redress those transactions, the entire system is tainted by coercion"
I don't want to prevent voluntary transactions.
@AlexanderKingsbury Forgive my lack of clarity. I clarify
Without a mechanism to prevent or redress the coercive transactions, the entire system is tainted by coercion
Also: «They're just generally immoral» That's your entire objection to coercive transactions? That they're “generally immoral”?
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "Forgive my lack of clarity. I clarify
Without a mechanism to prevent or redress the coercive transactions, the entire system is tainted by coercion"
Yes, systems with coercion can be said to be "tainted with coercion". I agree.
"Also: «They're just generally immoral» That's your entire objection to coercive transactions? That they're “generally immoral”?"
That's AN objection I have.
@AlexanderKingsbury 1. That includes any attempt at implementing capitalism that doesn't actually prevent or redress coercive transactions
2. Hopefully you have stronger objections. As anarchists we believe that coercive enforcement of an economic order is “generally immoral”, so we're at an impasse
@magitweeter @AdrianRiskin @RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @SallyStrange "That includes any attempt at implementing capitalism that doesn't actually prevent or redress coercive transactions"
Getting back to those legal systems.
"Hopefully you have stronger objections. As anarchists we believe that coercive enforcement of an economic order is “generally immoral”, so we're at an impasse"
It's not coercive at all. Want to live as socialist? Go right ahead. Just don't force others to do so.
@AlexanderKingsbury So... a legal system is... not coercive at all...?
Simon Brooke
M.rauder
AKingsbury
Fabio G.
RD
Adrian Riskin 