RantSome DanCapitalism:
Inequality engine
And the rich love it
AKingsburyDo you imagine that #socialism or #communism DON'T lead to inequality?
No, the real answer is this; inequality is part of reality. People are not equal in every way, and never will be, and it's not even a problem if you think about it. Does anybody really object to the fact that this person is a better singer, that person is taller, that other person over there is smarter?
WombatPriest@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) you're distracting from the argument. OP criticises capitalism. Alright. How is criticising socialism a response?
2) i'd love to hear your definition of capitalism
3) "inequality engine" – i suppose that means it generates inequality where it has not been before. As has already been mentioned, no one thinks that everyone has the same skills or interests etc. Communists/socialists are usually concerned with economic inequality.
1) I criticize both socialism and communism, as they are the only alternatives.
2) Okay.
3) Which is also a foolish thing to pursue; it's not even what many people want, and it would be wrong to force it on them. If someone wants to take a vow of poverty, who am I to stop them? If someone wishes to be richer than I, again, why should I object?
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) what about anarchism, feudalism,...
Also, you're again distracting from the point. Just because one system is bad doesn't mean that others are good. You're commiting to a logical fallacy (tu quoque / whataboutism)
2) are you gonna tell me your definition of capitalism?
3) Again a distraction. You claimed that inequality was a part of life. But I don't see how economic inequality is an unchangeable law of nature. Whether you want to change it is another topic.
1) Anarchism is a political situation or system, not an economic one. Feudalism is a blend of political and economic, but economically it comes down to more or less centralized state control; socialism.
2) I don't have a personally generated one. I tend to use things like dictionaries.
3) Economic inequality exists only insofar as humans interact; a hermit living in total isolation has no meaningful economic inequality. So it's hardly an "unchangeable law of nature".
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) anarchism is the absence of hierarchy. So there can't be bosses in anarchism. So the economy would need to work differently. Feudalism is not socialism, because the definition of socialism is not state control, but control by the masses ("dictatorship of the proletariat"). Feudalism is the opposite.
2) so what does your dictionary say?
3) right then. So your original claim is wrong when we look at economic inequality, rather than inequality of skills etc.
1) If you simply mean "I want no hierarchy", that's a nonsensical way to order a society. Just as one example among MANY, ask a firefighter how well a scene could possibly be run absent any authority at all.
2) There are multiple dictionaries, but you might find this one useful: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
3) My "original claim" was not narrowly focused only on economic inequality, nor does the original poster specify economic inequality. That's a wicket YOU choose to add.
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) that's again a distraction from the point. The point was that there are other ideas than capitalism and communism. I never said you have to like them.
2) This definition lacks the notion of capital accumulation, which is a key concept of capitalism, as well as the one that makes it an "inequality engine": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation
I'll have to put the third point extra, sorry
1/2
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
3) it's what communists typically talk about. Particularly since they say "inequality engine", this implies that it creates inequality where it has not been before. That makes more sense for economic inequality rather than inequality of skills. Again, particularly in light of the common criticisms of capitalism.
You might also say that you choosing to unterstand the OP's use of "inequality" as inequality of skills is the wicket YOU chose to add.
2/2
1) Yes, there are other ideas. Like cubism; but that's an art idea, not an economic one. All economic systems ultimately fall under capitalism, socialism, communism, or some blend thereof.
2) I never imagined you'd accept what a dictionary had to say about a definition.
3) I have no interest whatsoever in what you imagine someone else thinks. If they wish to clarify, or you wish to ask them, that's out of my control. And I point to more inequalities than just in skills.
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) I just gave two other examples. In anarchism, there can't be bosses, so the economy would have to work differently than in capitalism. But there is no state control as in communism. So clearly, it's a different economic system.
Similarly feudalism: everything is owned by the king/feudal lord and basically leased to his subjects. There is no collective ownership as in communism, and no private ownership as in capitalism. Different economic system.
1/3
1) Yes, I answered you about anarchism, and you complained it was a deflection. And so you bring it up again. I can only imagine that, if I reply, you'll fall back on complaints that it's a deflection. Seems like a waste of time.
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
1) yes, because I brought up anarchism as another social and economic system. You said that this is a bad way to order a society. Ok, so what? It is another social and economic system still. If you don't respond to what I'm actually saying and rather try to steer the conversation away to something else, I'm gonna call it deflective. Because that's exactly what it is.
If you want to argue that anarchism is not a different economic system, go ahead.
1) yes, because I brought up anarchism as another social and economic system. You said that this is a bad way to order a society. Ok, so what? It is another social and economic system still. If you don't respond to what I'm actually saying and rather try to steer the conversation away to something else, I'm gonna call it deflective. Because that's exactly what it is.
If you want to argue that anarchism is not a different economic system, go ahead.
Again, seems a waste of time. Please feel free let me know if you ever decide to approach things in a better fashion.
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda sure, i'll let you know when I just completely adopt your position without any argument or critical thought
Well, not even remotely what I asked, but it definitely makes clearer exactly how interested in honesty you aren't. Have a nice life.
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda sure
You too :)
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
2) i don't reject what the dictionary says, it's just too short to be helpful. You could interpret the dictionary as saying capitalism is when people can own things. That's absurdly broad. If capital goods are defined in terms of capital accumulation, the dictionary definition would be fine. But if you look up capital goods, you'll get redirected to something completely different, it's not the best dictionary apparently.
Dictionaries are not great for complex things
2) i don't reject what the dictionary says, it's just too short to be helpful. You could interpret the dictionary as saying capitalism is when people can own things. That's absurdly broad. If capital goods are defined in terms of capital accumulation, the dictionary definition would be fine. But if you look up capital goods, you'll get redirected to something completely different, it's not the best dictionary apparently.
Dictionaries are not great for complex things
@AlexanderKingsbury @hunda
3) so why should I care how you interpret what OP said? It's just amazing how arrogantly you can pretend like your interpretation is somehow superior to the interpretation of literally everyone else who has replied to you.
You clearly missed OP's point. And I believe you recognise that yourself.
3/3
Sorry about splitting it up, complex topics tend to require a lot of text
Having a boss in the sense of an employer is incompatible with a free society, but having a boss in the sense of a manager is acceptable as long as the manager is ultimately democratically accountable to the workers in the firm and recallable.
@jlou @hunda well, in anarchism any boss would be impermissible, because anarchism rejects any hierarchy. A guy that deals with finances etc. while others deal with production would be ok if everyone agreed, but I'm not sure I'd call that a "boss" really.
In general, I agree with the sentiment that bosses shouldn't serve the shareholders, but the workers. Just like politicians should serve the people...
In general, I agree with the sentiment that bosses shouldn't serve the shareholders, but the workers. Just like politicians should serve the people...
Overthrow the movie directors, and their oppression! All power to the actors and crew!
More seriously, it would be pretty hard to run a large workplace without at least some managers. I think many colloquial notions of a boss are inclusive of what you describe though.
Democracy at the workplace level would be more effective due to smaller scale of the organization compared to a polity. Also, managers incentives can be aligned to the long term interest of the workers.
@jlou @hunda just in general economy should move away from trying to benefit shareholders and some obscure "market" metrics that don't have any real meaning; and move towards benefitting society and providing fullfilling work in a humane and healthy way
There's really just one dumb economic model between us and paradise
Quite depressing sometimes
It’s not the market itself that’s the problem with capitalism, but rather institutions within it like employer-employee contracts, monopolies and landlordism are the problem. We can tweak these things while still having some markets because it can be useful!
@WombatPriest @hunda The point about metrics can be addressed with local community currencies that encode contextual value within a democratic community rather than a global valuation.