The issue really is not capitalism, it is too much centralization due to poor capitalism management. Saying we should unlearn is ridiculous as what is the alternative that also does not lead to centralization and all the issues it brings with it. The more we point the finger at capitalism, the more we are not focused on the real enemy of too much centralization regardless of the political or economic system.
You don’t seem to understand what capitalism is. Capitalism is not the market, it specifically refers to the economic model in which the means of production are privately or corporately owned (as opposed to collectively) and development occurs via the accumulation and reinvestment (aka redistribution) of wealth by the same.
Centralization is the crucial component of capitalism. Saying that the problem is centralization and not capitalism is like saying the problem with dictatorships is dictators and not dictatorship. You could say that if companies would just behave and reinvest/redistribute their wealth fairly and equitably then capitalism would be great, but you could also say that if we just had a benevolent dictator then dictatorship would be great. Accountability must be built into the system.
That is me entire point. Accountability must be built in and too much centralization needs to be managed or the beast will grow into a monster and impact all negatively including itself in the long run. Lots of ways to manage, but like all centralized systems, they tend to become corrupt over time and don’t kid yourself that other systems where the means are owned by the people as they suffer from the same issue. Centralization is the enemy here not capitalism per se.
You missed my point somehow so I’ll try to say it again more clearly. Centralization is inherent to capitalism and inseparable from it. Capitalism places the means of production, and therefore power, into the hands of private individuals. Those private individuals accumulate wealth which allows them to accumulate more wealth and on and on it goes, leading to further centralization of power. Any solution to this problem involves collectivizing the means of production in some way, which means it would no longer be capitalism.
I think you are projecting more than a little as you are just describing other types of groups. Humans make groups and groups are a form of centralization and centralization has inherent issues. Not saying we would be better off without them as that is absurd, but we can better manage the negative effects be it capitalism or communism. They are just different sides of the same coin and if we fail to recognize that we are doomed for more suffering.
People can organize in a large variety of ways without centralizing power. This idea of “all economic systems suck, let’s just make capitalism better” is misguided. Decentralizing the power structure within capitalism is tantamount to moving away from capitalism. What you call the economic system that results from this doesn’t matter. The term communism for example is often used to refer to the communist party of the soviet union established by the Bolsheviks, despite the fact that the Bolsheviks betrayed the values for which the revolutionaries fought.
Communism is, by its’ original envisioning, a fully decentralized economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Communism is decentralized by design and centralization results from flaws - often deliberate courtesy of selfish oppurtunists - in its’ implementation. Capitalism is centralized by design and decentralization results from flaws - also often deliberate courtesy of those like you seeking to make it better - in its’ implementation.
Trying to “fix” capitalism by introducing flaws in its’ implementation will never make long lasting change; that can only come about by replacing the foundation of capitalism with something better.
Comments like this that offer no value of than a sly remark are often just projecting. I shared my view. Feel free to join the discussion and share yours.
It’s not poorly managed, you are suggesting that poorly managing capitalism wound improve it.
Capitalism only has one metric, capital, the goal is to consolidate it as much as possible. And that is a limited strategy that can properly work only in the short term (but as any system, it will defend it’s existence above all, even logic).
What? I am saying better managing it would improve it. Higher taxes the more you make. Caps on company sizes. Strict regulations with consequences that actually mean something if broken. There are ways to manage. We just choose not too. What is the better alternative as every system has it pros and cons but all of not managed right, lead to bad outcomes. Maybe it is impossible as fundamentally humans and human nature are at the core.
I was saying that what you described are measures “against capital” … and capital owners would have to implement these measures, which would hurt them.
That’s what I meant by capitalism having a single metric (goal). Implying that to move beyond capitalism/communism/feudalism we need a way to value things like ‘advancing society’ (science, happy population, sustainable growth, etc) the same way we now value capital (or feudalism valued land).
Communism is only a bit different in this regard bcs it distributes power among people, and with a more democratic economic system people can value more personal goals (like personal time, career/field, etc), but market tendencies stay the same (basically only limiting production factors akin to hindering capital mobility in capitalism, like banning stocks/stock exchanges, but capital mobility is like the defining characteristic of western capitalism).
All of the economic systems can and should be influenced by a system of governance, ranging from democratic to authoritarian. The more democratic the more “anti-capitalist”*, the more authoritarian the more a few people make all the decisions. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
(And just to be clear, you can have a completely democratic completely communistic system, and a completely authoritarian capitalism. So a multiparty commune state and a single party (“two party” is a single party in this regard) capitalist state.)
*the measures you described could only be implemented this way, but then the core problem of who decides what is best for society falls to a popularity vote, unless everyone is educated (and we are several centuries from achieving this utopia, if ever)
Now how do we take the open market single mindedness of capital valuation and add an equally powerful system working in a similar way to credit advancements in society, ecology, etc.
(I say valuation to imply a more theoretical/mathematical approach & to not count human factors & technical analysis of stock exchanges, or how bubbles are in every major participants interest)
The issue really is not capitalism, it is too much centralization due to poor capitalism management. Saying we should unlearn is ridiculous as what is the alternative that also does not lead to centralization and all the issues it brings with it. The more we point the finger at capitalism, the more we are not focused on the real enemy of too much centralization regardless of the political or economic system.
You don’t seem to understand what capitalism is. Capitalism is not the market, it specifically refers to the economic model in which the means of production are privately or corporately owned (as opposed to collectively) and development occurs via the accumulation and reinvestment (aka redistribution) of wealth by the same.
Centralization is the crucial component of capitalism. Saying that the problem is centralization and not capitalism is like saying the problem with dictatorships is dictators and not dictatorship. You could say that if companies would just behave and reinvest/redistribute their wealth fairly and equitably then capitalism would be great, but you could also say that if we just had a benevolent dictator then dictatorship would be great. Accountability must be built into the system.
That is me entire point. Accountability must be built in and too much centralization needs to be managed or the beast will grow into a monster and impact all negatively including itself in the long run. Lots of ways to manage, but like all centralized systems, they tend to become corrupt over time and don’t kid yourself that other systems where the means are owned by the people as they suffer from the same issue. Centralization is the enemy here not capitalism per se.
You missed my point somehow so I’ll try to say it again more clearly. Centralization is inherent to capitalism and inseparable from it. Capitalism places the means of production, and therefore power, into the hands of private individuals. Those private individuals accumulate wealth which allows them to accumulate more wealth and on and on it goes, leading to further centralization of power. Any solution to this problem involves collectivizing the means of production in some way, which means it would no longer be capitalism.
I think you are projecting more than a little as you are just describing other types of groups. Humans make groups and groups are a form of centralization and centralization has inherent issues. Not saying we would be better off without them as that is absurd, but we can better manage the negative effects be it capitalism or communism. They are just different sides of the same coin and if we fail to recognize that we are doomed for more suffering.
People can organize in a large variety of ways without centralizing power. This idea of “all economic systems suck, let’s just make capitalism better” is misguided. Decentralizing the power structure within capitalism is tantamount to moving away from capitalism. What you call the economic system that results from this doesn’t matter. The term communism for example is often used to refer to the communist party of the soviet union established by the Bolsheviks, despite the fact that the Bolsheviks betrayed the values for which the revolutionaries fought.
Communism is, by its’ original envisioning, a fully decentralized economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Communism is decentralized by design and centralization results from flaws - often deliberate courtesy of selfish oppurtunists - in its’ implementation. Capitalism is centralized by design and decentralization results from flaws - also often deliberate courtesy of those like you seeking to make it better - in its’ implementation.
Trying to “fix” capitalism by introducing flaws in its’ implementation will never make long lasting change; that can only come about by replacing the foundation of capitalism with something better.
You have a lot of unlearning to do 😊
Comments like this that offer no value of than a sly remark are often just projecting. I shared my view. Feel free to join the discussion and share yours.
It’s not poorly managed, you are suggesting that poorly managing capitalism wound improve it.
Capitalism only has one metric, capital, the goal is to consolidate it as much as possible. And that is a limited strategy that can properly work only in the short term (but as any system, it will defend it’s existence above all, even logic).
What? I am saying better managing it would improve it. Higher taxes the more you make. Caps on company sizes. Strict regulations with consequences that actually mean something if broken. There are ways to manage. We just choose not too. What is the better alternative as every system has it pros and cons but all of not managed right, lead to bad outcomes. Maybe it is impossible as fundamentally humans and human nature are at the core.
I was saying that what you described are measures “against capital” … and capital owners would have to implement these measures, which would hurt them.
That’s what I meant by capitalism having a single metric (goal). Implying that to move beyond capitalism/communism/feudalism we need a way to value things like ‘advancing society’ (science, happy population, sustainable growth, etc) the same way we now value capital (or feudalism valued land).
Communism is only a bit different in this regard bcs it distributes power among people, and with a more democratic economic system people can value more personal goals (like personal time, career/field, etc), but market tendencies stay the same (basically only limiting production factors akin to hindering capital mobility in capitalism, like banning stocks/stock exchanges, but capital mobility is like the defining characteristic of western capitalism).
All of the economic systems can and should be influenced by a system of governance, ranging from democratic to authoritarian. The more democratic the more “anti-capitalist”*, the more authoritarian the more a few people make all the decisions. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
(And just to be clear, you can have a completely democratic completely communistic system, and a completely authoritarian capitalism. So a multiparty commune state and a single party (“two party” is a single party in this regard) capitalist state.)
*the measures you described could only be implemented this way, but then the core problem of who decides what is best for society falls to a popularity vote, unless everyone is educated (and we are several centuries from achieving this utopia, if ever)
Now how do we take the open market single mindedness of capital valuation and add an equally powerful system working in a similar way to credit advancements in society, ecology, etc.
(I say valuation to imply a more theoretical/mathematical approach & to not count human factors & technical analysis of stock exchanges, or how bubbles are in every major participants interest)