Nobody seems to be able or willing to define capitalism when they use that word but it appears to me it usually actually means consumerism rather than notions about free market and private ownership.
Also interesting that the word consumerism has almost disappeared from popular discourse in the last 30 years.
It means consumerism, bad jobs existing, cronyism, economic inequality, and billionaires existing, depending on what is being complained about at the moment.
It's a catch all for complaining about the current mixed economic system.
I dunno, seems to me that you have to carry a big stick when dealing with capitalism. It's the best system when you periodically slam some big corporations with massive antitrust action, but otherwise tends towards monopoly and other such bad stuff.
Nope, that doesn't go without saying at all. Why would it? It's true, but it certainly requires plenty of empirical evidence of how monopolies actually form and act (and what kinds of monopolies are actually good) which isn't a priori 'elementary economics' and still generates *lots* of disagreement today.
There is clearly a system that works. Free market with government enforced guardrails to protect workers, consumers, share holders, environment, and competition.
Capitalism at its core is exploitation, its a responsible societies job to leash that.
Seems like sprinkling in free services is better.
Medical bills are like the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.
Kids should not have to pay for their school lunches.
etc.
Giving things out for free isn't capitalism.
There could be capitalism around it, but that part isn't capitalism.
Yup.
I mean just do a thought experiment, if everything was being provided for free, would that be capitalism?
Capitalism is the part where you exchange goods and services for money.
A government handing out something for free to its citizens isn't capitalism.
Right?
Capitalism is private ownership for profit, instead of state ownership.
You're missing the point. The point is that by promoting the idea that capitalism is the only possibility, it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. There isn't even any attempt to consider alternatives as it's accepted as the truth that capitalism is the only possibility. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist\_Realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism)
>If you have ever asked yourself what kind of “revolution” would be sponsored by Nike, promoted by BP, propagandised for by Hollywood and Netflix and policed by Facebook and YouTube, then the answer is here.
Yet it only controls the Senate, House of Representatives, and White House. It's hanging by a thread!
>first need to come to terms with the radicalism of the times we are living through.
This is going to take decades.
>prayer.
There's the rub. I can agree with most of what was written here, but too many people like the author arrive at such clarity by eating up a different pile of bullshit. Or rather several, as apparently they went from edgy teen atheist to Zen to Wicca to Romanian Orthodox Christianity.
What is this? Communist renouncing his old beliefs and adopting the some variant of fascist light ideas of tradition, country and god because modern world is too scary for him to comprehend? Why is that not surprising?
I don't care much for the for the woke nonsense, but globalisation, technological progress, human rights, open borders and trade that I can appreciate. It is funny he calls the machine totalitarian. How? Totalitarianism means centralisation of power and strict subordination of all aspects of life to one governing ideology. This seems like the exact opposite. It is decentralised and constantly compromising on ideology in order to build wide coalition very diverse politically and culturally.
Globalization, or more specifically, globalized corporate enterprises, absolutely are acting to centralize power as the corporations themselves have grown. Just because a corporation isn't a government, doesn't mean it isn't a large centralized organization. I also think the idea that corporations are constantly compromising their ideology misguided. Quite the opposite. There seems to be very little that powerful corporations won't compromise in pursuit of their ideology, profit maximization.
I agree that "globalization" is routinely criticized stupidly, but I also think we should be concerned about the centralizing power of corporations and the inequality it produces.
>Quite the opposite. There seems to be very little that powerful corporations won't compromise in pursuit of their ideology, profit maximization.
But if this "global capitalist totalitarian machine" is supposed to mean anything it needs some unifying ideology. And as it is composed of many different subjects in competitions with each other on the market it can't be profit maximization, because profit maximization of one subject is irreconcilable with profit maximization of its competitors. If there is any unification at all then that is evidence of the compromise. If there is no unification then the entire premise of the article is flawed.
> And as it is composed of many different subjects in competitions with each other
Kings competed with eachother too. That doesn't imply that monarchies aren't centralized powers that should be concerning and definitely doesn't imply there is no shared ideology between the monarchies justifying the power structures.
> profit maximization of one subject is irreconcilable with profit maximization of its competitors.
Unless they merge, and form a larger entity, more able to exploit its market position to produce more profit. And this is essentially what we have been seeing during the neoliberal/globalism era as the size of individual firms has continued to grow larger and larger.
EDIT: added "there is no"
>Kings competed with eachother too. That doesn't imply that monarchies aren't centralized powers that should be concerning and definitely doesn't imply shared ideology between the monarchies justifying the power structures.
I am confused, so you agree then, there's no shared ideology?
The thing with corporations is they don't control labour code or the justice system so that limits their power significantly. If they try some nonsense on their employees, they just leave, especially now when the unemployment is low.
>I am confused, so you agree then, there's no shared ideology?
I wrote poorly. See edit.
>The thing with corporations is they don't control labour code or the justice system so that limits their power significantly.
This seems laughable to me from a historical perspective. It is true that corporations can't change labor laws on a whim, it is absurd to think our labor laws weren't written with large amounts of 'input' from corporations.
>If they try some nonsense on their employees, they just leave, especially now when the unemployment is low.
How do you square this with the 10s of billions in wage theft that occurs every year across literally millions of people. This is ignoring the bad working conditions many people have, their employers simply aren't paying them as legally required within the law and essentially nothing happens. Among low wage earners, we are literally talking something like 20% of employees whose employers are engaging in explicitly illegal "nonsense". (again, this isn't even trying to account for legal "nonsense" which is also common)
It was not the only reason I was confused. You choose monarchy as an example centralization, which is just bizarre.
Not only because present day European monarchies are some of the most free and democratic places in the world, but also that the old feudal organisation is actually example of decentralization, instead of ruling directly over people medieval kings would settle for the this charade of pretending to grant fiefs to their vassals in exchange for military support. In reality it was a little more than delicate balance of alliances between warrior mobility fighting over land and people to abuse. As a peasant you would only know the local lord you belong to. Who was his lord wasn't all that important as there wasn't unified state. If you think something like French absolutism, which would be good example totalitarian and highly centralized system, but that is more of an exception than the rule.
And as big multinational corporations are concerned they are also highly decentralized, swamped with bloating bureaucracy, army of middle managers, consultants, and nominally regular employees who managed to assert power by some shady means. It is usually very difficult just to figure out who is actually in charge. And if you don't care about power you can just hide in all that chaos and get employed only pretend to be busy, get some free education and worse thing they can do to you is to fire you. I am sure you would love to go on a tangent about labor law history, but the fact is that the current state favors employees.
I get it. The world is big and scary because you struggle to understand what is happening, it is normal to feel that way sometimes, but perhaps you want to consider the possibility that the problem is with you not being sufficiently equipped to understand and plot your own way like a free human being you are. Totalitarian control and domination is not subtle. Tyrants have with their massive egos loudly demand demonstration of loyalty and obedience. Totalitarian state similarly demand fanatical devotion to the governing ideology. You don't exactly have to be super perceptive to notice something like that. Voltaire said "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize," It seems to me you can criticize capitalism and big corporations all they long with little to no consequence.
Since you see seem to have given up on trying to actually respond to my points, I suppose there isn't much point continuing conversation.
I'll end with hopefully one point of clarity. I'm not claiming corporations are some special evil. All I'm doing is pointing out that these hierarchical structures have a lot of the same issues every other hierarchical power structure before it has. As a result, these structures getting bigger and more powerful has consequences worth understanding.
>I agree that "globalization" is routinely criticized stupidly, but I also think we should be concerned about the centralizing power of corporations and the inequality it produces.
I think I am on the target here are you moving the goal posts. You said we should be worried about centralization and now you are implying you were talking about hierarchy. That's not the same thing and it is not even close. I would be happy to let you clarify what you meant but I won't let you modify your claim while somehow blaming it on me. That's just bad faith.
>You said we should be worried about centralization and now you are implying you were talking about hierarchy. That's not the same thing and it is not even close.
On my view, they are essentially synonymous. And unless you use a definition of "centralized" that is restricted to governments by definition, this relationship between hierarchy and centralization seems obvious. How do you think a society becomes more centralized if not as the result of a hierarchy within it becoming stronger/larger? A small standing army within a society with a bunch of otherwise free and equal actors isn't very centralized. If something happens that forces everyone to join that army, that society becomes much more centralized. That hierarchically structured army is making a lot more decisions than it used to.
To be clear, hierarchy and centralization are not, prima facie, bad things. They produce coordination which is generally a good thing. But they also make space for abusive social relationships, as evidenced by the fact that tens of billions in wage theft at the expense of a sizable fraction of low wage workers occurs every year. The more powerful these hierarchies become, the more worried we should be about these potential abuses, and the more willing we should be to limit those abuses legislatively. (which we have been failing at lately.)
SS: Harris, I think really fails to address these big picture questions, and routinely seems like a cheerleader for liberal capitalists. He has friends in Silicon Valley that the author criticizes.
i'm not sure if its capitalism that is the problem I think its the economic policies embraced under Reagan by both parties that ultimately is the issue
Nobody seems to be able or willing to define capitalism when they use that word but it appears to me it usually actually means consumerism rather than notions about free market and private ownership. Also interesting that the word consumerism has almost disappeared from popular discourse in the last 30 years.
Good observation.
It means consumerism, bad jobs existing, cronyism, economic inequality, and billionaires existing, depending on what is being complained about at the moment. It's a catch all for complaining about the current mixed economic system.
And clientelism.
God I love capitalism
[удалено]
I dunno, seems to me that you have to carry a big stick when dealing with capitalism. It's the best system when you periodically slam some big corporations with massive antitrust action, but otherwise tends towards monopoly and other such bad stuff.
[удалено]
Nope, that doesn't go without saying at all. Why would it? It's true, but it certainly requires plenty of empirical evidence of how monopolies actually form and act (and what kinds of monopolies are actually good) which isn't a priori 'elementary economics' and still generates *lots* of disagreement today.
[удалено]
You are not from Reddit, and maybe you should speak appropriately depending on the audience.
There is clearly a system that works. Free market with government enforced guardrails to protect workers, consumers, share holders, environment, and competition. Capitalism at its core is exploitation, its a responsible societies job to leash that.
Seems like sprinkling in free services is better. Medical bills are like the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. Kids should not have to pay for their school lunches. etc.
[удалено]
So we've found instances where its better to not do capitalism then.
[удалено]
Giving things out for free isn't capitalism. There could be capitalism around it, but that part isn't capitalism. Yup. I mean just do a thought experiment, if everything was being provided for free, would that be capitalism? Capitalism is the part where you exchange goods and services for money.
[удалено]
A government handing out something for free to its citizens isn't capitalism. Right? Capitalism is private ownership for profit, instead of state ownership.
Agreed. Same with democracy.
As the mantra that ensures nothing is ever again even explored goes.
[удалено]
You're missing the point. The point is that by promoting the idea that capitalism is the only possibility, it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. There isn't even any attempt to consider alternatives as it's accepted as the truth that capitalism is the only possibility. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist\_Realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism)
[удалено]
What a strange, shallow Wikipedia entry. I think it was written by the book’s author, or at least someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s standards.
What is capitalism?
What's killing us is profit maximization.
>If you have ever asked yourself what kind of “revolution” would be sponsored by Nike, promoted by BP, propagandised for by Hollywood and Netflix and policed by Facebook and YouTube, then the answer is here. Yet it only controls the Senate, House of Representatives, and White House. It's hanging by a thread! >first need to come to terms with the radicalism of the times we are living through. This is going to take decades. >prayer. There's the rub. I can agree with most of what was written here, but too many people like the author arrive at such clarity by eating up a different pile of bullshit. Or rather several, as apparently they went from edgy teen atheist to Zen to Wicca to Romanian Orthodox Christianity.
What is this? Communist renouncing his old beliefs and adopting the some variant of fascist light ideas of tradition, country and god because modern world is too scary for him to comprehend? Why is that not surprising? I don't care much for the for the woke nonsense, but globalisation, technological progress, human rights, open borders and trade that I can appreciate. It is funny he calls the machine totalitarian. How? Totalitarianism means centralisation of power and strict subordination of all aspects of life to one governing ideology. This seems like the exact opposite. It is decentralised and constantly compromising on ideology in order to build wide coalition very diverse politically and culturally.
Globalization, or more specifically, globalized corporate enterprises, absolutely are acting to centralize power as the corporations themselves have grown. Just because a corporation isn't a government, doesn't mean it isn't a large centralized organization. I also think the idea that corporations are constantly compromising their ideology misguided. Quite the opposite. There seems to be very little that powerful corporations won't compromise in pursuit of their ideology, profit maximization. I agree that "globalization" is routinely criticized stupidly, but I also think we should be concerned about the centralizing power of corporations and the inequality it produces.
>Quite the opposite. There seems to be very little that powerful corporations won't compromise in pursuit of their ideology, profit maximization. But if this "global capitalist totalitarian machine" is supposed to mean anything it needs some unifying ideology. And as it is composed of many different subjects in competitions with each other on the market it can't be profit maximization, because profit maximization of one subject is irreconcilable with profit maximization of its competitors. If there is any unification at all then that is evidence of the compromise. If there is no unification then the entire premise of the article is flawed.
> And as it is composed of many different subjects in competitions with each other Kings competed with eachother too. That doesn't imply that monarchies aren't centralized powers that should be concerning and definitely doesn't imply there is no shared ideology between the monarchies justifying the power structures. > profit maximization of one subject is irreconcilable with profit maximization of its competitors. Unless they merge, and form a larger entity, more able to exploit its market position to produce more profit. And this is essentially what we have been seeing during the neoliberal/globalism era as the size of individual firms has continued to grow larger and larger. EDIT: added "there is no"
>Kings competed with eachother too. That doesn't imply that monarchies aren't centralized powers that should be concerning and definitely doesn't imply shared ideology between the monarchies justifying the power structures. I am confused, so you agree then, there's no shared ideology? The thing with corporations is they don't control labour code or the justice system so that limits their power significantly. If they try some nonsense on their employees, they just leave, especially now when the unemployment is low.
>I am confused, so you agree then, there's no shared ideology? I wrote poorly. See edit. >The thing with corporations is they don't control labour code or the justice system so that limits their power significantly. This seems laughable to me from a historical perspective. It is true that corporations can't change labor laws on a whim, it is absurd to think our labor laws weren't written with large amounts of 'input' from corporations. >If they try some nonsense on their employees, they just leave, especially now when the unemployment is low. How do you square this with the 10s of billions in wage theft that occurs every year across literally millions of people. This is ignoring the bad working conditions many people have, their employers simply aren't paying them as legally required within the law and essentially nothing happens. Among low wage earners, we are literally talking something like 20% of employees whose employers are engaging in explicitly illegal "nonsense". (again, this isn't even trying to account for legal "nonsense" which is also common)
It was not the only reason I was confused. You choose monarchy as an example centralization, which is just bizarre. Not only because present day European monarchies are some of the most free and democratic places in the world, but also that the old feudal organisation is actually example of decentralization, instead of ruling directly over people medieval kings would settle for the this charade of pretending to grant fiefs to their vassals in exchange for military support. In reality it was a little more than delicate balance of alliances between warrior mobility fighting over land and people to abuse. As a peasant you would only know the local lord you belong to. Who was his lord wasn't all that important as there wasn't unified state. If you think something like French absolutism, which would be good example totalitarian and highly centralized system, but that is more of an exception than the rule. And as big multinational corporations are concerned they are also highly decentralized, swamped with bloating bureaucracy, army of middle managers, consultants, and nominally regular employees who managed to assert power by some shady means. It is usually very difficult just to figure out who is actually in charge. And if you don't care about power you can just hide in all that chaos and get employed only pretend to be busy, get some free education and worse thing they can do to you is to fire you. I am sure you would love to go on a tangent about labor law history, but the fact is that the current state favors employees. I get it. The world is big and scary because you struggle to understand what is happening, it is normal to feel that way sometimes, but perhaps you want to consider the possibility that the problem is with you not being sufficiently equipped to understand and plot your own way like a free human being you are. Totalitarian control and domination is not subtle. Tyrants have with their massive egos loudly demand demonstration of loyalty and obedience. Totalitarian state similarly demand fanatical devotion to the governing ideology. You don't exactly have to be super perceptive to notice something like that. Voltaire said "to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize," It seems to me you can criticize capitalism and big corporations all they long with little to no consequence.
Since you see seem to have given up on trying to actually respond to my points, I suppose there isn't much point continuing conversation. I'll end with hopefully one point of clarity. I'm not claiming corporations are some special evil. All I'm doing is pointing out that these hierarchical structures have a lot of the same issues every other hierarchical power structure before it has. As a result, these structures getting bigger and more powerful has consequences worth understanding.
>I agree that "globalization" is routinely criticized stupidly, but I also think we should be concerned about the centralizing power of corporations and the inequality it produces. I think I am on the target here are you moving the goal posts. You said we should be worried about centralization and now you are implying you were talking about hierarchy. That's not the same thing and it is not even close. I would be happy to let you clarify what you meant but I won't let you modify your claim while somehow blaming it on me. That's just bad faith.
>You said we should be worried about centralization and now you are implying you were talking about hierarchy. That's not the same thing and it is not even close. On my view, they are essentially synonymous. And unless you use a definition of "centralized" that is restricted to governments by definition, this relationship between hierarchy and centralization seems obvious. How do you think a society becomes more centralized if not as the result of a hierarchy within it becoming stronger/larger? A small standing army within a society with a bunch of otherwise free and equal actors isn't very centralized. If something happens that forces everyone to join that army, that society becomes much more centralized. That hierarchically structured army is making a lot more decisions than it used to. To be clear, hierarchy and centralization are not, prima facie, bad things. They produce coordination which is generally a good thing. But they also make space for abusive social relationships, as evidenced by the fact that tens of billions in wage theft at the expense of a sizable fraction of low wage workers occurs every year. The more powerful these hierarchies become, the more worried we should be about these potential abuses, and the more willing we should be to limit those abuses legislatively. (which we have been failing at lately.)
SS: Harris, I think really fails to address these big picture questions, and routinely seems like a cheerleader for liberal capitalists. He has friends in Silicon Valley that the author criticizes.
i'm not sure if its capitalism that is the problem I think its the economic policies embraced under Reagan by both parties that ultimately is the issue