My response to "Capitalism is the problem"

dwinblood in #hive-122315 • 2 years ago

I was just reading an article by @zyx066 titled Privatized Space Exploration that in itself is quite good. However inside of it a few particular lines came across to me as a common poison pill for the mind I see often today. I don't think it is intentional. I don't think the person is stupid. Nothing of the sort. I truly think they believe what they are saying. I simply think they have perhaps not thought about all the ramifications of what they are saying. Attacking "Capitalism" has been an easy target since Marx coined the term.

I started to reply to the post itself but it was getting lengthy and I haven't written on this topic for awhile so I thought I'd turn it into a post instead. I will also be giving @zyx066 a full 100% upvote on his post (not worth much but worth a couple #vyb).

Here was the quote from his article I began replying to:

Capitalism is the problem. The fact that private individuals are allowed, no, encouraged even to own the stuff that should be owned by everyone.

Uhm... no. Not at all.

The problem is Fascism, Cronyism, and Centralization of Power.

It is the EASY path to say it is capitalism and greed when what we have is not actually capitalism today. It is Fascism. This Fascist element is occurring in nations that claim to be Socialist, claim to be Communist, and claim to be Capitalists.

They love it when the entire Capitalism vs Communism vs Socialism trope is trotted out.

If you think the United States today is Capitalist then I could see why you would blame it on that. Yet I assure you it is not. The definition has been prodded and poked and pushed until it can fit the narrative desired.

So what you say MAY be true depending upon how you view capitalism.

For me I see it as FREE MARKET. Yet we don't have a free market and haven't for a long time.

We have entities, corporations, and people who are given smooth access by government while others are blocked by government. This is cronyism. It occurs whether you have a capitalist based society, a socialist based society, or a communist based society.

It is human nature because government centralizes power and through that centralization they become the gatekeepers and corruption ensues.

Now as to Capitalism itself you can pick moments in time and find anecdotal atrocities to cite as examples. Yet we can do that for other ideologies just as easily. Are any of them perfect? Not even close.

I want to pause here and address the part at the end:

stuff that should be owned by everyone.

By what merit? Why? Why should they own it? By nature that they breathe, they eat, they sleep, they procreate?

I don't personally have a problem with private property. I don't have a problem with someone spending their time and their MONEY (i.e. unit of value of time) to develop new technologies, contract with other people VOLUNTARILY to do things in exchange for money, and then explore with it. If they do all of that and then make it to an asteroid to mine I see absolutely NO REASON that you or I typing here deserve a piece of that.

You may think we have a right to live...

If you want to know what your rights truly are...

They are the things you can do for yourself. If another person must do it for you that is not a right. It is a privilege, an exchange, and agreement, etc.

What is worse is when we start pushing Socialist, Communist, or Marxist ideas people soon are convinced they have the right to FORCE other people to comply with their desires.

Somewhere along the line people decide that having the government solve their problems is a right. They think having a centralized agency use FORCE upon others is a good thing.

They also completely ignore human motivations.

We have the right to seek food. We have the right to speak. We have the right to attempt to heal ourselves. We have the right to educate ourselves. We have the right to defend ourselves.

These are all things we can attempt to do WITHOUT anyone else doing them for us.

Right to seek food does not mean the same as the right to force someone else to give us food.

Right to attempt to heal ourselves is not the same as the right to force someone else to heal us.

Right to educate ourselves is not the same as the right to force someone else to educate us. We simply have the right to seek knowledge.

Where the disparity often occurs is when people get to whether they have the right to create things that belong to them. We call this property.

If I build a house. I might be told by some that is not my house and it should be shared by all.

If I paint a painting. I might be told by some that it is not mine and belongs to all.

If I weave a pair of gloves out of my own shed hair. That too might no be mine.

I can keep citing examples. Typically when I do this I'll hit somewhere the person will say essentially "That isn't what it means." Where that line in the sand is crossed is different depending upon which person I speak to.

They typically will have a problem with property but at the root of it is envy, and their own personal greed they just don't see it while they are busy projecting it upon others as a convenient scapegoat to dress up their world view in.

They don't even realize they are doing it. When they see someone saying the things I said they will usually see it as a personal attack (ad hominem) when it is not. I don't apply this to one person. I apply it to all people that have this world view. I don't see them as damned, and without hope. I simply think they took what seems like an easy explanation and treated as the answer. It is easy for a reason. You don't need to put in much effort for it to make you feel like you have a goal that might be achieved and a target to point at. Yet it is a false target. It has emotional appeal. In the long term it is not feasible, ignores human nature, and makes a lot of assumptions about rights and when it is okay to FORCE compliance from other people.

Now to be clear in my case when I say Capitalism I mean Free Market. There are other words for the screwed up environment today. They do not fit capitalism. Fascism certainly applies. Corporatism certainly applies but ultimately is just another label for the same thing as Fascism. Ultimately it comes down to Centralization of power coupled with cronyism and this occurs whether you think you are using capitalism, socialism, Communism, or Marxism. There always ends up being centralized power that begins to block some, and favor others. This is where the corruption enters. It also appears to be an insidious facet of human nature that is not so easily eradicated as to simply wish it out of existence.

That's an important thing to realize. Because you like an idea doesn't mean you can pretend other factors don't exist.

I consider NONE of our ideas as perfect. They are all implemented by humans and our human nature. Now before you jump on the we could have an algorithm or AI do it. I have programmed both of those and they end up with my biases and my goals. You will centralize the power ultimately within the creation of select humans and their own biases. It is rigid and will have that persons flaws.

I do however look at history and while I can find anecdotal examples of bad events and I could choose to point them out as the norm I can also look at the poverty levels, what people's houses look like, what property they own, what services they have, and how much of that is voluntary choices. How many choices do they have.

In history under "Capitalism" those things have ALWAYS been higher than socialism, Communism, or Marxism.

Before you start trotting out European nations like Netherlands, Sweden, and other places. They have free market ideas as part of them. They are not Democratic Socialist countries despite the statements of people like Bernie Sanders.

They do have a fair amount of socialism at work as does the U.S. and just like the U.S. that has also seen the debt and other things begin to spiral out of control. This debt is not simply due to these actions though. There are so many things these centralized things we call government do wrong. They love it when we think it is as simple as blaming Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, etc. That allows them to play teeter totter with the blame. Push the pendulum.

Those entities will introduce and cause these problems regardless of which of those labels you give them. They will centralize more and more power and they will use propaganda to convince their subjects/slaves that it is for their good.

People have fared WAY better in free markets in history than any other type of ideology by a VERY LONG MARGIN.

As to space...

It doesn't belong to any of us unless we can get there to work it. I do think it is like a road though and we should not be denied transit if we too can make it there. That doesn't make some asteroid that people make it to and mine as though it should be mine simply due to the nature that I AM HERE.

I don't do socialism. I don't do communism. I don't do Marxism.

I am going to be blunt. If people are lazy or think that other people have to take care of them I truly don't have any compassion for such people.

I do have compassion for people that are having trouble even though they put forth effort. I will help such people as much as I personally can at the time. I will not demand some centralized authority do it because that is neither compassionate or wise.

As to space... You don't own shit. Neither do I. We are not owed anything if someone gets there and starts doing things when we do not. Unless perhaps you invested in such an endeavor and are owed something due to a contract/agreement.

If private entities get there... I don't suddenly get to claim their effort. If I were them and someone said "Give me some of that asteroid" without putting forth any effort or offering an exchange of value or reason then I'd laugh in their face. If the person said they were going to take it I'd say "I hope you are prepared to die for it, because I was when I worked to get here".

Free Market is the best solution we've found in history. No other comes close. The problem is it doesn't remain a truly free market due to the governments and cronyism.

Today the Corporations and the Governments around the world are intermingled and tightly woven together. This is essentially what fascism is. It is also why some people call it Corporatism.

It is no longer Capitalism. It began as that. It is no longer simply Socialism. It is no longer simply Communism.

The crony interest of these corporate entities that persist beyond the death of their creator infect ALL of these things via crony machinations.

The interesting thing about Space is it is big. If private interests can get up there and over time you can get a way to get there yourself because some private interest found an economical way to sell people ships then space could become a Free Market for awhile.

For a market to be free requires VOLUNTARY exchange. It requires the concept of property. It requires that you believe your life has value. There is one universal currency we all have. It is time. You have a finite amount of time that you will live. Thus, if someone asks you to do work in exchange for something they are asking if you will spend your TIME which you only have a limited amount of. Money is simply a numeric representation of the value of time. How much is your time worth?

That should be up to you to negotiate. Yet you should never be allowed to FORCE someone else to agree with you. That violates their rights. You only have the same rights as other people. Your rights are not superior.

#deepdives #pob #vyb #communism #capitalism #informationwar #socialism #freemarket #history #space

2 years ago in #hive-122315 by dwinblood

136.11 VYB

Sort:

Trending

[-]

darth-azrael 2 years ago

Part of the problem is that most of the time people aren't even starting from a common definition when discussing capitalism. When I say capitalism, I mean free markets. Other people mean corporatism (or something else). They aren't the same thing.

0.77 VYB

2 votes

[-]

zyx066 2 years ago

Thanks for the response! I'm honored that it inspired you to write an entire separate post about it. And I find it encouraging that you grant me the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, where it comes to my intelligence ;-)

Now for the actual response to your response. You make the same mistakes I see so often coming from voluntaryists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. First and foremost your definition of capitalism, where you equate capitalism with free markets; that's wrong. I really struggle to understand why anyone would make that equation, if only because of the fact that markets have literally been with us since the dawn of civilization, and under every economic configuration known to mankind. Feudalism had markets, mercantilism had markets, slavery had markets, yes, even communism and socialism have markets, heck I bet hunter-gatherers from the stone age sometimes made trades. And none of those markets have ever been "free", nor will they ever be, except maybe in the stone age. But that's besides the point here: capitalism isn't the same as markets, voluntary trades or even involuntary trades. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. Socialism can have markets to, the only difference would be the ownership of the means of production, and that's exactly where the difference is made.

It's also where all the problems start, just as Marx correctly analyzed. As an aside, you state that "attacking capitalism has been an easy target since Marx coined the term," but you might want to rethink that statement. Communism and socialism historically only gain popularity when capitalism't problems can no longer be covered up by its incessant propaganda machine. You say the problem isn't capitalism because that's not what we have now. Instead, so you claim, as do so many who hold the same ideology as you, we have cronyism and fascism, which are essentially the same. I agree entirely. But you fail to mention the other thing this is called: late stage capitalism. That's indeed our current reality, and it's the logical end-station for any capitalist experiment. It's not that hard to understand; when you allow the means of production to be in private hands, you have already created the unjust power imbalance from which all other injustices and imbalances grow. Both Smith and Marx knew this, by the way.

Okay, I have to stay nuanced and honest here, as you literally wrote: "So what you say MAY be true depending upon how you view capitalism." Now you know how I see capitalism, but I would add that, so far as I know, it's the only correct understanding of what capitalism is. Yes, markets are an important component, but markets are not what defines the system. The private ownership of the means of production does. And it doesn't surprise me that so many voluntaryists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists conveniently "forget" that part of the equation, because it messes up the entire idea of "FREE MARKETS." Markets aren't free and capitalism is a distinctly political economic system, as is any economic system. I know libertarians will go on lengthy diatribes about how some private entity could assume the role of protecting ownership-rights, but I've yet to meet the first one to clearly explain what difference that would make. In the end it'll always be some organization with a monopoly on the use of violence. Or barbarism, that's the other choice.

Now, the fusion of the powers of capital and government, the cronyism of today, is inevitable in capitalism's later stages. In fact, there's no greater power than that of capital. That's because we're not some ethereal free floating entities, but solid material beings who depend for their survival on solid material stuff. To own something is a purely human and purely legal construction. If I own something it means that I have the sole right to use that something in the way I see fit. And if someone else uses it without my expressed permission, I have behind me some organization that can use force to take it back from you. It's important to understand this, and to understand that without this construction we would fall back to barbarism where everything and everyone's ruled by the right of might, a literal and, this is important, purely individual survival of the fittest. That's what it comes down to when we follow the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, objectivist trail to its end. We'd be right back where we are now.

What is freedom? What are rights? Where is wealth created? Who owns the planet? Just a couple of questions, the answers to which reveal a lot about the reality of human existence, "the human condition," so to speak. How free can we be? Well, on our own and on an uninhabited island we have 100% freedom. But how free are we really, if we have to spend all day gathering and hunting food? We're not built to survive on our own. You speak of "human nature," well, human nature is communism. In the tribes of yesteryear we lived in small communities, 50 to 150 individuals large, and we had no money, shared everything and produced enough food for everyone, including the unproductive members of society, like the kids, disabled and elderly. That's communism and that's where we come from. We are more free in that tribe than on our own, are we not? We organize the hunt and we have enough food for everyone with time, agreed, our most valuable commodity, to spare. That same tribe in capitalism has one family that owns a plot of land, owns the technology to farm that land, and offers the rest to sell their time to work the land. See how this disproportionately increases the freedom of one family at the expense of all other families' freedom? If one person or one family owns the stuff everyone needs to survive and/or thrive, THAT is capitalism, and the trade of time for food is anything but voluntary because of the inherent power-imbalance based on need and ownership.

There's so much more to say about all this, but it's too long a response already, and I'd already finished today's post, so I'll just respond right here ;-) I'm sorry for its length, for my simplifying a lot of the terms and for making huge jumps here and there. I know voluntaryanism isn't exactly the same as libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or objectivism, and maybe I shouldn't use them all in the same sentence or the same response even, it's just that your response is the same I get from people who identify as all of them. I really respect your point of view and I'm grateful that you took so much time and effort to produce this well thought out response. Maybe I'm still missing something, but I've had this same discussion many times already... So, it's nothing personal, please don't take it that way, but I'm not convinced that the problem is not capitalism. It is, and it always has been. It's not human nature to be as individualistically minded as we are now. We're social beings and, as I see it, we're destroying the world and ourselves by going against human nature.

Oh, and of course you've got my 100% upvote as well :-)

3.91 VYB

2 votes

[-]

erh.germany 2 years ago

Hi to you,

I stumbled over this very interesting conversation between you and dwinblood. I like to give my view and also put forward some questions to you. I remember you being respectful and reasonable within our encounters and like to express my appreciation to you in this regard. You are one of the rare personalities who seems to have strong convictions but also are open to other perspectives and doubts.

Here is what I think from my perspective:

There is no reality in which someone does not have control over the use of land and means of production. Whoever does the organizing and planning over land and means of production is like someone who owns the land and means, even if it is not officially terminated that way. The moment the decision-making power rests on this organization, it is as if they were land and means of production owners. The horse's foot of planned economy is to want to do equal justice to all who work with the land and the means. But it is impossible to do justice to all, because not all people are equal in their possibilities and talents. In general, I doubt the usefulness of a small group of decision makers over a very large group - read, nation - of people to penetrate and understand their way of life. I see it as impossible to try to achieve this through the quantitative distribution of land and means of production.

What I find difficult to comprehend with you is that, as mentioned here, there are niches within what we currently have (without naming it), or you could create such a niche yourself. If you can raise enough capital and people who share your ideals, there is nothing to stop you from investing your energy and time there.

My question would be: What are you waiting for? I see multiple realizations of communities and recently individuals seem to be setting out to live offgrid, for example. Of course, they can only do that if they have the seed money. But I would argue that here in my country, for example, there are enough people who would have done or could still do the same if it were important enough to them. If I'm not mistaken, you're my European neighbor, right? It might be similar for you.

A main argument I hear is that poor people don't have this opportunity and that it is unfair that they don't have it. Such I consider a killer argument and does not help in the least to focus on the real goal, not to think about the many anonymous poor, but to think that if you already care about helping the destitute or weak, you could do something for them today. By "them" I don't mean the "many", but exactly those who are in your reachable environment and with whom you might want to establish or already maintain a personal connection. For example, what would hold you back from becoming part of a community, such as Tamera in Portugal or Findhorn in Germany or others that exist? And, for example, asking your mother, who is too old to care for herself on her own, if she would come along?

No matter what we call the forms of government under which we exist, as long as the possibility of ownership exists, it would be foolish indeed not to use it, wouldn't it? However, if you seek to save the whole world or the many others alike, or if you seek political change or paradigm shifts, your whole life may pass in this pursuit without you ever knowing what it would have felt like to live in a way that is more in line with your lifestyle and desire. What do you think?

0.00 VYB

1 vote

[-]

zyx066 2 years ago

Hi to you to! :-) What do I think? I think that I already help the ones in my personal life where possible. But that's not the main issue here; I hope we all do that already. And it's also not an issue of starting a new Kibboets or island-community; like you say, these are here already. Speaking of which, suggesting to join or start such a community has the same taste as the racist who says to the immigrant who complains about his low wages "well, if you don't like it here..." You know what follows after that. I'm not saying you use it maliciously though, but I hope you catch my drift. No, it's none of that, and I do seek a paradigm shift, however improbable, because I care about our future. You could rightly say that this has never solved anything, but the same goes for the communities you referred to. You might say I have a blind, naive belief that if enough people like me keep stressing how fake and destructive the socioeconomic order based on capitalism is, we'll someday maybe reach critical mass. And you're right, it doesn't matter really what we call the form of government (or, hopefully some day, lack thereof), because else we'd all migrate to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea ;-)

Anyhow, thanks so much for dropping in! :-)

0.01 VYB

1 vote

[-]

erh.germany 2 years ago

To this I will respond insofar as I do not think you are naive, but that your words will be heard, rest assured. What the people think or say will be heard. Also and in particular by those who govern such a people. From your words I gather that it is not you who wants to be or is the one who governs (you might otherwise be a politician, for example), but you desire a strong form of change that integrates your aspirations.

Now, who is going to do it?

If "everyone" or "the majority" renounce capitalism (i.e., banish property), how should the resulting form of coexistence be shaped? What form should it be? Who is to organize it? How should this paradigm shift take place in concrete terms? Through voluntarism, or not? What do you do with people who don't want it that way?

Even if such, abolish property, were possible (which I don't assume), there would still have to be structures and organizations to take charge of it, wouldn't there? Laws that are enacted, executives that implement it?

Or is your thinking not of the large-scale kind? If not national scale (or even global), what scale are you talking about? If you're thinking in terms of smaller local movements, what would they be? And how should these local or regional communities achieve what you have in mind? How should they manage, organize, and distribute what they generate if, for example, they don't own the land or the means of production? Who then tells them what to do? A central body? The office superior to them? What would you answer to such people if they think that they are able to use their skills and knowledge for the best?

My reference to such small communities is formulated in terms of a self-efficacy that people want to experience when, for example, they jointly manage land and goods. What they are doing there in Tamera (Portugal), for example, is learning how to use modern technologies and knowledge of permaculture to re-vegetate and revitalize devastated lands, what forms of energy can be used, how they can be improved, and so on. It could have been that you would be interested in this.

I addressed you from the point of view of a self-effective person, not from the point of view of a victim or refugee who is not able to negotiate his salary.

I worked as a social counselor for about ten years and met and got to know many foreigners whom I helped negotiate their salaries, for example, or go over their employment contracts with them, their claims against them or insurance and the like. I had some pleasing results that were to their advantage. If you wish to help victims or the disadvantaged, there are certainly avenues open to you that only you can seek.

I hope that clarifies my position as well. :)

To sum up what I'm saying, the current governments could also take you to mean that you don't want property. So enough people express such, how do you think they would be understood by those very governments?

0.00 VYB

1 vote

[-]

rocket47 2 years ago

I learned a lot from this post. Thank you so much!

0.00 VYB

[-]

antisocialist 2 years ago

Chapters 3, 4, and 9 are the relevant chapters, can you read them and tell me why they are wrong?

0.00 VYB

[-]

onealfa.vyb 2 years ago

0.00 VYB

[-]

baah 2 years ago

Have you seen this, somewhat related?

Courage is contagious, much more to the milgram experiment/ human nature.

0.79 VYB

1 vote

[-]

dwinblood 2 years ago

Nope but I like JP.

0.00 VYB

1 vote

[-]

albuslucimus 2 years ago

Thank incredible piece, mate! I did dabble in Marxism at one point - figured I should learn about it and take it in for a while - but ended up at the same conclusion you came to. It has its nobilities in concept, but implementation is a whole ‘nother thing. Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta whathaveyous. Lotta strands to keep in my head man, lotta strands in old duder’s head.

0.76 VYB

1 vote

[-]

heretickitten 2 years ago

I would say that money's equation is more likely to be something even more encompassing, for example, a fusion of time, space, energy, matter, and complexity.

However, I'm just being esoteric. Your definition is fine, and fits the context.

Anyways, I think the "centralization of power" is more concerning than anything else.

I would almost call it "Centralization of Power over Time."

It seems related to evolution. The Cambrian Explosion might be an interesting time period to see this happening in a non-societal manner. What starts as many different species ended up centralizing into only the successful ones, and with less competition, they slowly grew into their niches. This niche finding could be seen as similar to how people by default often speak of "Googling something" or how any monopoly exists and is hard to disturb or disrupt.

As it is, people seem to choose their monopolies. It's why people actually use things like Facebook in mass numbers. It was never a good idea to do it, yet it happened. Same with McDonalds, if you want the classic example of something that seems weirdly popular, despite the fact that at least in my opinion, it shouldn't be.

The idea of corporatism is very modern, and although relevant today, could lead to a false truth being presented, when the reality is much larger. Corporatism is the word for it at -this- scale, but the idea seems to persist at many scales, from how stars form, to how microbes function.

Anyways, I still really enjoyed your essay and certainly gained some enlightenment points. Thanks for the information.

1.92 VYB

1 vote