- 17 Aug 2019 19:32
#15027064
Before, I answer your points I will tell you that socialism is inevitable, but it will not happen as you envision. Socialism will happen when capitalists reach the point of redundant wealth. And you probably ask: What is redundant wealth? It is a state where added wealth to a person means NOTHING. A good example is Bill Gates who will likely get rid of 95% of his wealth as he has ZERO need for that. Imagine a world with millions of bill Gates. Not everybody can create wealth. Certainly socialists are not known for creating wealth.
Regarding the concept of conforming to capitalism. There is some truth to that. People in market economies are susceptible to manipulation by advertising and hence feel they need more and more. Today practically all humans in the west have a cell phone. My daughter volunteered as a food server in a homeless shelter and a large number of them had cell phones. Do you even realize that not long ago portable phone technology was only available to very few elite people in the planet. This is the end result of redundant wealth and technology. Redundant wealth has also created a NEW class of over fed obese poor people that do not need to work to eat.
I agree with you. Sadly, not all rich entities have reached a state of redundant wealth. Many are totally anal about the principle of wealth accumulation and efficiency in keeping the overhead down. Meanwhile other companies are incredibly generous with workers and create technologies that benefit all. The issue is that in the West we measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. The gap between rich and poor is larger, but the poor are actually better off. Nevertheless, a large gap often leads to revolution because misery loves company.
Capitalism is not designed in that manner:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith
Capitalism is based on self interest. Since the capitalist is looking out for himself and competing with others they try to improve goods and services at all times. That is why a flat screen TV is so cheap these days.
By the way: No one is stopping anyone to form COOPs and communes in free capitalist western democracies. You and your comrades could pool resources and set up camp anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities
The only way to do the above is with oppression and a dictatorship. That is another reason why socialism does not work. It can only be imposed by force.
In any society you create there will be people that rush to the bottom and people that reach for the top.
I despise crony capitalism as it creates NO WEALTH.
It is a great talking point. But, the elimination of those people does not change the fact that some people are simply poor and untalented. I suggest that we create a capitalist world with a good moral conscience as in Scandinavia. Since you acknowledge equality is impossible then I cannot see why you would argue against such a system.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
Ayn Rand
See the baker and butcher analogy above.
Yes, Hobbs agrees with you.
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, but that wouldn't be at-issue -- the component of society that's in need of egalitarianism is our *productive* capacities, primarily.
You're making it sound as though 'human nature' -- a formulation of *idealism* -- is naturally and necessarily in a mode of operation that conforms to *capitalist* social values (like the ceaseless primitive accumulation of material exchange values).
Before, I answer your points I will tell you that socialism is inevitable, but it will not happen as you envision. Socialism will happen when capitalists reach the point of redundant wealth. And you probably ask: What is redundant wealth? It is a state where added wealth to a person means NOTHING. A good example is Bill Gates who will likely get rid of 95% of his wealth as he has ZERO need for that. Imagine a world with millions of bill Gates. Not everybody can create wealth. Certainly socialists are not known for creating wealth.
Regarding the concept of conforming to capitalism. There is some truth to that. People in market economies are susceptible to manipulation by advertising and hence feel they need more and more. Today practically all humans in the west have a cell phone. My daughter volunteered as a food server in a homeless shelter and a large number of them had cell phones. Do you even realize that not long ago portable phone technology was only available to very few elite people in the planet. This is the end result of redundant wealth and technology. Redundant wealth has also created a NEW class of over fed obese poor people that do not need to work to eat.
So the goal isn't some abstract, anal-retentive, perfectionistic 'make everybody equal', because we both know that such is unrealistic. What *can* be addressed is how our human societal mode-of-production *operates* -- currently it's based in the institution of private property, so that those with capital will be rewarded with *more* capital, however absurd the size of the mountain of accumulation.
I agree with you. Sadly, not all rich entities have reached a state of redundant wealth. Many are totally anal about the principle of wealth accumulation and efficiency in keeping the overhead down. Meanwhile other companies are incredibly generous with workers and create technologies that benefit all. The issue is that in the West we measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. The gap between rich and poor is larger, but the poor are actually better off. Nevertheless, a large gap often leads to revolution because misery loves company.
If we start with the basics that human labor creates material benefits, and that consumption should be driven by individual *need*, by the individual consumer, then it follows that the things society produces should be distributed to those with actual *need* for them -- those who would be able to *consume* those materials, for their own humane ends. That's *not* how the economy operates under capitalism, because of the go-between 'realm' of *exchange values* -- one can either *afford* what one needs and/or wants, or else one cannot.
Capitalism is not designed in that manner:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith
Capitalism is based on self interest. Since the capitalist is looking out for himself and competing with others they try to improve goods and services at all times. That is why a flat screen TV is so cheap these days.
And, yet, even within the social context of dog-eat-dog capitalism, there *are* some instances of distribute-for-need, such as through charities and food banks. And, obversely, there are jobs that don't pay any wages, but rather welcome those who are able and willing to *volunteer* their labor efforts, at whatever extents.
By the way: No one is stopping anyone to form COOPs and communes in free capitalist western democracies. You and your comrades could pool resources and set up camp anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities
Once capitalist norms are overthrown, and the practice of exchange values *eliminated* (no markets whatsoever), society could then concentrate on *mass-consciously* organizing social tasks so that production and consumption (and overall *administration* of the same) can take place *rationally*, by those most concerned with any of these three main material components of society.
The only way to do the above is with oppression and a dictatorship. That is another reason why socialism does not work. It can only be imposed by force.
In this way no authoritarian / hierarchical power structure would be necessary, nor would there be any form of personal or institutional 'wealth', thus yielding a society that *functioned* in an egalitarian way, even if everyone didn't work and consume strictly equally. (And my previously mentioned 'labor credits framework' would provide a distinct societal *incentive* for the contribution of formally-needed work-efforts to society, through the receipt of tangible labor credits per work role, per work hour, which would only apply to liberated-labor work role-hours from *others* going-forward, and not to any products or materials themselves, since that would be commodification. Follow the link through to see details on that.)
In any society you create there will be people that rush to the bottom and people that reach for the top.
You *really* think that, don't you? That the world operates according to sheer merit, and that there's no *politicization* (as through favoritism) of work roles.
I despise crony capitalism as it creates NO WEALTH.
The *problem* is that there's a very tiny elite portion of the population that receives *disproportionate* material rewards, for their inputs to society. It's because of exchange values, in capitalism, as well as social dynamics.
It is a great talking point. But, the elimination of those people does not change the fact that some people are simply poor and untalented. I suggest that we create a capitalist world with a good moral conscience as in Scandinavia. Since you acknowledge equality is impossible then I cannot see why you would argue against such a system.
For some reason you blithely dismiss the *principle* of egalitarianism, even though it's a fine social principle, *and* that I've developed a model framework that *operates* in a mode of egalitarianism. I pity you for your pessimistic, fatalistic politics.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
Ayn Rand
What's the point of a landscape of balkanized private companies in constant wasteful competition with each other when we now have the capacities / productivity for just simply satisfying all critical human need -- ?
See the baker and butcher analogy above.
The reason socialists look to *government* in the near-term (as for health care, transportation, etc.) is because government, despite all of *its* wastefulness and bureaucracy, is because it's objectively *better organized* than the private sector. Even the private sector goes to *government* in chaotic times, as it did in 2008 for bank bailouts.
Yes, Hobbs agrees with you.