Capitalism needs Socialism?

[ripmeister]

I found this to be interesting food for thought.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/capitalism-socialism-peter-thiel-wall-street-eric-weinstein

[Chris]

A quick reading and analysis.

Sounds like a bunch of old socialists still hoping for capitalism's demise while denying the fact it's working and socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried.

Technology is blamed for making the market more volatile. But it's always been dynamic.

UBI is mentioned as a sort of safety net, but that's not socialism. It's an experiment at giving people a guaranteed amount of income on the premise they will stop worrying where the next dollar is coming from and how to pay the bills and instead use it to look for a way of living or investing in learning a skill or even investing in a business. The experiment in, iirc, Kenya has been shown successful. I think some decades ago an experiment was done in Canada, some small town, and it worked till the government abandoned it. --It's not socialism because it doesn't involve central planning. Under Charle's Murray's UBI plan it would eliminate all other forms of welfare and a big chunk of government bureaucracy.

SOme discussion on making capitalism more humanistic--again not socialism. I would look to the idea of John Mackey, Whole Foods, on Conscious Capitalism (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/conscious-capitalism-new-book-our-co-founder-and-co-ceo-john-mackey-0).

No where in the article is capitalism or socialism really defined.

Like I said, quick read, quick reaction.

[Mister D]

My first impression was similar in that socialism is not used in any specific sense. If the argument is that human beings revolted against the idea that their lives would be at the mercy of impersonal market mechanisms and that liberal capitalism would not be possible without social welfare I agree but that's not particularly insightful. If the argument is that some sort of central planning and bloated bureaucracy (i.e. socialism per se) is needed I don't agree. Moreover, I find talk of a "societal collapse" kind of silly. Societies certainly undergo change. That change is sometimes rapid, destructive and bewildering but society goes on.

[Chris]

My first impression was similar in that socialism is not used in any specific sense. If the argument is that human beings revolted against the idea that their lives would be at the mercy of impersonal market mechanisms and that liberal capitalism would not be possible without social welfare I agree but that's not particularly insightful. If the argument is that some sort of central planning and bloated bureaucracy (i.e. socialism per se) is needed I don't agree. Moreover, I find talk of a "societal collapse" kind of silly. Societies certainly undergo change. That change is sometimes rapid, destructive and bewildering but society goes on.

I can appreciate revolting against trust in impersonal market forces and yearning for a return to a more natural, organic order, but the revolt has largely been to reject the market for a created, organized and centrally planned order, basically called socialism.

"impersonal market forces" is an interesting way to put it for the market consists of individuals interacting in voluntary trade but the market that emerges from that is an impersonal social order.

[Tahuyaman]

I found this to be interesting food for thought.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/capitalism-socialism-peter-thiel-wall-street-eric-weinstein


Hogwash. This just an attempt by hard leftists to legitamize their failed system of government.

[Mister D]

I can appreciate revolting against trust in impersonal market forces and yearning for a return to a more natural, organic order, but the revolt has largely been to reject the market for a created, organized and centrally planned order, basically called socialism.

"impersonal market forces" is an interesting way to put it for the market consists of individuals interacting in voluntary trade but the market that emerges from that is an impersonal social order.
But that's only because the result is often unemployment and destitution. We're talking about human beings. Yes, the organic order was destroyed but its safety valves have to be replicated in one fashion or another. That's all I'm saying. People have to survive. IMO, the major problem with liberal capitalism is that it tries to eliminate any means for people to protect themselves from the ravages of the market. All means to do so are deemed "authoritarian" and it is precisely here where the depoliticization of liberal society is evident. After all, politics is ultimately a matter of decision making.

[Mister D]

Hogwash. This just an attempt by hard leftists to legitamize their failed system of government.
The hard left is largely irrelevant but the OP warns that that may not always be the case. They're probably right.

[ripmeister]

Hogwash. This just an attempt by hard leftists to legitamize their failed system of government.
Well at least we got three reasoned responses to this point.

[ripmeister]

The hard left is largely irrelevant but the OP warns that that may not always be the case. They're probably right.

With the continuing divide between the haves and the have nots I worry about the point at which a vast majority have nothing to lose. The OP seems to address this possibility. While a bit histrionic there does seem to be the possibility of a "let them eat cake" moment in our future.

[Chris]

But that's only because the result is often unemployment and destitution. We're talking about human beings. Yes, the organic order was destroyed but its safety valves have to be replicated in one fashion or another. That's all I'm saying. People have to survive. IMO, the major problem with liberal capitalism is that it tries to eliminate any means for people to protect themselves from the ravages of the market. All means to do so are deemed "authoritarian" and it is precisely here where the depoliticization of liberal society is evident. After all, politics is ultimately a matter of decision making.

I would argue unemploymetn and destitution are the result not of market forces but attempts to look at society scientifically and design and re-engineer it, including the market. It simply cannot be done.

[ripmeister]

I would argue unemploymetn and destitution are the result not of market forces but attempts to look at society scientifically and design and re-engineer it, including the market. It simply cannot be done.
Doesn't the OP though present this as a paradigm shift with which we have no historical comparison. If so, perhaps potential solutions are yet to be found via science and engineering as you put it.

[Chris]

Let me demonstrate one instance of what I'm saying. Prior to the War on Poverty the poverty rate was in decline. The cause, market forces. Then in steps well meaning liberal progressives with their scientific views of society and their plans to re-engineer it, and the poverty rate stops falling and plateaus out where it has remained to this day.

https://i.snag.gy/H2GipW.jpg

Note too that sans liberal progressive planning, the poverty rate in the rest of the world continued to decline.

https://i.snag.gy/9CaEQX.jpg

Why? The continued rise of capitalism and decline of socialism.


Earlier I mentioned UBI and Conscious Capitalism. These are only possible under a capitalist system. There is no other way to fund them.

[Chris]

Doesn't the OP though present this as a paradigm shift with which we have no historical comparison. If so, perhaps potential solutions are yet to be found via science and engineering as you put it.

Only in the sense of the rise of technology and probably alludes to the fantastic notion of some sort of singularity and a post-scarcity world. Silicon Valley is worried they will lose their jobs in high tech. The evidence, however, shows that along with the rise of technology is a rise in employment as there always has been. People are not replaced but displaced.

[Tahuyaman]

Well at least we got three reasoned responses to this point.


^^^^ that wasn't one of them.

[ripmeister]

^^^^ that wasn't one of them.

LOL. I expect more from you than a cursory dismissal. I guess I was wrong.

[ripmeister]

Only in the sense of the rise of technology and probably alludes to the fantastic notion of some sort of singularity and a post-scarcity world. Silicon Valley is worried they will lose their jobs in high tech. The evidence, however, shows that along with the rise of technology is a rise in employment as there always has been. People are not replaced but displaced.
Kurtzweil (sp?)?

[Tahuyaman]

LOL. I expect more from you than a cursory dismissal. I guess I was wrong.

Lol.... You are cursorily dismissed.

[donttread]

I found this to be interesting food for thought.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/capitalism-socialism-peter-thiel-wall-street-eric-weinstein

We already are a hybrid and have been for years. The supposed "free market" encounters interference in more places than it doesn't. It's now just a question of which way the hybrud leans during each "mood phase" of the mob.

[Peter1469]

Let me demonstrate one instance of what I'm saying. Prior to the War on Poverty the poverty rate was in decline. The cause, market forces. Then in steps well meaning liberal progressives with their scientific views of society and their plans to re-engineer it, and the poverty rate stops falling and plateaus out where it has remained to this day.

https://i.snag.gy/H2GipW.jpg

Note too that sans liberal progressive planning, the poverty rate in the rest of the world continued to decline.

https://i.snag.gy/9CaEQX.jpg

Why? The continued rise of capitalism and decline of socialism.


Earlier I mentioned UBI and Conscious Capitalism. These are only possible under a capitalist system. There is no other way to fund them.
The poverty rate in the US (varies by tax filing status but is much higher than the global definition) is defined differently from the global poverty rate ($1 or less per day in 1987 dollars).

[Chris]

The poverty rate in the US (varies by tax filing status but is much higher than the global definition) is defined differently from the global poverty rate ($1 or less per day in 1987 dollars).

Right but the slope of the curves is what's important, the fact that in the US it's flatlined since the War on Poverty, while in the rest of the world it's continued to drop.

It is a world average, not all nations show decline at the same rate, and others even show an increase.

[donttread]

Right but the slope of the curves is what's important, the fact that in the US it's flatlined since the War on Poverty, while in the rest of the world it's continued to drop.

It is a world average, not all nations show decline at the same rate, and others even show an increase.


In general if you are something other than a country getting america to declare war on you helps you flourish.
The "War on Poverty" "the War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are all examples of that.

[Chris]

In general if you are something other than a country getting america to declare war on you helps you flourish.
The "War on Poverty" "the War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" are all examples of that.

War on Drugs makes cartels and drug dealers rich. War on Terror makes the military-industrial complex rich. Who gets rich off the War on Poverty? Oh, yea, the rich, because the welfare largely comes from the middle class, is given to the poor, who spend it purchasing food, clothing and shelter from the rich. What a racket.

[donttread]

War on Drugs makes cartels and drug dealers rich. War on Terror makes the military-industrial complex rich. Who gets rich off the War on Poverty? Oh, yea, the rich, because the welfare largely comes from the middle class, is given to the poor, who spend it purchasing food, clothing and shelter from the rich. What a racket.


Yup. Bipartisanship over time in action!