|
Capitalism (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
In absolutely no way did I suggest that the plastics backlash was a "product" of capitalist interests. I quite clearly used it as an example of how consumer mentality can bring about a positive change within the current system. |
Sure, but do you think we have time to play tug of war with corporations for that long?
I find it hard to believe that consumers in the lower classes can somehow gradually subvert an entire economic model through demand that at the same time feeds into said model. Capitalists put huge efforts into distracting people from looking into how stuff is produced (since it will otherwise affect their profits), and even when we have the Internet to see sweatshops, factory farms, dying rainforests and workers collapsing in warehouses, corporations are still raking it in (just look at what Jeff Bezos is worth these days). They have far too much power in every level of society for this idea to succeed before humans are done for. Reforming the whole system instead sounds like a much safer bet, for instance through automation (I don't actually want to join a gang that's on its way to shoot Porky). |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Corporations don't give a about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly.
*Except profit, etc. |
This is in no way ok and the issue exactly. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Sure, but do you think we have time to play tug of war with corporations for that long? |
I think "corporations"* have been shown to move quite quickly once public interest reaches a key tipping point. The real war is with the apathy of the ordinary individual.
Besides, you said before that automation and its theorised triggering of some kind of UBI is inevitable and a steady technological and social gradient that will, ironically enough, by driven largely by corporations trying to maximise profits. There's not much you can do day-to-day to accelerate the rise of the robots, so what exactly does proselytising endlessly about socialism achieve? As we've seen with Kenny, it results in acolytes so fixated on their grand solution that they're almost completely ignorant as to the details of the more pressing problem.
While we wait for the technological shift that could genuinely undermine capitalism, it's far more productive to fight constantly to raise awareness of how much wastage, excess and pointless plastic wrapping encases our daily lifestyles.
*I highlight this word because for me the most striking thing about the plastics backlash was how, seemingly overnight, small independent bars and cafés suddenly stopped offering plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery. As soon as the awareness is there, many of the businesses that aren't Tessier-Ashpool SA are willing to act very quickly indeed. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Is it the only outcome? If we really are that concerned with self-interest, why would we continue to go for capitalism when we know that it could be the trigger for a series of fatal events that can wipe us all out? I really am puzzled as to why people in this thread are so hellbent on reducing humans to little more than the simplest of instincts. We're better than our desire to have more stuff! |
Are we, though? I'm split between the idea that all humans are noble creatures with a drive to create meaning, however ephemeral, and the view that only a few humans are like that and the majority are lazy, short-sighted, greedy bastards. Recent political events have given me little hope that the former view is correct.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I don't think you can simply gloss over the point that the planet cannot handle a western capitalist mindset on a complete global scale. Yes, capitalism certainly has lead to the largest degree of progress and prosperity in the world thus far (for now). The question is for who and at what cost? |
I am not trying to gloss over that at all, that's my worry. Everyone around the world trying to maximise their material lifestyle will (most likely) end in chaos. Though I think the planet will be fine - it just may become inhabitable for humans. I'd much rather take a sustainable world where 5% of people have 90% of resources and 95% of people have 10% of resources than an unsustainable world with pure equality. Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Corporations don't give a about anything* until their customers do. And then they react accordingly.
*Except profit, etc. |
I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock. |
I was being more than a little facetious with that footnote. |
|
|
| Lews |
| I know that, but I worry not everyone reading this thread knows that :p |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| "Insanity - Doing the same things and expecting different results" |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I think "corporations"* have been shown to move quite quickly once public interest reaches a key tipping point.
|
That sounds suspiciously like revolution to me. :thepirate
| quote: |
The real war is with the apathy of the ordinary individual.
|
Yes, an apathy that corporations actively work to uphold, as I mentioned in my previous post.
| quote: |
Besides, you said before that automation and its theorised triggering of some kind of UBI is inevitable and a steady technological and social gradient that will, ironically enough, by driven largely by corporations trying to maximise profits. There's not much you can do day-to-day to accelerate the rise of the robots, so what exactly does proselytising endlessly about socialism achieve?
|
Do you think automation and UBI will benefit workers automatically without workers getting involved in the transitional phase? Especially when said transitional phase necessarily has to involve a government that will cater to the capitalist class first? Yes, UBI and automation might give us the potential for a way out of capitalism's excesses without the need for revolution, but I'm not convinced it will do so if automation simply replaces workers while the old capitalist framework remains. That sounds more like a recipe for a dystopian nightmare.
| quote: |
*I highlight this word because for me the most striking thing about the plastics backlash was how, seemingly overnight, small independent bars and cafés suddenly stopped offering plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery. As soon as the awareness is there, many of the businesses that aren't Tessier-Ashpool SA are willing to act very quickly indeed. |
That doesn't help much when Tessier-Ashpool controls gigantic swathes of the economy, in large part due to their direct connections to the government. Sure, those small independent coffee bars are noble, but there's a reason they are small and independent: They charge far more for their coffee than the four Starbucks branches on the same block, who cannot afford to serve cheap coffee AND take care of the environment/workers at the same time. Thus, the amount of change they can bring to an economy run by a handful of coffee giants is largely inconsequential, especially when said giants constantly tell us that we should get the cheapest deal whenever we can.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Are we, though? I'm split between the idea that all humans are noble creatures with a drive to create meaning, however ephemeral, and the view that only a few humans are like that and the majority are lazy, short-sighted, greedy bastards. Recent political events have given me little hope that the former view is correct.
|
I guess I'm more optimistic than you in that particular aspect, then. I'll have to read more philosophy and get back to you.
| quote: |
I'd much rather take a sustainable world where 5% of people have 90% of resources and 95% of people have 10% of resources than an unsustainable world with pure equality. Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion.
|
Well, right now we have neither. If, by your own admission, most humans are short-sighted, greedy bastards, will a world where 5% of the people have 90% of the resources ever be sustainable? Also, equality of outcome != equality of access. I don't think classic lefty thinkers ever argued for the former. That is more of a postmodernist idea.
| quote: |
I really, really don't think that this is true. For one thing, Corporations literally have no views. Their shareholders and their board members and their management have views, and they are all people, many of whom have goals greater than pure profit maximisation. For example, look at the growing trend of some of the biggest investors in the world to push boards to be more socially responsible, eg BlackRock. |
That letter sounds well and good on the surface, but again, all of the concerns and considerations put forth here will result in Blackrock yielding competitive edge to other competitors who have less scrouples in their daily operations.
Fink says that companies must benefit all stakeholders at the same time. How will you do this when worker interests and shareholder profits are diametrically opposed to each other, and when the latter will always be the ultimate point of concern for a corporation's board of directors? He says that the "societal impact of your business" will "impact the potential of growth". Does that sound like someone with a higher goal than pure profit maximization? Nearly everything in this letter pertains to growth and how to maximize it in the current economic climate. I can't say that this really helps you in your case for a capitalist system that supposedly has other priorities than profit. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Equality is both overrated and dangerous, in my opinion. |
:stongue:
The ideology is deep. Spoken like a true individualist. Or fascist, either or. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
That sounds suspiciously like revolution to me. :thepirate |
Yes, but a consumers' revolution, with no force involved.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Do you think automation and UBI will benefit workers automatically without workers getting involved in the transitional phase? Especially when said transitional phase necessarily has to involve a government that will cater to the capitalist class first? Yes, UBI and automation might give us the potential for a way out of capitalism's excesses without the need for revolution, but I'm not convinced it will do so if automation simply replaces workers while the old capitalist framework remains. That sounds more like a recipe for a dystopian nightmare. |
What do you mean by workers 'getting involved' ? Voting for politicians who promise to implement UBI? Or taking to the streets in violent protest?
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
That doesn't help much when Tessier-Ashpool controls gigantic swathes of the economy, in large part due to their direct connections to the government. Sure, those small independent coffee bars are noble, but there's a reason they are small and independent: They charge far more for their coffee than the four Starbucks branches on the same block, who cannot afford to serve cheap coffee AND take care of the environment/workers at the same time. Thus, the amount of change they can bring to an economy run by a handful of coffee giants is largely inconsequential, especially when said giants constantly tell us that we should get the cheapest deal whenever we can. |
Right, but where the small independent coffee bars led, Starbucks followed: Starbucks Plastic Straws
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I guess I'm more optimistic than you in that particular aspect, then. I'll have to read more philosophy and get back to you. |
Read more philosophy and more history :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Well, right now we have neither. If, by your own admission, most humans are short-sighted, greedy bastards, will a world where 5% of the people have 90% of the resources ever be sustainable? Also, equality of outcome != equality of access. I don't think classic lefty thinkers ever argued for the former. That is more of a postmodernist idea. |
If those 5% of people are of the noble, virtuous variety, then yes.
I think few people would argue against equality of access in theory, although in practice I find it impossible.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
That letter sounds well and good on the surface, but again, all of the concerns and considerations put forth here will result in Blackrock yielding competitive edge to other competitors who have less scrouples in their daily operations. |
From my personal experience, this has not been the case. And, perhaps being concerned about the social impact is actually a competitive advantage, not a disadvantage, when it comes to gaining more clients.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Fink says that companies must benefit all stakeholders at the same time. How will you do this when worker interests and shareholder profits are diametrically opposed to each other, and when the latter will always be the ultimate point of concern for a corporation's board of directors? He says that the "societal impact of your business" will "impact the potential of growth". Does that sound like someone with a higher goal than pure profit maximization? Nearly everything in this letter pertains to growth and how to maximize it in the current economic climate. I can't say that this really helps you in your case for a capitalist system that supposedly has other priorities than profit. |
Several things. One, I'm not sure all worker interests and shareholder profits are necessarily diametrically opposed to each other. Surely they both want the company to do well, so they can be rewarded for their efforts? That's completely ignoring stock-option bonuses in many industries (finance, tech, etc) that align worker interests and shareholder profits.
Two, I don't see your quote in the letter, although perhaps I'm missing it. Were you paraphrasing this? :
| quote: | | To sustain [financial] performance, however, you must also understand the societal impact of your business as well as the ways that broad, structural trends – from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change – affect your potential for growth. |
I interpret that as saying, focusing solely on profits will end in disaster, if you want to focus on profits, you need to look at the bigger picture as well. Which, really, wasn't that what Marx wrote? :p
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
:stongue:
The ideology is deep. Spoken like a true individualist. Or fascist, either or. |
Here's a thought experiment for you, Kenny.
Which situation is better?
A. 95% of humans in the world eat ten apples and one large bag of rice a day, while 5% eat twenty apples and two large bags of rice a day.
B. 100% of humans in the world eat 5 apples and one small bag of rice a day. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
That sounds suspiciously like revolution to me. :thepirate
|
A more achieveable revolution than one based on the logic "Corporations are too powerful to convince to change, it would be easier to remove these immensely powerful organisations from the entire planet".
I also go back to my key point here. People in the West are not going go revolt en masse (in a system that apparently has them so ideologically under control they can't be convinced to tone down their consumption) unless you promise them one key thing: this will make your life better. Taking away all their existing luxury is not going to convince them of that. And so that shift in consumptive attitude can only come a certain period after you've somehow achieved this worldwide socialist revolution. I don't see how Part One of that story is remotely straightforward, so I think it's more important to crack on with Part Two now, and at the very least to put it top of the agenda.
And with that, the argument will just cycle back to how you aren't buying people are that selfish, and that corporations make Part Two so much more difficult.
With automation, I thought the main gist of the idea was that if you put all of your workers out of work you've no longer got a consumer base for your product. UBI therefore becomes essential to justify all that automated production, but since UBI will have a cap on it, there will be a limit to how much you can sell to people. There might be a dystopian interim where there's an enormous divide between the employed and the unemployed, but I struggle to see how that scenario could sustain economic growth for any length of time. |
|
|
|
|
