|
Capitalism (pg. 24)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Is it the only outcome? |
we already know that it's not; there've been plenty of different systems throughout history for example. however, ignoring small-scale tribal societies all the other options have had worse outcomes for the masses, especially the poor.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
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 feel like you kind of answered your own question; peoples' self-interest places secondary importance on other issues that are not impacting them right now at the minute. the environmental destruction discussed in this thread, while carried out in a ridiculously short period of time, is still long enough in human life terms that many don't see stuff like AGW as an existential threat.
why do fisherman, for example, over-fish their oceans when doing so can destroy their livelihood in the future? some people will cry "capitalism!" but in reality it's not, it's consumption. you take away a profit motive then sure, maybe less people want to be fisherman, but this doesn't address the wants of the marketplace who want fish.
so while JBJ was earlier making jokes about communism being the answer because it makes everyone poor, he's on the money re the only answer communism has to the consumption problem in our relationship with the environment. anyone that believes the whole world can enjoy the living standards of the west (in 2018) without a commensurate increase in environmental harm, is off with the ing fairies. (or, perhaps, is relying upon future technologies which can magically do anything that they say it will do.)
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
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! |
well, i don't think anyone has stated that's all we are; i noted that there can be situations where organisms act altruistically (though i would suggest in the non-human arena such acts are typically related to societies much closer and smaller than, say, the population of sydney). socialisation certainly has a role to play in our development; i just don't think the available evidence supports the assumption that a change in the ownership of capital can change an organism's fundamental motivations to such an extent that it supports an entire ideology. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
Oof. There's way too much here for me to respond point by point (it would also involve me repeating many of my arguments for the third or fourth time), and I've had a splitting headache all day, so I'll tap out on that. I will respond to Lews, though, as there are some arguments being put forth here that I haven't discussed already.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
What do you mean by workers 'getting involved' ? Voting for politicians who promise to implement UBI? Or taking to the streets in violent protest?
|
Letting unions and human rights organizations play a far more significant part in the shaping of the new economic model's framework perhaps? Whatever it is, if capitalists get to fully dictate the new model we're going to have in the wake of automation and UBI (which, going by their level of influence on government compared to workers, they will), the problems we have now will likely persist.
Will this offset the shrinking of arable land for coffee plants caused by global warming and the doubling of global coffee consumption? Both in large part driven by huge coffee chains like Starbucks, who have to fly all of their coffee beans in from Africa and South America? If small coffee bars can make inroads into THAT particular aspect of capitalist production, I would be more willing to accept your idea for gradual reform.
| quote: |
If those 5% of people are of the noble, virtuous variety, then yes.
|
Yay, feudalism!
| quote: |
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.
|
Maybe, but my counter to that is that it's a disadvantage for generating profit in so many other areas. The clients you might gain, who buy into the west's idea of corporate responsibility, will be offset by other markets where nobody cares beyond making enough money to stay at the top of the heap.
| quote: |
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?
|
So this somehow doesn't rely on paying workers as little as possible and shareholders as much as possible? Why do you think unions exist, while capitalists try to suppress union influence as much as they can via lobbying?
| quote: |
That's completely ignoring stock-option bonuses in many industries (finance, tech, etc) that align worker interests and shareholder profits.
|
I don't see how buying shares actually is in worker interest, seeing as the value of said shares relies on cost cutting wherever possible, worker salaries and benefits included. It's in your INDIVIDUAL interest to buy shares, of course, if you want to become a capitalist.
| quote: |
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.
|
My point is that capitalists cannot afford to view the world through a non-profit lens, as they will lose ground to others who don't. They look at the big picture, but only in so far as to how they can make the most money in it. We now know that this order of priorities isn't sustainable, because if forced to choose between profit and sustainability, capitalists will choose profit every single time. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
A noble stategy, but it makes no sense. If this shift is the only hope for us to change our habits, then isn't it a waste of time to preach environmentalism to a capitalist society. The bottom line is always gonna be the bottom line. This is why I think this is an extremely cynical attitude. It doesn't address the urgency, neither the root of the problem. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
You're so out of touch it hurts.
Yes, companies sell products and services, but Consumers drive behavior and companies that cater to certain behavior can shape the market and even policy.
On a microlevel, look at Tesla which can't meet the demand currently at 5,000 cars a week. Or powerwall and Teslaroof which have 6+month waiting lists. people want these becuase they are environmentally friendly and they're certainly not cheap, so it highlights that people are willing to pay for their interests.
Starbucks didn't change their straw policy becuase they give a about the environment, they changed because their consumers did.
Look at things like personal care products where the market is booming on sustainable clean products, to the point the commercial giants like Estee Lauder and Loreal are trying to buy them up as fast as they, overpaying even just to stay relevant.
There are capitalist consumer driver movements that affect positive environmental change and somehow thinking Communism is the only way to address it is just nonsense.
On a macro level, this is happening with legislation (such as here in California where Solar hookups are required on any new build and there's incredibly strict power consumption guidelines for businesses which basically mean you can only use LED bulbs). These result in massive energy consumption change but also the market catering to those needs. You can't buy a plastic bag in my city. Bring your own or you get recycled paper bags.
It's becomes a case of if you don't like living here with those restrictions, GTFO and move back to Kentucky, and somehow people are making tons of money while in this booming green economy, and California achieved it's emissions goals (some of the most strict the the country) a full year early. I won't deny it;s still a huge problem and still too little too late but it;s a perfect example of how both consumers, companies and legislation can affect environmental change for the better. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Ahh yes, Tesla, because those lithium ion batteries are so eco-friendly, not to mention all the electricity from coal burning they pick up on roads all over. Plus anyone can get one of those, right? I'm the out of touch one. You're like ing 40 years old and still a dumbass, you're not even worth my time. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
they are environmentally friendly...they're certainly not cheap, |
Yikes |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I thought I was on ignore? :tongue3
Current generation LiOn batteries last for 30+ and the saving they have over fossil fuels, especially when combined with other technology means their footprint is a fraction of fossil fuel based energy consumption.
Do keep up. I know you'd love a return to candle light and kindling but lets remember that the whale population is still recovering from being on the brink of total depletion because of communist Russia's need for whale oil for heating. Seize the means of ocean life, amirite?
even the batteries they used in the first tesla roadsters are now nearly 11 years old and show on average 90% capacity after 100,000+ miles, and when they aren't good enough for performance vehicles they can be used in less critical situations like back up batteries or for third world grids etc.
You really do need to get your head out of your arse and do some learning if you're going to rail against technology.
Or are you one of those idiots that think Hydrogen cars are a great idea...until you realize that it takes more energy to make the fuel tank safe for road use that it will save over the 30 years life of the vehicle?
or are you suggesting we all just walk and carry heavy goods everywhere? :haha: |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Like I said, not even worth it. Yes I'm a Stalinist technophobe, off now old man. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Oh christ, you mean communism is going to save us without technology?
It seems at least you somehow have money for dugs :haha:
P.s. I'm not close to 40 yet :p |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| RANN, your biography is like a space-time paradox. At various points you've said you were going to underground squat parties in the mid-90s, you were a regular clubber by 1998, you've worked in record stores, music hardware stores, moved to Canada in the early 00s and then the US, and apparently had a ten year career in a bike shop somewhere in all of that, and yet you're not close to 40 yet? |
|
|
|
|
