“Are You Ready To Consider That Capitalism Is The Real Problem?” https://www.fastcompany.com/40439316/are-you-ready-to-consid...
“Don’t Be Scared About The End Of Capitalism—Be Excited To Build What Comes Next” https://www.fastcompany.com/40454254/dont-be-scared-about-th...
---
I have no time for ideologues (from whichever side of the aisle they come) who present capitalism and socialism as mutually exclusive alternatives to all sorts of problems real and imagined.
I think the man has correctly identified the flaws of capitalism and is rightfully asking why we can't fix some of those by changing capitalism.
Any political system can become harmful to individuals and society when pushed to its extremes, as it's happening now in western societies, but especially in the US.
PS: maybe whoever is downvoting all these comments can take a break and get some fresh air.
Thanks for saying that. I wish people would tell me what they take issue with so I could debate them.
Hickel has not correctly identified the flaws of capitalism. He has identified the flaws in human nature. Particularly greed and lack of empathy for others not in your situation. But we all know those anyway. What he's doing is blaming capitalism because that's an easy cheap shot that everyone agrees with. Distributing some of the profit of a company to the shareholders and bosses is not morally wrong. Doing so to the detriment of the workers is. If, as in the example in the article, JP Morgan and the general stock market dump on you for worker-friendly moves then double-down and let JP Morgan and general stock market dump on you. Ordinary people will respect you and choose to use your company. Change the culture.
And blaming the Grenfell Tower disaster in London on capitalism?! That's just naked greed, that's all that is – saving a few thousand for your pocket. May that decision forever weigh on their consciences. It's an insult to everyone who died in that fire to blame what happened on capitalism.
> Any political system can become harmful to individuals and society when pushed to its extremes, as it's happening now in western societies, but especially in the US.
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Look, don't be hoodwinked by these people. They are ideologues. Why can't Hickel say that he's for curbing the excesses of capitalism? Because it doesn't tap into your lizard brain, it's not emotive enough. Read it again and see that Hickel never says that he's against the extremes of capitalism, he's against capitalism itself – ask yourself why that is … he's either an ideologue, a bad faith actor, or economically not at the races or a combo of all three. Even Piketty, who has written the most cogent critique of capitalism in many a year, doesn't push an essentially anti-capitalist position.
Why I really dislike people like Hickel is because we're never allowed to give ourselves some praise or credit for doing the right thing. Lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty? Sorry, gotta exclude China from my graph. Why? Because it looks too good and invalidates my argument. That's why Hickel pushes against Pinker, because Pinker had the audacity to point out that maybe we're doing something right. You didn't hear a peep from Hickel when Pinker was talking about rates of violence (though he got it in the neck from people like John Gray for other reasons) but when Pinker starts saying that some of our policies against poverty are working Hickel's right there waiting to rain on his parade.
Like I say, there are a couple of serious problems with Pinker's book but Hickel has not identified one of them.
> Capitalism and Public programs are in conflict because underlying public efforts is progressive taxation (aka Redistribution)
With respect, that sentence makes no sense. Progressive taxation (aka Redistribution, aka something I completely agree with) does not underlie public efforts. Taxation alone underlies all public efforts. Taxation comes in many stripes: regressive, flat, progressive. Progressive taxation makes sure the rich shoulder a fair portion of the tax burden rather then the less well off. Who tries to roll back progressive tax policies? The rich. Not all the rich are capitalists, many are but many by the same token are not. Many of the rich have wealth going back centuries to times which preceded capitalism. The wealthy, many of whom are capitalists, oppose progressive taxation. This does not imply that capitalism and progressive taxation are in conflict. Many people point to the post-war years in the US when progressive taxation was very, um, progressive and the economy was booming. As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows, but the rich don't like it because they like all of us are self-interested and greedy.
Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc)
Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.
"As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows"
I dont mind arguments where one states that capitalism can be so self destructive that constraining its natural tendencies leads to higher economic output. BUT dont then confused this new tamed object with the original savage beast. It is a category error when you give someone a wolf for a pet when they asked for a dog. If you hear "dog" when someone else actually says and means "wolf" you will aid in a great deal of suffering.
I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty
I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …)
I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that capitalism in and of itself is merely the system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law …
I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).
I strongly strongly disagree that taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. Again, I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).
> Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort.
Ever wondered why city and county councils are sometimes called corporations or are said to be incorporated? I may be going out on a limb here but I doubt you did. There's no God-given rule that every single part of society must be privately run. No sane person actually believes that. Police? Emergency services? Army? (To name the obvious ones). What, wars outsourced to unaccountable mercenaries? Policing crime outsourced to the lowest bidder? Guess what, we used to have voluntary and competing fire services and they used to start fires to create work for themselves! Eventually people copped on and decided that they should be publicly funded.
> If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside)
Vacuous. Literally devoid of sense.
> This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.
With how many uninsured. Roughly 30 million, isn't it? And how many needless deaths a year. I think the number is around 40,000? You're basically saying that you're okay with the status quo, a status quo which results in needless death. Luckily people with the extreme views that you have are outliers. Over 70% over people in the USA want Medicare for All. It's coming. It's happening and there's nothing people with the views you have can do about it. Here is Life Expectancy measured against Health Expenditure compared in the developed world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp... That's the reality you're living in and want to continue to live in.
However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions" Perhaps your thinking of unions that dont have scab laws backing them?
I think worse still is this concept "I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. "
Greed is an individual choice and it has very little to do with the structure of capitalism. I think Marx even points to the lack of choice that the capitalist has in their pursuit of profit and the inevitable resulting exploitation. Charity in capitalism is like vegetarianism in Lions.
related is a doc on negative liberty: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/
> First Im Canadian and I like Canada.
You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind.
> However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate […]
No. That's not defining something, that's stating a belief. Your have opposing beliefs. Neither of us is wrong by definition. When you think about it, that's not how belief and ideology works. My point is though that the overwhelming majority of Canadians and Americans agree with my position even if that position is not reflected 100% of the time in the social policy of the day. We could be all wrong, but hey, you got to either convince us all (and you're not doing a good job of it) or hope that the powers that be prevail. And history tells us they won't
I know about negative and positive liberty, I studied philosophy.
I've also read Chomsky. He's a frickin' anarcho-syndicalist, he's on record as being an anarcho-syndicalist. A syndicalist is someone who believes in unions! How can you say your views are reflected best by someone like Chomsky and in the next breath decry unions.
Everyone is self-interested. That's as close to a law of human nature as any that you can get. Randian capitalism relies on the fact that people ought to only look out for themselves, and invariably do. Capitalism is a _system_, humans _animate it.
It's been great debating you, but please read over what I've written a couple of times before you reply to me. That might sound really condescending, but I don't mean it to be, I swear. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on a lot of things …
I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.
Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Private property is antithetical to Communism just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.
Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims.
> I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.
You're not describing what Capitalism means, you're describing what you _think_ it means. When I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism, if I wanted to say Mixed Market economy I'd say Mixed Market economy.
> Its sorta like the Communism.
Vacuous.
> If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore.
Never disagreed with this. Not that Communism was mentioned.
> Private property is antithetical to Communism
True claim, the hint is in the name.
> just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.
False claim.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free...
And to reiterate, neither are unions antithetical to Capitalism.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-...
[2] https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions...
---
If your entire argument hinges around the assertion that once an entirely 100% pure Capitalist system (market economy w/ attendant private property rights and share-holding and dividends and profit taking, the whole nine yards) has any tweaking whatsoever it stops being a Capitalist system … giving you what Forbes says “[a] social democratic version of a market economy” … then I don't know what to say …
It's entirely correct to still classify a version of a market economy as a market economy. So long as the fundamentals and essentials are unchanged a thing remains itself, not to be trite but a blue house is still a house. To argue otherwise is unhelpful at best.
This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?
Anyway I do think there is more going on here than a mere semantic disagreement about a word. However I dont think it can really be covered in a casual HN post.
I would say I did find that one article quite amusing. "And Smith is right in that pretty much nowhere has ever managed to limb up out of peasant destitution without the use of a market economy and the associated price system. "
The USSR used central planning (Gosplan) to manage their economy. They were the first space fairing nation on earth. What kind of author is this author to make these claims in direct contradiction to the historical record.
For example: we've known this since biblical times. Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is.
Money is not evil in and of itself. Money is a tool. Like a hammer, money can be wielded in bad ways or good. You can build a house or bash someone's skull in. Because you can bash someone's head in with a hammer does that make hammers bad?
Private property and private property rights protect what people have worked for but if someone or some entity accumulates too much wealth and assets and capital at the expense of others then that's a very real problem.
Making a profit is not evil in and of itself; lowering your worker's wages or keeping them low (as inflation inflates away their earning power) to increase your bottom line is evil.
Now, some could argue that this is essential to capitalism, that it'll always be abused. But, one could say that of any system. I think people are coming to realise that capitalism must be strictly regulated in order for it to function well and that is not the same as criticizing capitalism itself. For these reasons those who rail against capitalism itself I have no time for.
But even with millions at their disposal there doesn't appear to be any moral fiber on parting with their money, trusting the government or not, private individuals deeming who is worthy of their charity is not the type of society to strive for. If man can't be trusted with greed then how can we trust the philanthropy of a few high profile individuals to distribute wealth.
Free market types who are anti government intervention and regulation are ideologues and I have no time for ideologues. I have no time for the rabid pro-capitalists, but neither do I have any time for the rabid anti-capitalist. Both are blinded by ideology. They are the enemy.
Enlightened philanthropy is a great thing. But I totally agree with you, I sure as hell wouldn't want to run all public services using that model.
Let's put to one side the second part of the book which is some of the worst material Pinker has put down on paper – not in terms of style of course, he writes like an angel, but in terms of philosophical content.
What struck me about the first part was where he deals with inequality. It is demonstrably true using Pinker's own metrics and datasets that economic progress is not distributed evenly. To put it very simply the data shows that the middle class is becoming hollowed out in the developed world. Where is that wealth flowing to? The rich in the developed world and the poor in the developing world. The argument goes like this: because the number of very poor and poor that are being lifted out of poverty in the developing world outnumbers the middle class that are losing their wealth in the developed world, then the current system is great because smaller overall numbers are better. QED.
You can attack this position from two angles. First, as Jason Hickel does by saying that the way poverty has been and is being measured is broken in some way. Second, in a way that is more compelling which is this: that the global and regional and national growth in wealth ought to be more evenly distributed. The current distribution is fundamentally and deliberately skewed. That would be the tack I would take. I would say, why do there have to be losers?
And isn't this what Brexit in the UK, the Yellow Vests in France, and the election of Trump in the US demonstrate? It shows that many feel squeezed and left behind. This was the first time I felt like saying to Pinker, "Well, look at you, a successful author in a developed country – do you not care about how your average countryman is doing?" Extreme and rising inequality is bad in and of itself. We know this because historically and in the present day when societies are more equal the knock on effects are felt in every sector of society. There's a reason people point to the Nordic model, they're not pulling this stuff out of their butts you know.
To Hickel's argument I would say this. Pinker is correct that where one draws the line of absolute poverty is irrelevant because the data shows that no matter where one draws the line (at that level of things) the numbers show poverty (at the global level, for the poorest of the poor) is decreasing. I think Hickel is correct in pointing out that all rich countries have protected their economies and continue to protect their domestic economies, Hickel lists a number of authors who pointed this out to which I would add How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor by Erik S Reinert. But that doesn't refute the data, it just refutes Pinker's ideology.
People like Hickel are basically anti-capitalist which for me is a non-starter. I'm opened to being proved otherwise. Don't get me wrong: crony capitalism can be critiqued, as can the excesses of capitalism – but I think people like Hickel would criticise capitalism itself which as I say for me doesn't fly. On the other hand people like Pinker either don't see or choose to downplay the ills of neoliberal globalist unfettered capitalism.
What bugs me about Hickel's take is that it feels like he's suggesting we can either have capitalism or public education, that we can have capitalism or public health programs. And so on. I don't think Pinker would be against such systems. All the most successful nations show that capitalism and some socialist policy can work hand-in-hand very well indeed. This is the debate we need to have I think, and urgently before skyrocketing inequality leads to violent social unrest and God knows who'll get into power then and God knows what cuckoo ideology they'll have. The wealthy have rigged the system in their favour. By the wealthy I mean, wealthy individual humans and wealthy corporations. We've allowed it to happen and now it must be addressed.
People like Hickel are awful. They rail against everything, scream that we're destroying the Earth (hint: we're not), and their proposed solutions are either socialist programs mostly _everybody_ agrees with and are implemented in _most_ nations or anti-growth solutions which are in a word 'bonkers'. Be very suspicious of people who say we're doing nothing right and who have a fundamentally pessimist view about humanity's growth.