|
| ▲ | ifethereal 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm replying without having read the entirety of the text you've referred to by Proudhon, but it looks interesting—thanks. Some raw thoughts of mine if I may (feel free to add seasoning): You mention that capitalism is definitionally zero-sum, and you seem to be facing quite a bit of resistance. I've had similar thoughts (perhaps still premature) that capitalism is zero-sum, but only (?) under a strong definition of "zero". I've not fleshed out my thoughts completely, but I suspect there are intangible/abstract dimensions along which we maintain some kind of equilibrium, regardless of what we do. "Do" here is quite abstract, but as a first approximation in the realm of economics, it might refer to any act of investment, compensation, or labour. (I may be abusing some technical terms in economics here—not my home turf.) A separate question could then emerge as to how significant these intangible/abstract dimensions are. Actually, I'm not even sure that this is specific to the context of capitalism. However, whether something is a zero-sum game would seem relevant to systems obsessed with objective quantification, and where that quantification is heavily involved in steering moral views (or decision making), and I view capitalism as one of them. |
| |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s definitely not specific to the context of capitalism capitalism however makes transactionalism the explicit structure such that it cannot coexist with any other type of ownership regime by function That is to say, if you look at anarcho socialist philosophy it can theoretically coexist with other philosophies inside the same state and action space Historically however, we have not found a stable equilibrium for the lived reality of our experience such that we could map it cleanly onto some discreet and identified philosophical framework So neither anarcho-socialism nor capitalism is a sustainable equilibrium point due to the constraints of a human biological substrate Claiming that “it could” or “can” or “is the best we can do” are all beside the point, because they ignore the intractable fundamental fact of separating human systems from all other systems Every possible game is zero sum because the universe isn’t creating more matter or energy, it’s just moving around. How we move it around is the problem to solve and anyone using weak justifications with bankrupt epistemological foundations is just wasting everyone’s time. |
|
|
| ▲ | nuancebydefault 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't believe capitalism is a zero sum game. Capitalism is not the holy grail, but when combined with laws that balance the uneven distribution of the wealth it _creates_, and laws that protect resources and cleanliness, it turns out it is the best system we as a human species employed so far. I'm open to be proven wrong. |
| |
|
| ▲ | SapporoChris 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If capitalism is zero sum then how do countries with capitalism manage to succeed and grow for hundreds of years? |
| |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | By pillaging and conquering nations that have abundant resources through violence and coercion Like this is the entire history of capitalism and it’s not even close the fact that other organizations (USSR, China) do the same thing (horde property and then use consolidated resources to enforce economic heirarchy) but don’t call it capitalism doesn’t make it any less true They can say “communism” all day but if the functional properties of the system of the Russian Federation or CCP are that Property control is limited to a small group of elites who then use those resources to create a command economy that is purely capitalist philosophy. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > By pillaging and conquering nations that have abundant resources through violence and coercion That's pretty much backwards. The industrial revolution was the first time in human history where people could get rich on a very large scale via some way other than pillage and conquest. If you think "capitalism" started in the late 18th century and is essentially coterminous with industry (which is quite nonsensical since you had forms of capital as far back as ancient farming societies, but that's the way many scholars choose to use the term) that's exactly what let us choose something that was not plunder and conquest. | |
| ▲ | nuancebydefault 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The hording and eliteness is not a property of the capitalistic system. It might be an unwanted side effect. Imperialism, greed, urge to expand control, subordination of others are unfortunately human traits. You might attribute that behavior to any system, why single out capitalism? | | |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because capitalism explicitly encodes transactionalism into the social structure by alienating labor from the fruits of the labor. There’s no period of time where that has not been true for some portion is society, but we reached a point to which there are no places where that is not true. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | robocat 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When you call people ignorant, you are trying to say you know better than them. It is not only rude, but against guidelines. |
| |
| ▲ | jibal 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Certainly some people know better than some other people, and I see nothing in the guidelines that say otherwise, or say that one cannot say so ... expertise is a thing. OTOH, I think there are several aspects of your comment that go against the guidelines. (Perhaps my pointing that out does as well.) Of course, one can dispute specific claims, with facts and argumentation. |
|
|
| ▲ | cowpig 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Calling people ignorant and naive while doing nothing to address the actual arguments isn't going to convince anyone. In the passage you linked to, the author argues that property is impossible, which seems like a rather different argument than the one you are making. |
| |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | in fact it’s the opposite If you read Prudhon thoroughly you’ll understand that his critique is that the entire concept of capitalism is based on the concept of property (undisputed) and the concept of property is an entirely made up mythical thing (disputed) | | |
| ▲ | cowpig 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Opposite of what? And what does that have to do with non-zero-sum games? |
|
|
