Neo-Liberalism

[ZiprHead]

Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

Sometimes encyclopedias are better than dictionaries. There much more on the subject in the link.

 

[Harry Bosch]

... snip ...


We've given capitalism its due. It's failed far too many of us for far too long and left us in a position where we're at constant war, where the planet is wired to explode or ready to self-destruct. At what point do we say enough and get to work to make serious change?

It is true that capitalism is far from perfect but then it has raised the standard of living of the poor under the system much higher than any other system yet tried.

If you get to work to make a serious change to a better system then you first need to get to work and think up a new system that hasn't already been proven to be much worse.

Agreed. I'd like to see an example of a better existing system that is non-neoliberal.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think neo-liberalism is like all other political ideological terms. It's meaning is never clear. Far left people think that mainstream or traditional liberals are conservatives and far right people think that mainstream conservatives are liberals. Both groups think that centrists are awful. When I've taken one of those little tests that are supposed to evaluate your political positions, I always come out as mid left of center, but some people on this board think I'm a conservative, while others probably think I'm a bleeding heart liberal. It's all subjective, imo.

Maybe it's better to discuss individual ideas instead of labeling everything. Just a thought. I myself am a capitalist -socialist -centrist- libertarian. See what I mean? I could support at least one or more positions in each of those categories. So, imo, there is no perfect system, but the best ones are a mix.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. We don't get to choose the cream from every concept and mix-match them to gain a system.

We don't get to say we'll have children and then not have to deal with all the difficulties that go along with children from changing diapers to helping with the homework to guiding them away from making potentially catastrophic decisions. Everything we do or choose to do requires work, and compromise, and negotiating. Any economic or political system is no different, but we must make a stand for radical change somwhere if our children and grandchildren are going to have any chance of a fair existence.

We've given capitalism its due. It's failed far too many of us for far too long and left us in a position where we're at constant war, where the planet is wired to explode or ready to self-destruct. At what point do we say enough and get to work to make serious change?

I'm not sure that you realize that most countries use a mix of systems, and there isn't any one pure system that works well. Look at the European countries. Most of them use a mix of capitalism and socialism, so do we to a lesser extent. Capitalism can work well if it's properly regulated with laws in place to protect workers as well as consumers. Things like a minimum living wage and safe working conditions are two examples of how laws can protect workers. Products that are made are often regulated, and that protects consumers. For example, pajamas that are made for children are not supposed to be flammable. There are numerous safety regulations concerning how autos are made that protects consumers.

The military, most infrastructure, free public schools, the safety net etc. are influenced by socialism.

Centrism, as I think of it, is when laws are made due to compromises made by those on the left and those on the right.

Libertarianism can include things like free speech, the decriminalization of recreational drugs, sexual activity between consenting adults. Look back at history. There was a time when alcohol was prohibited, when certain sexual practices were illegal, etc. Social libertarianism allows private individuals the freedom to pursue their own choices, as long as these choices don't harm others. So, in contemporary society, one is free to consume alcohol freely, as long as they do it without doing it in a way that harms others, ie drunk driving, etc.

So, we don't need a new system. We just need to constantly meet the needs of the majority of people by updating our laws, by considering new ways of doing things etc. These days, the US has allowed extreme wealth inequality. We don't need a new system to change that. We need to consider changing our tax rates, increasing the minimum wage, finding realistic ways to provide health care for all citizens, etc. We have a lot of work to do, but there isn't one label or one system that works for all. Ideally, we do better by choosing the things from many different systems that work for the majority, that maintain the economy, that work to improve the environment, etc.

This is why I prefer to avoid labels, and instead discuss ideas. Unfortunately, we don't live in a utopia and never will. There are a vast number of problems we need to try and improve. I just finished reading a very long article about how poor people are jailed in states across the country, because they can't afford to pay basic fines for things like traffic violations. This has already been outlawed by SCOTUS decades ago, but it continues. The article I read concerned a case in a small town in Mississippi, where this practice was common. The ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center won the case against that city. But, the practice continues in many other places. In other words, there are so many problems that need to be addressed. That terrible practice wasn't even legal, yet it took a few years to correct this in one small town. What was being done was cruel, but it wasn't any particular systems that created it. But I digress. The point is that governing is extremely complicated, and there's no system that can save us. Sometimes it's difficult to even enforce the laws that we already have in place.

 

[poster]

So, we don't need a new system. We just need to constantly meet the needs of the majority of people by updating our laws, by considering new ways of doing things etc.

How's that working for us, all things considered?

These days, the US has allowed extreme wealth inequality. We don't need a new system to change that. We need to consider changing our tax rates, increasing the minimum wage, finding realistic ways to provide health care for all citizens, etc. We have a lot of work to do, but there isn't one label or one system that works for all. Ideally, we do better by choosing the things from many different systems that work for the majority, that maintain the economy, that work to improve the environment, etc.

Your post neglects to address the most toxic element of calpitilism that envelops everything you mention - the constant need for economic growth. That's the cancer right there. None of the other issues exist without constant need for growth.

There are those here who insist on advancing the argument that making "things", whether tangible or not is economic advancement, and yet claim to care for the environment and the health of the population. They don't recognize the contradictions in their "beliefs". "Things" become waste.

 

[Emily Lake]

There isn't much help I can offer to neoliberals in denial. I get the conditioning that dictates the denial because I've been there, but like any addict, it begins with self-recognition. I can't do that for you. Sorry!

But as I've stated earlier, when you see me use the term, you now have a reference point.

Yay for baseless assumptions and pointless attempts to insult me I guess. If it makes you feel superior as alleviates whatever self esteem anxieties you have, well that’s okay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Canard DuJour]

... snip ...


We've given capitalism its due. It's failed far too many of us for far too long and left us in a position where we're at constant war, where the planet is wired to explode or ready to self-destruct. At what point do we say enough and get to work to make serious change?

It is true that capitalism is far from perfect but then it has raised the standard of living of the poor under the system much higher than any other system yet tried.

If you get to work to make a serious change to a better system then you first need to get to work and think up a new system that hasn't already been proven to be much worse.

Agreed. I'd like to see an example of a better existing system that is non-neoliberal.

The post-war Keynesian boom. Productivity and wage growth higher than since Reagan/Thatcher. The most rapid and widespread increase in living standards ever, which has slowed since Reagan/Thatcher, reversed in 2008, and is now grinding to a halt.

https://braveneweurope.com/geoff-ti...tivity-since-world-war-2-and-across-the-world

 

[Emily Lake]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. We don't get to choose the cream from every concept and mix-match them to gain a system.

Yes, yes we do actually. Because, you know, reality is real. And almost all of the economies in the world are a mix of “isms”. Because- again, reality - all of the pure ideologies are horseshit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talk about acerbic responses.

And reality sucks right now for a lot of people. That reality is the consequences of neoliberal policies. I know you can't see it, and that's too bad because you're a hell of a good fighter and I'd love to have you on my side, but again, can't have all the cream.

You know, maybe if you were capable of explaining we’d “your side” is, you might find me on it. At the moment, however, all you seem to be doing is applying inconsistent and poorly described labels all willy nilly... the using that label as a springboard to rationalize needless condescension.

Why don’t you you step down from your high horse for a couple of minutes and actually explain what you think neoliberalism is, so the rest of us can at least respond to the topic?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

I myself am a capitalist -socialist -centrist- libertarian. See what I mean? I could support at least one or more positions in each of those categories.

Sohy, you’re the perfect example of a normal person who uses her brain! That’s why I like you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Patronize much?

I don’t know what you think this means. I don’t believe I’m patronizing anyone. I like sohy, and part of what I’ve always liked about her is the very pragmatic and sensible approach she has to most topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

Sometimes encyclopedias are better than dictionaries. There much more on the subject in the link.

Thank you!

Meh. I think there’s considerable strength in a mostly free-ish market... but true laissez-faire doesn’t seem to workany better than true communism or anything else. Success is in the mix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Canard DuJour]

Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

Sometimes encyclopedias are better than dictionaries. There much more on the subject in the link.

Thank you!

Meh. I think there’s considerable strength in a mostly free-ish market... but true laissez-faire doesn’t seem to workany better than true communism or anything else. Success is in the mix.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the neoliberal mix since Reagan/Thatcher has failed by its own tenets. The promise was rising productivity, the benefits of which market mechanisms would distribute by merit or productivity. Forget the first bit because productivity growth has fallen among OECD economies, and globally. Ugly hard right and left politics, reminiscent of the 1930s, are emerging everywhere. Neoliberalism has been a disaster - an unncecassary disaster.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Everything we do or choose to do requires work, and compromise, and negotiating. Any economic or political system is no different, but we must make a stand for radical change

Isn't that a contradiction? "Work, and compromise, and negotiating" and "radical change"?

We've given capitalism its due.

Not really. Not that we necessarily should, but we don't have a free market economy. It is (and should be) heavily regulated.

And, Capitalism, (big "C") is when a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. We have trade and industry controlled by the state for the benefit of private owners and the state to profit from (in the form of taxes, but also as the engine of the economy).

It's failed far too many of us for far too long

How so? That's an awfully broad brush. I think you're talking more about social programs and those in power who oppose them, not capitalism, which, again, we don't practice. The goal of the right, in fact, has always been to control the market, not let it run freely regardless of the rhetoric they may co-opt in their bloviating.

and left us in a position where we're at constant war

Well, we can debate what "war" means these days, but what has that to do with capitalism, necessarily?

where the planet is wired to explode or ready to self-destruct.

Again, what does that have to do with an economic theory that isn't actually in practice?

In regard to "wired to explode" I assume you mean nuke proliferation, which has nothing to do with capitalism or a "free market" that I can see and in regard to "self-destruct," I assume that is in reference to global warming, which is something that has been tied to economic policies, no doubt, but not just our own. We're a HUGE factor, certainly, but that too would be a matter of regulation.

To get proper regulation, we need to overpower those against it (i.e., Republicans). We just took back the House and will likely take both the Senate and the WH in 2020, which will, once again, give us a brief window to right the wrongs, but no "radical change" to the system is required, nor can I see what it would consist of, short of jackboots on Republican throats.

Not a bad idea as a matter of figurative principle, of course, but hardly practical.

At what point do we say enough and get to work to make serious change?

"Serious change" in America just means a more equitable marginal tax rate and a shift away from right wing hegemony, which is always the battle against Repugs. The problem isn't the system; the problem is the ignorance in regard to how the system has always worked and worked fairly well, not just in America, but around the globe. Just look at Canada.

Or us under Obama or Clinton.

But we have a thankfully dwindling percentage of the population--forged primarily under Reagan--too ignorant to understand how they are voting against their own best interests. And one faction that always exploits that ignorance.

The fish rots from the head down. We're seeing that in stark relief these days and it is having a distinct impact as Trump's numbers continue to plummet, but at the same time--and in spite of Trump's significant and continued assaults on our economy at Putin's direction--we haven't imploded yet. The markets have bounced and many pundits are predicting dire consequences, but then that's usually the case.

The point is that there is everything in place to fix or fuck. Republicans (in power) always want to fuck the place up; Dems (in power and outside of it) always want to fix it up.

Now, however, we may be seeing Republicans outside of power (aka, the voters) actually wanting to join with Dems outside of power in fixing everything up, thanks to this stark relief example. 100%? Of course not. That can't ever happen. But at least we'll be able to say--for a good time coming--"You voted for Trump, so shut the fuck up" while we try to fix everything again and a good percentage will actually stfu. Many have already. That's what the midterms were all about. Previous Trump supporters finally shutting the fuck up while the Dems came in to fix everything again.

ETA: That isn't to just dismiss the remote possibility that Trump will come out of this unscathed, at least directly. His "mentor" was Roy Cohen, ffs and the people--the sycophants--that suckerfished him are adept at making sure nothing leads directly up the chain, so it is obviously never outside the realm of possibilities that Mueller ends up inadvertently exonerating Trump. Doubtful in all that we've seen so far, but there is, of course, a significant difference between what we believe to be true and what can be proven in a court of law. So there is that.

But, fundamentally, it's STILL a matter of who is controlling the reigns of the system; not necessarily the system itself.

 

[PyramidHead]

Political terms like these are always contentious. You can take any tendency in governance, identify its offshoots and traveling companions, and subsume it under a term for convenience. It can be useful, but it can also hinder discussion if taken too seriously. The underlying concepts are more important than the label.

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism, and it goes something like: the most successful nation-states have been those that practice capitalism, therefore capitalism is superior to non-capitalism. I see several problems with this line of thinking.

For one thing, in this context, success is implicitly being defined by the metrics capitalism has cemented as relevant ones, such as GDP, friendliness to business, and the highest level of luxury available in the area (another version of the argument that the US health care system is great because it employs the most talented surgeons, as if simply including talented surgeons is sufficient even if the vast majority have no access to their services). This disqualifies any society that is free and egalitarian but very poor due to external circumstances, for example.

Secondly, it places the entire focus on nation-states, under the assumption that a system of organizing production must be undertaken in that context in order to prove its feasibility. The framework of nation-states and their borders is not an unchanging backdrop that capitalism simply encounters, it is shaped by capitalism itself and preserved for reasons that only make sense if most of the world is capitalist. All of which is to say, the fact that every square inch of habitable land on the earth is governed by some nation-state or another is only evidence that neoliberal capitalism is the dominant force in civilization, not that it is the best possible system.

This leads to the next problem: dominance of a system of organizing production is presumed to be a sign that it's a "successful" system. In the imaginary fantasy-land of this notion, all economic and political systems rise and fall purely on their own merits, never as a result of bloody conquest, enslavement, or deprivation. Each economic system arises in a neutral, sterilized petri dish, completely isolated from the rest of the world, where it can be evaluated fully based on how well it performs under these ideal conditions. Obviously nonsense! Capitalism has spread to every corner of globe and violently smashed out every perceived threat to its hegemony, so asking where all the successful non-capitalist societies are as though the game were not deeply rigged is a distraction from those doing the rigging.

Lastly, a more general concern about this type of reasoning. At any point in history, it could have been said that the most successful nation-states have been those that practice X, where X is whatever prevailing system is most proficient at producing the appearance of wealth with all the caveats raised above. Show me the successful landowner who doesn't have a few slaves. Show me the feudal lord who doesn't take grain from all his subjects. Show me the monarchies whose kings aren't divinely ordained. Show me the religious empires that aren't organized around one god instead of many.

The most that can be said about this historical picture is that, some of the time, the system being defended on empirical grounds was at least better than the one that came before it; capitalism was surely an improvement on the slave economy, which was an improvement on feudalism. How do we know this? Because there have been times in history where those systems have been dominant, which is the only way to legitimately compare across systems when the entire world is the stage of play. The departure from capitalism that is being offered by the left is nothing like any of the ones that have dominated the world in the past, so we shouldn't expect to see examples of it thriving today. Yet, if everyone simply assented to whatever system was dominant in the world, we would still be living in feudal societies. The people who defended feudalism by endlessly pointing out that all successful nation-states practiced feudalism were wrongheaded, and history has not been kind to those who tried the same tactic for slavery.

Yet, we never learn, do we? Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism

Just because I'm not a fan of sophistry--no matter where it comes from--does not necessarily equate with me being a "fan" of anything. Just for the record. The rest of your post seems to be little more than a strawman based on this same sophistry.

Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

Our system--the "Western" system, for lack of a better term--which is essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism, depending on who temporarily holds the reigns of governmental power--is precisely such an "occasional tinkering"-type system. There are better examples of it than what we have in the US, of course, but they are all essentially the same system.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism

Just because I'm not a fan of sophistry--no matter where it comes from--does not necessarily equate with me being a "fan" of anything. Just for the record. The rest of your post seems to be little more than a strawman based on this same sophistry.

Did I mention you at any point?

Our system--the "Western" system, for lack of a better term--which is essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism, depending on who temporarily holds the reigns of governmental power--is precisely such an "occasional tinkering"-type system. There are better examples of it than what we have in the US, of course, but they are all essentially the same system.

This is just the system we have, and it's unwise to assume that it's likely to be the optimal one for human needs, plus or minus tinkering. But the scale is far from Democratic Socialism by my understanding of that term, as it explicitly calls for social ownership and organization of all production. Maybe you're thinking of Social Democracy, which is just highly regulated capitalism. And the word you're looking for is "reins" not "reigns".

 

[poster]

Political terms like these are always contentious. You can take any tendency in governance, identify its offshoots and traveling companions, and subsume it under a term for convenience. It can be useful, but it can also hinder discussion if taken too seriously. The underlying concepts are more important than the label.

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism, and it goes something like: the most successful nation-states have been those that practice capitalism, therefore capitalism is superior to non-capitalism. I see several problems with this line of thinking.

For one thing, in this context, success is implicitly being defined by the metrics capitalism has cemented as relevant ones, such as GDP, friendliness to business, and the highest level of luxury available in the area (another version of the argument that the US health care system is great because it employs the most talented surgeons, as if simply including talented surgeons is sufficient even if the vast majority have no access to their services). This disqualifies any society that is free and egalitarian but very poor due to external circumstances, for example.

Secondly, it places the entire focus on nation-states, under the assumption that a system of organizing production must be undertaken in that context in order to prove its feasibility. The framework of nation-states and their borders is not an unchanging backdrop that capitalism simply encounters, it is shaped by capitalism itself and preserved for reasons that only make sense if most of the world is capitalist. All of which is to say, the fact that every square inch of habitable land on the earth is governed by some nation-state or another is only evidence that neoliberal capitalism is the dominant force in civilization, not that it is the best possible system.

This leads to the next problem: dominance of a system of organizing production is presumed to be a sign that it's a "successful" system. In the imaginary fantasy-land of this notion, all economic and political systems rise and fall purely on their own merits, never as a result of bloody conquest, enslavement, or deprivation. Each economic system arises in a neutral, sterilized petri dish, completely isolated from the rest of the world, where it can be evaluated fully based on how well it performs under these ideal conditions. Obviously nonsense! Capitalism has spread to every corner of globe and violently smashed out every perceived threat to its hegemony, so asking where all the successful non-capitalist societies are as though the game were not deeply rigged is a distraction from those doing the rigging.

Lastly, a more general concern about this type of reasoning. At any point in history, it could have been said that the most successful nation-states have been those that practice X, where X is whatever prevailing system is most proficient at producing the appearance of wealth with all the caveats raised above. Show me the successful landowner who doesn't have a few slaves. Show me the feudal lord who doesn't take grain from all his subjects. Show me the monarchies whose kings aren't divinely ordained. Show me the religious empires that aren't organized around one god instead of many.

The most that can be said about this historical picture is that, some of the time, the system being defended on empirical grounds was at least better than the one that came before it; capitalism was surely an improvement on the slave economy, which was an improvement on feudalism. How do we know this? Because there have been times in history where those systems have been dominant, which is the only way to legitimately compare across systems when the entire world is the stage of play. The departure from capitalism that is being offered by the left is nothing like any of the ones that have dominated the world in the past, so we shouldn't expect to see examples of it thriving today. Yet, if everyone simply assented to whatever system was dominant in the world, we would still be living in feudal societies. The people who defended feudalism by endlessly pointing out that all successful nation-states practiced feudalism were wrongheaded, and history has not been kind to those who tried the same tactic for slavery.

Yet, we never learn, do we? Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

You're much more accomodating than I am. Perhaps to my own fault. With the exception of a few on this site, I look at the amount of time members have been doing these exchanges and have to assume they've been through these same discussions more often than not. The rhetoric they use is very rehersed and common. I've read it so many times through the years. So, I naturally assume they know the gig and the arguments and I decline to respond to much of the posts because, in my mind, it's mostly going down rabbit holes with people in denial and corporate conditioning, coming from individuals who are well enough employed and shielded from those who aren't. For me, due to what I do and where I live, I see people who live without and have needs that aren't met. And I read from quality sources.

 

[Emily Lake]

Trimming for length

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism, and it goes something like: the most successful nation-states have been those that practice capitalism, therefore capitalism is superior to non-capitalism. I see several problems with this line of thinking.

For one thing, in this context, success is implicitly being defined by the metrics capitalism has cemented as relevant ones, such as GDP, friendliness to business, and the highest level of luxury available in the area

Wells, not exactly. It’s more based on life experience fancy, general health, availability of leisure time, and the hierarchy of needs. Unless you think the heirs they of needs is somehow an exclusively capitalist thing? I mean, I didn’t really think that survival, procreation, and happiness were something limited to capitalism.

Secondly, it places the entire focus on nation-states...

All of which is to say, the fact that every square inch of habitable land on the earth is governed by some nation-state or another is only evidence that neoliberal capitalism is the dominant force in civilization, not that it is the best possible system.

Check your history. Nation-states predate capitalism by a few thousand years.

This leads to the next problem: dominance of a system of organizing production is presumed to be a sign that it's a "successful" system.
...

Lastly, a more general concern about this type of reasoning. At any point in history, it could have been said that the most successful nation-states have been those that practice X, where X is whatever prevailing system is most proficient at producing the appearance of wealth with all the caveats raised above.
...
How do we know this? Because there have been times in history where those systems have been dominant, which is the only way to legitimately compare across systems when the entire world is the stage of play.

I’m rolling all of this together, and responding with one term: evolution.

It’s not really any different than genetic evolution. That which dominates at present is that which is best fit for the current environment. That which was supplanted was not as fit. That which supplants this in the future will be better fit for that future environment. At present, a mixed capitalist economy seems to be best fit for providing for the survival and satisfaction of the greatest number of people in the current environment.

If the environment changes, that may not stay true. If something new comes along, it might prove better fit for the current environment or more adaptable to future changes.

The departure from capitalism that is being offered by the left is nothing like any of the ones that have dominated the world in the past, so we shouldn't expect to see examples of it thriving today. Yet, if everyone simply assented to whatever system was dominant in the world, we would still be living in feudal societies. The people who defended feudalism by endlessly pointing out that all successful nation-states practiced feudalism were wrongheaded, and history has not been kind to those who tried the same tactic for slavery.

Wait, back up: what us being offered that is new and unique?

Beyond that, just like any other evolutionary adaptation... it’s going to need to gain enough of a foothold that it can actually prove out as better. So far, that hasn’t happened.

Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

That’s like saying “maybe this time we’ll evolve to the perfect creature and evolution will complete stop for all eternity”. As long as change is a constant of the universe, it’s not gonna happen.

Pun intended [emoji38]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J842P]

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism

Just because I'm not a fan of sophistry--no matter where it comes from--does not necessarily equate with me being a "fan" of anything. Just for the record. The rest of your post seems to be little more than a strawman based on this same sophistry.

Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

Our system--the "Western" system, for lack of a better term--which is essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism, depending on who temporarily holds the reigns of governmental power--is precisely such an "occasional tinkering"-type system. There are better examples of it than what we have in the US, of course, but they are all essentially the same system.

The term you are looking for is Social Democracy. Which we really don't have in the US, but certainly, not Democratic Socialism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Political terms like these are always contentious. You can take any tendency in governance, identify its offshoots and traveling companions, and subsume it under a term for convenience. It can be useful, but it can also hinder discussion if taken too seriously. The underlying concepts are more important than the label.

I'm noticing a common tactic among supporters of capitalism, and it goes something like: the most successful nation-states have been those that practice capitalism, therefore capitalism is superior to non-capitalism. I see several problems with this line of thinking.

For one thing, in this context, success is implicitly being defined by the metrics capitalism has cemented as relevant ones, such as GDP, friendliness to business, and the highest level of luxury available in the area (another version of the argument that the US health care system is great because it employs the most talented surgeons, as if simply including talented surgeons is sufficient even if the vast majority have no access to their services). This disqualifies any society that is free and egalitarian but very poor due to external circumstances, for example.

Secondly, it places the entire focus on nation-states, under the assumption that a system of organizing production must be undertaken in that context in order to prove its feasibility. The framework of nation-states and their borders is not an unchanging backdrop that capitalism simply encounters, it is shaped by capitalism itself and preserved for reasons that only make sense if most of the world is capitalist. All of which is to say, the fact that every square inch of habitable land on the earth is governed by some nation-state or another is only evidence that neoliberal capitalism is the dominant force in civilization, not that it is the best possible system.

This leads to the next problem: dominance of a system of organizing production is presumed to be a sign that it's a "successful" system. In the imaginary fantasy-land of this notion, all economic and political systems rise and fall purely on their own merits, never as a result of bloody conquest, enslavement, or deprivation. Each economic system arises in a neutral, sterilized petri dish, completely isolated from the rest of the world, where it can be evaluated fully based on how well it performs under these ideal conditions. Obviously nonsense! Capitalism has spread to every corner of globe and violently smashed out every perceived threat to its hegemony, so asking where all the successful non-capitalist societies are as though the game were not deeply rigged is a distraction from those doing the rigging.

Lastly, a more general concern about this type of reasoning. At any point in history, it could have been said that the most successful nation-states have been those that practice X, where X is whatever prevailing system is most proficient at producing the appearance of wealth with all the caveats raised above. Show me the successful landowner who doesn't have a few slaves. Show me the feudal lord who doesn't take grain from all his subjects. Show me the monarchies whose kings aren't divinely ordained. Show me the religious empires that aren't organized around one god instead of many.

The most that can be said about this historical picture is that, some of the time, the system being defended on empirical grounds was at least better than the one that came before it; capitalism was surely an improvement on the slave economy, which was an improvement on feudalism. How do we know this? Because there have been times in history where those systems have been dominant, which is the only way to legitimately compare across systems when the entire world is the stage of play. The departure from capitalism that is being offered by the left is nothing like any of the ones that have dominated the world in the past, so we shouldn't expect to see examples of it thriving today. Yet, if everyone simply assented to whatever system was dominant in the world, we would still be living in feudal societies. The people who defended feudalism by endlessly pointing out that all successful nation-states practiced feudalism were wrongheaded, and history has not been kind to those who tried the same tactic for slavery.

Yet, we never learn, do we? Maybe this time, we'll discover that you and I were born in the lucky epoch where the winning economic system was finally discovered for all eternity, requiring only the occasional tinkering here and there but otherwise optimal (by its own self-advocated metrics) given the constraints (most of which are directly attributable to the system itself).

You're much more accomodating than I am. Perhaps to my own fault. With the exception of a few on this site, I look at the amount of time members have been doing these exchanges and have to assume they've been through these same discussions more often than not. The rhetoric they use is very rehersed and common. I've read it so many times through the years. So, I naturally assume they know the gig and the arguments and I decline to respond to much of the posts because, in my mind, it's mostly going down rabbit holes with people in denial and corporate conditioning, coming from individuals who are well enough employed and shielded from those who aren't. For me, due to what I do and where I live, I see people who live without and have needs that aren't met. And I read from quality sources.

Translation seems to be: “if people don’t think like I do it’s because they’re dumb or brainwashed or evil... or some combination”. You seem to be under the impression that your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J842P]

I’m rolling all of this together, and responding with one term: evolution.

It’s not really any different than genetic evolution. That which dominates at present is that which is best fit for the current environment. That which was supplanted was not as fit. That which supplants this in the future will be better fit for that future environment. At present, a mixed capitalist economy seems to be best fit for providing for the survival and satisfaction of the greatest number of people in the current environment.

If the environment changes, that may not stay true. If something new comes along, it might prove better fit for the current environment or more adaptable to future changes.

Which would be an utter naturalistic fallacy that hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution using the classic equivocation on the (unfortunate) word "fitness".

All fitness means is better at reproducing. It has fuck all to do with anything long or any sort of global maximum, and even less to do with human satisfaction. Evolutionary systems can and do evolve themselves into collapse all the time, all the while getting fitter and fitter.

 

[Emily Lake]

[
Which would be an utter naturalistic fallacy that hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution using the classic equivocation on the (unfortunate) word "fitness".

All fitness means is better at reproducing. It has fuck all to do with anything long or any sort of global maximum, and even less to do with human satisfaction. Evolutionary systems can and do evolve themselves into collapse all the time, all the while getting fitter and fitter.

In terms of genetic evolution, you’re more or less right. But other thing evolve as well. Ideas evolve, societies evolve, our understanding of the world evolves. The equilibrium point of a chemical compound in a changing environment evolves. That which is most stable and effective at “self preservation” in a given environment is “fit”. The concept isn’t limited to genetics. The concept holds for any complex system that isn’t in a static state.

And I’m pretty sure our current social system is capable of evolving itself into collapse!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk