Capitalist Vigilantes

[Angilion]

Communism/Socialism/Fascism just develops due to people with a lust for power exploiting those who are less successful in a merit based system to push an even worse system that inevitably ends up in dictatorship and even more suffering and poverty, I mean how many hundreds of millions either have to starve to death or be genocided under collectivist systems before people realise they're terrible ideas. Stateless Communism is also a total fantasy because you will just get the worst kind of people consolidating power and ruling over everyone.

The problem we have today is we do not have a free market, some regulation is necessary but bailouts for failing banks and businesses and big corporations lobbying and rigging the systems are not.

Also people 'forced' to live under capitalism? what? you'll usually find communist countries building walls to prevent their people from fleeing to them and nobody is prevented from leaving to live in North Korea if they want to. It's speculated that 3m Hong Kong'ers are going to leave their ancestral homeland to escape communism/fascism or whatever you call the Chinese system at the moment.

You are not describing reality. You're describing your entirely fictional dream capitalism, a thing that has never existed and almost certainly can't exist. In that respect, you're the same as fervent communists who do the same thing about communism. "merit based system" is a ludicrously unrealistic description of capitalism, so much so that I had to think carefully about whether you intended your post as some sort of parody. I've decided that you're probably serious.

I described communism as always having extremely ugly results, but of course you ignored that. Just like you've ignored the simple and amply documented fact that communism grew from the fact that vast numbers of people were suffering appallingly under capitalism. Millions of people have suffered and died under capitalism, too. Your silly fantasy about it being a merit based system is no better than a communist's silly fantasies about their preferred system. Both lead inevitably to a tiny minority brutally oppressing almost everyone. For the vast majority of people, there's effectively no difference between the two.

The growth of communism was only a little over 100 years ago. There are seas of documentation about it. Your ignorance is deliberate.

Millions of people from Hong Kong probably do want to leave (I certainly would if I was in their shoes), but they won't be fleeing from a communist system to a capitalist one. They'll be fleeing from a sort-of-vaguely-communist-ish-maybe system to a more mixed system with some leaning towards capitalism. More specifically, they'll be fleeing from a more authoritarian system to a less authoritarian system.

 

[Angilion]

Well I'm not stuck on that, I just don't see why people think this will remove work when we've had a couple of centuries of automation and all it has done is increase opportunities to do other stuff.

I mean at one point a bunch of us were all having to farm for our own food, I can imagine that if we were to have this conversation back then some people, upon being told about supermarkets and farming in the future might wonder what 90% of the population would do all day if they no longer need to individually farm for food.

And some of them did that.

The result was that bulk employment moved from agriculture to manufacturing (with immense suffering for most people as a result).

Then automation reached manufacturing and removed most paid work from manufacturing.

The result was that bulk employment moved from manufacturing to distribution and service (with much more state control, so much less suffering though still far from harmless).

So what happens when increasing automation removes the remaining manufacturing jobs, most of the distribution jobs and most of the service jobs? Where does the bulk employment go then?

I've asked this before and the only answer I've had is that unknown new types of jobs will automagically materialise in bulk because reasons.

 

[Roar87]

The requirement for power to be centralised is the problem with Communism because it creates opportunities for corruption on a mass scale. People don't seem to factor in the human element when they dream up their ideal economic system.

 

[dowie]

And some of them did that.

The result was that bulk employment moved from agriculture to manufacturing (with immense suffering for most people as a result).

Then automation reached manufacturing and removed most paid work from manufacturing.

The result was that bulk employment moved from manufacturing to distribution and service (with much more state control, so much less suffering though still far from harmless).

So what happens when increasing automation removes the remaining manufacturing jobs, most of the distribution jobs and most of the service jobs? Where does the bulk employment go then?

I've asked this before and the only answer I've had is that unknown new types of jobs will automagically materialise in bulk because reasons.

New jobs... I mean why not - that's what has happened time and time again - you automate some area and you free people up to do other things.

 

[Angilion]

The requirement for power to be centralised is the problem with Communism because it creates opportunities for corruption on a mass scale. People don't seem to factor in the human element when they dream up their ideal economic system.

Which is why capitalism leads to the same thing. The powers are branded differently and the advertising is different, but that's just different colour paint on the turd.

 

[Angilion]

New jobs... I mean why not - that's what has happened time and time again - you automate some area and you free people up to do other things.

Like what?

The idea that new jobs of an unknown nature will automagically materialise from nowhere because reasons is not a compelling answer to me. It's a statement of faith, not an answer.

What's happening in the past is that bulk employment has moved to something that can't be automated. We're running out of things that can't be automated. I think that your belief in an endless creation of things that can't be implemented is unfounded.

 

[dowie]

Like what?

"new jobs of an unknown nature will automagically materialise from nowhere because reasons" is not a compelling answer to me. It's a statement of faith, not an answer.

What's happening in the past is that bulk employment has moved to something that can't be automated. We're running out of things that can't be automated. I think that your belief in an endless creation of things that can't be implemented is unfounded.

OK but surely jobs will all vanish is a statement of faith too - why assume we won't be paying people to do things? What evidence is there that we're running out of things to automate? Why are "things" limited here?

There are jobs that exist today that are based on current technology and wouldn't have been conceived decades ago as they require that tech to exist in the first place so demanding that people specify those jobs in future scenarios is flawed given the dependencies and future automation itself is unknown. That people will pay others to do things though is unchanged.

If you want to imagine a society without money controlled by some super AI then sure, perhaps there won't be jobs given that scenario but that scenario isn't a foregone conclusion of automation continuing.

 

[Angilion]

OK but surely jobs will all vanish is a statement of faith too - why assume we won't be paying people to do things? What evidence is there that we're running out of things to automate? Why are "things" limited here?

There are jobs that exist today that are based on current technology and wouldn't have been conceived decades ago as they require that tech to exist in the first place so demanding that people specify those jobs in future scenarios is flawed given the dependencies and future automation itself is unknown. That people will pay others to do things though is unchanged.

If you want to imagine a society without money controlled by some super AI then sure, perhaps there won't be jobs given that scenario but that scenario isn't a foregone conclusion of automation continuing.

People will pay others to do things that can't be done cheaper by machines. If you were an employer, why would you employ people to do work that could be done more cheaply by machines?

The only possible exception is art, based on the assumption that machines can't produce art or that people will always (for some unexplained reason) pay for human-produced art over machine-produced art. But the idea that the majority of humans can make a living from being artists is very flimsy at best.

Oh, and maybe servants. That would be the case if there was a cultural value placed on having human servants. But again, it's not a viable option for bulk employment. It would be a very small number of very high end servants who were status symbols. Butlers, valets, lady's maids. Not footmen, scullery maids and suchlike.

I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be any paid work for humans. Not without the "society without money controlled by some super AI" some people keep talking about, anyway. But that's still sci-fi and might always be. It's not very relevant to this debate. I'm arguing that there won't be enough paid work for humans, not enough paid work to sustain current socio-economic systems because those require a large majority of people to be doing paid work. A small number of people maintaining machines, a small number of people making a living as artists and a tiny number of people with some authority to direct machines isn't enough for that.

 

[dowie]

People will pay others to do things that can't be done cheaper by machines. If you were an employer, why would you employ people to do work that could be done more cheaply by machines?

Lots of reasons, perhaps your customers want it!

The only possible exception is art, based on the assumption that machines can't produce art or that people will always (for some unexplained reason) pay for human-produced art over machine-produced art. But the idea that the majority of humans can make a living from being artists is very flimsy at best.

Nope, that isn't the only possible exception at all. Automation doesn't necessarily replace people even, it can just make them more effective at their jobs, lots of automation can help with diagnostics in medicine for example but there is still room for a human practitioner to consult with a patient, there is still room for a nurse to look after a room of patients in hospital etc..

It's not just artists who "create" - again who is going to make the decisions? Who is going to come up with new ideas? Who is going to manage the relationships at either a high level or a low level - whether that is relationships with customers or relationships between businesses.

Who is going to make legal arguments - are we letting some super AI rule over us here too? Or if we're not talking super AI then... well by default you've got legal work.

I'm arguing that there won't be enough paid work for humans, not enough paid work to sustain current socio-economic systems because those require a large majority of people to be doing paid work. A small number of people maintaining machines, a small number of people making a living as artists and a tiny number of people with some authority to direct machines isn't enough for that.

There is no basis for that claim though, so long as there is money and demand for people to do things then there will still be work.

I mean there is no need for cooking at home - I can get a ready meal from the supermarket... that process has been automated in the factory that creates those things I can just stick it in the microwave yet people cook stuff from scratch still... sometimes they might order in a takeaway, sometimes they might go out to a restaurant and eat a meal - surely given we've got access to pre-prepared food that restaurant shouldn't exist? A restaurant is a very inefficient way of getting food into your body right?

What about those guys taking the food from the kitchen to the table - what's the point in them? Surely waiters shouldn't exist - restaurants could go for a McDonald's style ordering system instead? Yet the demand is there, people do those jobs in spite of automation - this notion that just because automation exists or efficient methods for getting something exist means that jobs will vanish isn't how things have worked out in reality.

 

[Roar87]

Which is why capitalism leads to the same thing. The powers are branded differently and the advertising is different, but that's just different colour paint on the turd.

No it isn't the same thing, Communism has massive amounts of centralised power and wealth that almost lends itself to corruption, who's regulating the regulators in a Communist system? No one. Under Capitalism the idea is that the government provides regulation to the market to stop things like Monopolies, price fixing, market manipulation, etc, etc.

 

[Angilion]

No it isn't the same thing, Communism has massive amounts of centralised power and wealth that almost lends itself to corruption, who's regulating the regulators in a Communist system? No one. Under Capitalism the idea is that the government provides regulation to the market to stop things like Monopolies, price fixing, market manipulation, etc, etc.

No, it isn't. Under capitalism the idea is that the market isn't interfered with by the government. The government controlling business...that's communist!

The result is the same - a tiny minority controlling everything, with the inevitable results. The only reason it's not corruption under a capitalist regime is that it's supposed to work that way under a capitalist regime. Corruption requires something to be not what it's supposed to be. With capitalism there's no pretence that it's supposed to be any different, so it's not corruption. But it's the same thing.

As I said before, the least bad system anyone has yet come up with is a carefully and heavily regulated semi-capitalist system. If you imagine a horseshoe-shaped spectrum with communism at one end and capitalism at the other, something close to the middle but a bit towards the capitalism end. Either extreme is terrible in practice.

 

[Roar87]

No, it isn't. Under capitalism the idea is that the market isn't interfered with by the government. The government controlling business...that's communist!

The result is the same - a tiny minority controlling everything, with the inevitable results. The only reason it's not corruption under a capitalist regime is that it's supposed to work that way under a capitalist regime. Corruption requires something to be not what it's supposed to be. With capitalism there's no pretence that it's supposed to be any different, so it's not corruption. But it's the same thing.

As I said before, the least bad system anyone has yet come up with is a carefully and heavily regulated semi-capitalist system. If you imagine a horseshoe-shaped spectrum with communism at one end and capitalism at the other, something close to the middle but a bit towards the capitalism end. Either extreme is terrible in practice.

Let's deal with the actual reality of how these systems are implemented though, not what they look like in a text book or what the "idea is" as we obviously aren't living under a fully free market Capitalist system that is completely unregulated, no one think's that is a good idea. The difference between the people "controlling everything" under Capitalism is that people have actually given them their money freely, they have most likely provided a useful product or service that everyone wants so much that they have given them their hard earned cash, though I appreciate there are some times this isn't the case. Under Communism the people with the money are a corrupt group of likely gangsters who effectively steal the wealth from the rest of the society with the false promise of redistributing it evenly. The main difference is that under Capitalism people are free, you can choose to work where you want, choose to start your own business, choose to buy what products you prefer; people have choice and liberty. It's not a problem for me that there are very rich people because the quality of life for everyone has improved over time due to the many wonderful advances that the free market has given people the incentive to create. I don't care that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk are billionaires or own X amount of wealth (most of which is just because they own a percentage of a large company) because they have contributed to everyone's increased quality of life. Argue all you want but Amazon provides a valuable service, people get huge value out of Microsoft products. It's actually insanely ridiculous for people to sit and complain about Capitalism while sat in a warm heated house using technology created by companies that are a direct product of the system they want to tear down.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

We have socialism now, except it's for the benefit of shareholders and businesses, not the workers.

 

[Roar87]

We have socialism now, except it's for the benefit of shareholders and businesses, not the workers.

You're saying this while the UK government is currently vaccinating all of it's citizens against Covid19. I swear so many of you have this massive sense of entitlement and do no appreciate the absolute luxury you are living in. All I hear is people crying because they watched a video about how much theoretical wealth Jeff Bezos has, probably just before they asked Alexa to change the heating setting on their boiler.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You're saying this while the UK government is currently vaccinating all of it's citizens against Covid19. I swear so many of you have this massive sense of entitlement and do no appreciate the absolute luxury you are living in. All I hear is people crying because they watched a video about how much theoretical wealth Jeff Bezos has, probably just before they asked Alexa to change the heating setting on their boiler.

I eat meat, doesn't mean I'm in favour of animal cruelty.

 

[FoxEye]

No it isn't the same thing, Communism has massive amounts of centralised power and wealth that almost lends itself to corruption, who's regulating the regulators in a Communist system? No one. Under Capitalism the idea is that the government provides regulation to the market to stop things like Monopolies, price fixing, market manipulation, etc, etc.

Haven't we just had a great example of market manipulation (GameStop) for the benefit of the hedge funds...

The idea that the government ethically regulates the corporations doesn't account for lobbying, or money and power translating to favourable treatment by the government, or the so-called "revolving door" which blurs the lines between private corporation and government in any case...

 

[Roar87]

Haven't we just had a great example of market manipulation (GameStop) for the benefit of the hedge funds...

The idea that the government ethically regulates the corporations doesn't account for lobbying, or money and power translating to favourable treatment by the government, or the so-called "revolving door" which blurs the lines between private corporation and government in any case...

Yes so ideally you want as little power as possible in the hands of a small group of people, because even with the limited power government has things like lobbying occurs and people abuse their position. Now imagine lobbying x10,000 except it's just the government stealing money and giving it to their friends and family with no oversight and you've got the USSR.

 

[Angilion]

Let's deal with the actual reality of how these systems are implemented though, not what they look like in a text book or what the "idea is" as we obviously aren't living under a fully free market Capitalist system that is completely unregulated, no one think's that is a good idea. [..]

But people did live under something much closer to a capitalist system. And it was horrendous. And it caused communism to become more than a silly fringe idea from a few weirdoes.

What we have at the moment is a tentative balance incorporating parts of capitalism and parts of communism. Not one or the other because they're both utterly horrible in practice. It's the least bad solution anyone has been able to come up with, but it's unstable as the elite few strive for more power and the law lags behind advances in technology.

 

[Roar87]

But people did live under something much closer to a capitalist system. And it was horrendous. And it caused communism to become more than a silly fringe idea from a few weirdoes.

What we have at the moment is a tentative balance incorporating parts of capitalism and parts of communism. Not one or the other because they're both utterly horrible in practice. It's the least bad solution anyone has been able to come up with, but it's unstable as the elite few strive for more power and the law lags behind advances in technology.

Unstable compared to what? We're one of the most stable nations on Earth, at a time where human kind has seen the most stability ever, we're living in an era called the "Long Peace" where there hasn't been any major wars between great powers in 75 years. What more stability do you want? Just deal with the fact that not everyone can be Bill Gates and if you want more money then go out and earn it.

 

[McGraw]

Unstable compared to what? We're one of the most stable nations on Earth, at a time where human kind has seen the most stability ever, we're living in an era called the "Long Peace" where there hasn't been any major wars between great powers in 75 years. What more stability do you want? Just deal with the fact that not everyone can be Bill Gates and if you want more money then go out and earn it.

You saying more stability is impossible and not worth wishing for?

also how do you go out and earn more money?