You're Anti-Capitalist. But, What are you for?

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, "Tina" (Margaret Thatcher) famously said: «There is no alternative».

Taming the monster that is capitalism? Difficult. But between resignation and revolution, there is still room for ideas and models to break the omnipotence of capital.
It is probably impossible to break radically and completely with the system of capitalism. And convincing alternatives are not in sight.
No one wants to return to the times when monarchs were allowed to subjugate their people without restraint or when the socialist planned economy managed scarcity more badly than well.

But deep, longer-term reforms of a capitalist-driven global economy will certainly have to come if we are not to accept climate change, the end of the oil age and recurring financial crises without action.

The world is reaching its limits of growth, raw material reserves are running out. Resources such as soil and water reserves are being ruthlessly exploited. The supply of food is threatened and the gap between rich and poor is growing.
For all these problems, the capitalist system does not offer sustainable and convincing solutions.
Yet these are precisely what is urgently needed.

Good post, Walter. I hope the world catches on...and soon.

America, unfortunately, will not be in the van on that.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My position is that democracy with regulated capitalism is the best system as has been shown through history. I disagree with the predictions of doom and gloom. Abd I believe that regulated capitalism is the best way for us to continue to address humanities problems. This includes developing policies and technology to address Climate change.

I am still asking what the alternative would be that wouldn't make things significantly worse?

I dont think the facts support Walter's pessimism.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

A family now works longer hours in order to live decently than a family of the 1950's

Do you have any theory of why that is the case?

Quote:

More leisure for everyone is an absolute must at this time or we should acknowledge that we are not an intelligent species. A family now works longer hours in order to live decently than a family of the 1950's...which makes no sense at all. We have incorporated the equivalence of billions of slaves (machines and computers) into the work force. WE EACH SHOULD BE WORKING MUCH, MUCH LESS...and each have lots more leisure time...so we can spend more time with family, tend to the lawn and garden, write and read more, create more art and music, bring solace and comfort to disabled and elderly people...or to simply bend two oak toward each other by resting in a hammock strung between 'em.

1. I highlighted your use of the word "SHOULD"

2. By your use use of the word "SHOULD," are you implying that what should be happening
is in reality NOT happening?

2 Replies

@Real Music,

https://i.ibb.co/LPYCwV0/working-hours.png

https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours

1 Reply

Let's talk about history. This is a simplistic narrative, but I don't think anyone disagrees that capitalism spurred the industrial revolution and the resulting technical and social progress. We developed steam engines, then harnessed fossil fuels. We build an industrial base. We made rapid technological advances. We raised our productivity and our standard of living.

This is a simplified summary, but as the article that Hightor posted points out

Quote:

" It is important to understand that this drive for continued growth in capital and the constant push for profit is what has resulted in the innovation and technological advancements that define the modern world."

This progress brought us Covid-19 vaccines, and plastics, and agricultural technology and the internet. It had at least a part in women's rights (with the invention of the pill, sanitary napkins and the washing machine) and human rights (with the decline of poverty and the spread of medicine and family planning).

Yes this progress has also brought us a large jump in population, pollution, a dramatic rise in extinctions and climate change.

This thread is about alternatives. Without the capitalist drive for advancement and industrialization we would not have the resulting benefits. We wouldn't have international travel, or cell phones. We would continue to have high childhood mortality and much higher rate of water borne diseases?

Would anyone argue that the world be better if we hadn't had the rise of capitalism leading to the industrial revolution?

I would argue that even with our current challenges, we are much better off now to face them. We can now work to switch to renewable resources, and we still get things we consider important... like covid vaccines.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Quote:
A family now works longer hours in order to live decently than a family of the 1950's

Do you have any theory of why that is the case?

MY THEORY is that the natural consequence of unfettered capitalism leads invariably to this. More and more of the wealth available will go to the people who "capitalize" and LESS AND LESS AND LESS to the factor of production always least rewarded...labor.

Quote:

Quote:
More leisure for everyone is an absolute must at this time or we should acknowledge that we are not an intelligent species. A family now works longer hours in order to live decently than a family of the 1950's...which makes no sense at all. We have incorporated the equivalence of billions of slaves (machines and computers) into the work force. WE EACH SHOULD BE WORKING MUCH, MUCH LESS...and each have lots more leisure time...so we can spend more time with family, tend to the lawn and garden, write and read more, create more art and music, bring solace and comfort to disabled and elderly people...or to simply bend two oak toward each other by resting in a hammock strung between 'em.

1. I highlighted your use of the word "SHOULD"

2. By your use use of the word "SHOULD," are you implying that what should be happening
is in reality NOT happening?

Of course it does. That is my point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours

PER WORKER!

So if you have two people in a household working (something almost universal today and very infrequent back in the 1950's)...

...you end up as I said, with many more hours being worked now than during those days to meet the needs of the family.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thank you for your clarification.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This thread is about alternatives.

You keep saying this. But you never explain how these "alternatives" will be implemented. You seem to think that the institutions which currently wield power and influence will accept anything more than incremental tweaking of the current system. Do you think that nation states will agree to relinquish their sovereignty? Do you see corporations willingly foregoing the pursuit of profit? Can you envision an alternative to money? If your answer to these three questions is "no" then good luck with devising a universal, non-corporate, non-capitalist alternative system.

Quote:

Would anyone argue that the world be better if we hadn't had the rise of capitalism leading to the industrial revolution?

Why would anyone attempt to argue for something which is nothing more than a speculative, fictitious, flight of fancy? Sure, the capitalist inspired, greed-fueled industrial revolution might have been managed better but we live in the world as it is, not as it could have been. Since the major problems facing the world today have been directly or indirectly caused by the economic, environmental, and social effects of global industrialization, it's hard to see why the world wouldn't be better in some respects than it is today but there is simply no evidence available on which to build anything like an argument.

Quote:

I would argue that even with our current challenges, we are much better off now to face them.

Um...we wouldn't have experienced "a large jump in population, pollution, a dramatic rise in extinctions and climate change" if we hadn't had a global industrial revolution.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So the "problem" (if you want to call it that) is that women entered the workforce?

This seems like a silly argument (and I havent seen any data to back up your claim), but let's go with it.

The invention of household appliances (i.e. washing machines and vaccuum cleaners) significantly reduced the number of hours spent doing housework 100 years ago this work was primariy done by women and had real economic value. Shouldn't this count in a term called "hours worked per family"?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Hightor, let's be clear.

The large jump in population was primarily caused by a significant drop in childhood mortality. The there is no question, the reason population rapidly increased is because with capitalism, and progress, and the industrial revolution far fewer children died of disease and starvation than ever before.

Now we are solving this problem (without insisting the more children have to die). Our modern economy, aided by corporations, are providing birth control and schools and reducing poverty in poor countries. All of these things have been proven to lower the birth rate.

And our modern world has been successful in reducing birth rates significantly across the world. This is actually quite impressive if you think about it.

Just look at the progress we have made.

1) Before 1700, we had high birth rate and high childhood mortality (and the population was stable). I don't know if you think this is a good thing or not.

2) During the industrial revolution until about 1968 we had high birth rate and low childhood mortality. In my opinion this was progress, but it made the population surge we saw during this time

3) Now we are reaching the point where we have low birth rate and low childhood mortality this is where we need to be.

That is how progress works. Progress creates a problem, when you reach that point you can understand what needs to happen. Then you progress more past that problem.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Does anyone want to argue that we shouldn't have cut childhood mortality rate?

Without the progress we are talking about (i.e. industrially produced vaccines, advances in agriculture, medicine, water plants, plastic, sanitation) children would still be dying at historical rates.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Does anyone want to argue that we shouldn't have cut childhood mortality rate?

No one made a conscious effort to decrease the childhood mortality rate, it accompanied other changes effected by industrialization. I think it's inaccurate to make it seem like a singular accomplishment when it was really more of a by-product.

Quote:

Without the progress we are talking about (i.e. industrially produced vaccines, advances in agriculture, medicine, water plants, plastic, sanitation) children would still be dying at historical rates.

Not necessarily. Advances in agriculture, medicine, and sanitation can be accomplished without steam-powered industrialization and have been achieved in prior stages of human history. The dissemination of technical knowledge is a characteristic of civilization. The industrial revolution didn't institute progress, it just increased the rate of change. How many children survived their early years only to ruin their health or even lose their lives working 14 hour shifts in mines and textile mills?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

No one made a conscious effort to decrease the childhood mortality rate, it accompanied other changes effected by industrialization.

What???? You are talking nonsense, Hightor.

Have you heard of the "March of Dimes"? We developed medical care including incubators and childhood vaccines specifically to save the lives of children.

There has been a long-running, conscious effort to reduce childhood mortality that has been very successful.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There has been a long-running, conscious effort to reduce childhood mortality that has been very successful.

True: in the Middle Ages, infant mortality in Europe was much higher than it is today - more than half of the children did not reach the age of 14. Since the beginning of the Enlightenment, however, child mortality has fallen rapidly.

"March of Dimes" was founded 1938 as "National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis".
The "Age of Enlightenment" was period in European history from the late 17th to late the 18th century.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Hightor's claim is that no effort was made "to reduce the childhood mortality rate". That is clearly false... even in the Middle Ages there were efforts to create orphanages and the development of midwifery. I would argue that the continual effort to improve agricultural technology and reduce famine was also directed on ensuring that children had enough to eat.

In the 1800's (during the industrial revolution) we created incubators (machines specifically designed to keep sick children alive). In the 1900's was the development of antibiotics and vaccines.

Hightor's claim that no one made an effort to reduce childhood mortality is patently false.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What???? You are talking nonsense, Hightor.

I was talking about the dawn of the industrial age, when larger numbers of children began to survive their early years, mostly because of increased agricultural production. Sorry if that wasn't made clear but I assumed you were talking about the historical context, the years when European population began its steady increase. I don't believe widespread invention and distribution of vaccines happened until the late 18th century (although there were related inoculation practices extending back to the Chinese ca. 1000 CE). And I don't believe there was a conscious effort to prevent childhood disease specifically until the mid nineteenth century.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Hightor's claim that no one made an effort to reduce childhood mortality is patently false.

Look, instead of just assuming that I never heard of the March of ******* Dimes or any modern efforts to cure childhood diseases why not simply ask me to clarify a statement if you find it questionable. I don't consider orphanages and midwifery (which have a long history in various cultures) to be comparable to mass vaccination of children to prevent common diseases which afflict young an old alike.

0 Replies

Parents have always wanted to keep their kids alive. In a capitalist system

1) Parents spend money to buy food for their children. This creates a market for more abundant and affordable food which leads to improvements in agricultural technology. This isn't just theory, it is what actually happened.

2) Parents spend money to buy medicine when their kids are sick. In the early 1800s there were local businesses producing tinctures and remedies. This was a disaster. The medicines produced by small local businesses were largely ineffective and often dangerous.

3) Corporations started to produce and test medicines and medical technology that actually worked. They did this, because it was a good way for them to make lots of money. We got incubators and small pox vaccines in the mid-1800s. The end products were produced by capitalist entrepreneurs... an early industrial producer of small pox vaccine was HM Alexander's vaccine farm. This became part of Wyeth pharmaceuticals (a corporation that still exists).

4) Now we are all getting our state of the art Covid shots produced by Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson or AstroZeneca at the local CVS or Walgreens pharmacy.

Capitalism has provided the medical advances that we now take for granted. This happen because every parent is willing to spend their hard earned money to ensure that their children are healthy and well fed.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Did you ever consider to write an alternative Handbook of the History of Medicine, max?

1 Reply

You're Anti-Capitalist. But, What are you for?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know