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

@Walter Hinteler,

Generally speaking, what you call the success of capitalism is called the 'saddle period' among scholars - the term used e.g. to describe a transitional period between the Early Modern and the Modern Period. ('Saddle' [meaning a mountain saddle] stands metaphorically for a gradual transition.)

What are actually your parameters for the historical comparisons that lead to your expertise that everything is a success of capitalism?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

What are you asking, Walter?

Many discoveries of modern medicine were created by capitalist corporations. All most all parts of modern medicine, from masks to MRIs are designed, manufactured and distributed by capitalist corporations.

You haven't actually disagreed with any of the points I have made. Do you have a point?

(Edit: Do you have a link, preferably in English, for "Saddle Period"? I googled it an couldn't find anything other than a few obscure links in German.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Medicine is just one field that had incredible progress since the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution we still had pandemics... but we didn't have vaccines.

There are lots of other fields that have been based on corporate capitalism that have seen great advancements. The internet for example... and cell phones, and air travel and affordable automobiles.

I suppose humanity could live without these things. But would anyone want to? I appreciate my Covid-19 vaccine.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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

No...and that is a very twisted rendering of what I have written. I'm hoping we are discussing this while you are sober and not under the influence of drugs.

Quote:

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

I not only agree that it is silly...I cannot help but wonder why you decided to invent it.

Quote:

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"?

If you want...but what does that have to do with what was being discussed?

In response to several people suggesting we are all working more now to maintain a home than we did in 1950...you put up a chart showing that INDIVIDUAL annual work hours have decreased a bit. But now there are two people contributing to the number of hours that must be worked to maintain a home.

If you think that is not the case, you are being disingenuous. In the 1950's, there was most often just one wage earner (usually the father)...who worked about 40 hours per week to earn enough to support a family. Food, clothing, education, shelter, insurance, health maintenance, and vacations were all seen to...and the family was able to save some money for retirement.

C'mon. That stuff is barely met with both the mother and father working today.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

(Edit: Do you have a link, preferably in English, for "Saddle Period"? I googled it an couldn't find anything other than a few obscure links in German.)

It actually a German term ("Sattelzeit") used by German historians.
The term was first used by Reinhart Koselleck.

In addition to and as an extension of Koselleck's conceptual history, other processes of change are regarded in historical research as characteristic of the saddle period, which results in the proximity to assumptions based on modernisation theory:
• demographic change,
• social change from a class society to a bourgeois society,
• transport revolution through new means of transport (e.g. railways, steamships),
• the beginning of industrialisation,
• the emergence of new forms of culture and consumption.

I don't think that you want to spend $144.99 for an e-book in German Wink

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

There is a bunch of bitching about capitalism. That is what inspired me to post this thread asking for a productive alternative to capitalism .

You, Frank, are the only person with anything productive to say on the topic, and I responded positively to your proposal. I even accepted your correction of my use of the term "hard work".

This tangent about how much people work is just more bitching. I disagree with you on your claim that families are working more hours. But is is off topic...it is just more complaining about how things are.

I am asking for a discussion on what would be better.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is a bunch of bitching about capitalism. That is what inspired me to post this thread asking for a productive alternative to capitalism .

You, Frank, are the only person with anything productive to say on the topic, and I responded positively to your proposal. I even accepted your correction of my use of the term "hard work".

This tangent about how much people work is just more bitching. I disagree with you on your claim that families are working more hours. But is is off topic...it is just more complaining about how things are.

I am asking for a discussion on what would be better.

If you think people are not working more now to keep a family intact, you just have not been following things.

Anyway...I AM A CAPITALIST. I mentioned that fairly early. I will probably always be a capitalist.

So...I think capitalism is good. I also think personal freedom is good.

But if personal freedom gets to the point where a person can drive a car at any speed he/she wants...and to ignore traffic signals...and to put nuclear reactors in family neighborhoods...and to take a dump in the street if the need arises...and...well, you get the picture. Personal freedom it very good...but it can get out of hand. And concessions to the greater good have to be made.

So too with capitalism.

The American version has become an abomination, in my opinion. And, taken to its logical conclusion, most capitalistic systems will eventually end up where ours is right now...and head to where ours is headed.

I would like to see EVERYONE have sufficient...and then allow the machinations of the capitalistic system to deal with the distribution of everything else.

BUT FIRST EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT.

And "sufficient" should be a hell of a lot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am promoting regulated capitalism, a free market limited by government enforced social policy.

It sounds like you agree with me on the main point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am promoting regulated capitalism, a free market limited by government enforced social policy.

It sounds like you agree with me on the main point.

If you are doing what you say you are doing here...

...we are in agreement.

I most assuredly am not anti-capitalism...

...but I sure as hell am anti-American capitalism as currently in force.

AND I MEAN THAT EMPHASIZED IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND BOLDED.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So if I understand you correctly...

1) Your main problem with what you are calling "American Capitalism" is that there are people who don't have "sufficient".

2) The solution you have offered is something like what we have now... but with a Guaranteed Minimum Income.

Is that right? (I realize I might have overstated #2, but I will let you correct me.) I want to understand your position exactly

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

So if I understand you correctly...

1) Your main problem with what you are calling "American Capitalism" is that there are people who don't have "sufficient".

2) The solution you have offered is something like what we have now... but with a Guaranteed Minimum Income.

Is that right? (I realize I might have overstated #2, but I will let you correct me.) I want to understand your position exactly

I've pretty much stated my stance on this issue rather clearly already, Max, but allow me to do it again.

First, a predicate: We have or can easily and reasonably have MORE than enough of all the vitals of life for every person living in this country. We have MORE than enough food, more than enough clothing, more than enough educational facilities, more than enough means of transportation, more than enough places of shelter, more than enough means of communication; more than enough availability of medical necessities; more than enough OF EVERYTHING needed for EVERYONE to live a bare essential existence...AND GODDAM NEAR MORE THAN ENOUGH OF EVERYTHING NEEDED FOR EVERYONE TO LIVE AN ENJOYABLE EXISTENCE. One filled with many of the amenities of life.

TV's are in abundance, computers are in abundance, books are in abundance, movies are in abundance, writing utensils are in abundance, artistic/creative necessities are in abundance. hammocks are in abundance. And such that they are not totally enough...can easily and reasonably be obtained.

EVERYONE should be assured of an existence which includes the necessities of a bare essential existence...and a modicum of those things that make life much more enjoyable.

Once that is in place...capitalism can be the vehicle for how the rest is divided up.

I might note that if you want your garbage picked up...or your lawn mowed for you...or your sidewalks shoveled...or such...

...the people doing that would probably only do it if they were rewarded VERY , VERY, VERY WELL. That would help make capitalism work for the little guy as well as the honchos.

How we get that "sufficient" to the masses...could be via a a minimum guaranteed income...or it could be something I am not smart enough to envision.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There is a bunch of bitching about capitalism.

There's a difference between posting critical observations and "bitching about" something. maxdancona likes to set up responses which contain a low-grade insult; it's a variation on the "Are you still beating your wife" tactic, a cheap rhetorical trick. Notice, he doesn't post any examples of this "bitching about", he doesn't show why they're examples of "bitching about" as opposed to "denouncing", "attacking", or "assailing" negative aspects of the prevailing economic system — he's too busy bitching about posts which don't conform to his high standards!

Quote:

That is what inspired me to post this thread asking for a productive alternative to capitalism .

Is the choice really binary? Why replace what you can regulate and repair? As I've said, the world we now inhabit was made by capitalism. Any economic system which succeeds what we have in place now will be a further development of capitalism. No party, no politician, no electorate has shown an interest in replacing the nation state or doing away with money and as long as we have independent sovereign nations and state-supported currencies we'll have some form of capitalism.

How does anyone believe an "alternative to capitalism" might be achieved? There are powerful interests supporting the current system. Are people counting on a political revolution or something? It all seems pretty farfetched.

Quote:

I am asking for a discussion on what would be better.

Incorporating circular economics would be better. Had a circular economy been practiced since the dawn of industrialization we wouldn't be in the fix we are now. It was a massive oversight, typical of the capitalist mentality based on quick profits and the cult of "progress".

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

No, this happened because the prevailing economic system requires a steady supply of labor and doesn't want profits to dip because communicable diseases are shutting down farm fields and factory floors. Once the owning class figured this out it was instrumental in the promotion of mass vaccination. Obviously it made sense to inoculate the population at the youngest age possible as children are more compliant and more easily corralled in an institutional setting. Vaccination also results in fewer missed days in the classroom.

Quote:

... to ensure that their children are healthy and well fed.

Yeah, sure. The current obesity rate of USAmerican children is 20%. But hey, there are all those soft drink, candy, and sweetened breakfast cereal manufacturers to think about!

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.quotesgram.com%2Fsmall%2F67%2F97%2F140233408-American-Obesity-Rates-07.gif&f=1&nofb=1

0 Replies

Summary of the Thread I have read through all of the comments, and I see one and a half constructive responses to the question I posed.

1) Frank suggested our current capitalist system with a Guaranteed Minimum Income.

2) Hightor suggested a "circular economy". I count this as "half" because there is not indication on how this would be implemented as an economic system or how it would even be defined.

I don't see anyone arguing that even if we could go back and time and stop the industrial revolution, that there could have been something better.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I see one and a half constructive responses to the question I posed.

Will they get little toys as prizes?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I do have this little red ribbon to give out. Right now, Frank deserves it. There is still time, Walter.

We have lots of griping on Able2know about how horribly bad things are. We have very little acceptance that many things are actually quite good. And there is a deathly fear of admitting the progress we have made on many issues as a species or as individual nations (I am American, but you can fill in your own nation unless you are British).

And we have almost no practical suggestions how how to make things better.

That is my point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I count this as "half" because there is not indication on how this would be implemented as an economic system or how it would even be defined.

Yes, researching a term which I've used several times in other discussions would hardly be expected. And as far as implementation goes, in our society, something only needs to be made profitable.

Quote:

I don't see anyone arguing that even if we could go back and time and stop the industrial revolution, that there could have been something better.

There's your binary thinking coming into play again. There was no need to prevent industrialization. It's not a case of industrialization vs suffering, starvation, and slavery. All that would have been required to head off the worst of what industrialism has given us today would have been simple notions like sustainability, conservation, end user responsibility, recycling, and, perhaps most importantly, long range planning – thinking a few generations forward. Interestingly, some of the native inhabitants of Indonesia, the Amazon, and North America had philosophies which touched on several of these ideas, but they never made it into the city/state culture which followed the agricultural revolution in the Fertile Crescent. No, if it were possible to set a different course at the dawn of the Steam Age, one that showed some actual concern with the waste stream, I believe a society could have developed many of the positive things we know today, without facing mass extinctions, melting ice caps, extreme weather events, and air and water pollution. It would, however, have needed a cultural context which was lacking in Judeo-Christianized Europe.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I believe a society could have developed many of the positive things we know today, without facing mass extinctions, melting ice caps, extreme weather events, and air and water pollution. It would, however, have needed a cultural context which was lacking in Judeo-Christianized Europe.

The topic of this thread (which you aren't answering) is 'how'? How do you develop a covid-19 vaccine program without first developing plastic, and international trade, and cheap energy?

I want to point out your mythologizing of indigenous cultures. I don't think that modern White views overlaid on some idealized version of indigenous history are helpful. But that isn't relevant.

Ok... so some unknown culture has a primarily agrarian society. They have developed a scientific capability that will allow them to make technological improvements using fossil fuels for cheap energy. They realize that doing so will improve their quality of life (including decreasing hunger, extending life spends, increasing productivity and lowering child mortality).

What would you have them do?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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

1. I am replying to the above title of your thread.

2. I am not against Capitalism.

3. But, I do have some issues with unfettered out of control Capitalism.

4. I am not against the existence of corporations.

5. But, I am against many actions taken by corporations.

6. I am pro-Union for workers.

7. I am pro-collective bargaining for workers.

8. I am pro-consumer rights.

8. I am pro-preservation of Nature.

9. I am pro-worker safety.

10. I am pro-consumer safety.

11. I am pro-public safety.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

How do you develop a covid-19 vaccine program without first developing plastic, and international trade, and cheap energy?

You're simply simply taking events which happen in the world we know and assuming that everything will be the same in some fictitious world of our imagination. It's very possible that a civilization could have developed where trafficking wildlife was not practiced and zoonotic diseases weren't introduced into the human population. Covid-19 is only a problem if it emerges in a pandemic. It's believed that HIV-AIDS may have existed in Africa for decades before it began to spread internationally, aided by the transportation network used by forest dwellers seeking work in the cities and used by timber and mining companies to exploit the resources of the forest.

Quote:

I want to point out your mythologizing of indigenous cultures.

Sure you do because that's an important component of your "ideological narrative©", that indigenous cultures are inferior and any suggestion that some of their beliefs might have contemporary relevance is "mythologizing" them. I brought up those beliefs simply to show that awareness of the need for ecological balance isn't completely alien to the human imagination. I'm not claiming that it was the golden age.

Quote:

They realize that doing so will improve their quality of life (including decreasing hunger, extending life spends, increasing productivity and lowering child mortality). What would you have them do?

I already answered this question. They would consider sustainability, conservation, end user responsibility, recycling, long-range planning, and the waste stream. Maybe someone would point out that, if more children survived childhood, more food and fuel and shelter would be required, so if the culture planned to reduce infant mortality it should aim to reduce the size of families as well or it would outgrow its available resources. Again, you're simply making up a society and assuming that they wouldn't be satisfied with what they had. Someone else could just as easily imagine a society where people were content with their social and economic system. Your imagination is limited by your anthropocentric, capitalist, Judeo-Christian mindset.

0 Replies

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know