I think it's a problem of scale, for one. As history has more than proved, once a system gets too big the distinctions between capitalism and socialism disappear and the idealistic impulses that initiated them are perverted. That's probably why I prefer some form of distributism: it has "not getting too big" built into it. But we don't have that in the US and nobody else does either.
It was easy for Pete Seeger or even Dorothy Day to play communist. In a more or less democratic society, no one will stop them, if that's what they want to promote. But neither of them moved to a communist/socialist country--and for a reason.
So, since we live in a less than perfect society in a less than perfect world, I would choose to live in a capitalist society over a socialist (and I'm not talking about the ideal, but how they actually work in the world). As I mentioned before, you don't see the Amish--the most Christian anarchist players out there--fleeing to socialist or communist countries. And for a reason. They even voted for Trump rather than live out the demonic socialist nightmare the Democrats were and are promoting--and the Amish NEVER vote.
I agree that scale is a huge part of the problem. Also that Distributism is probably the most appealing vision, but thus far (I think) lacks much of an account about how to transform a capitalist economy into a distributist one.
I don't think it was easy for either Pete or Dorothy to 'play' communist: Dorothy was jailed multiple times (locking up Servants of God has to be almost as bad as attacking farmers or Amish folks-- who have also been jailed in waves in American 'democratic' history for their pacifism) and Pete was blacklisted and prosecuted by the federal government for over a decade (so much for supposedly 'democratic'). I don't see anything in our moral or political commitments that would entail moving to some other country: we should be moral where we are placed. I think anything good about how Capitalism works in the world is almost entirely due to people resisting and fighting against it for almost 200 years (worker safety provisions, child labor laws, minimum wage, the right to collectively bargain, the 40 hour week, etc... etc... all these were won, not given). If you want to see what Capitalism does in a pure form, you have to look at how it was before working people won any concessions for themselves (or to where they have not yet made many gains; ie those places the corporations in alliance with our national governments moved the jobs to during de-industrialization).
At the end of the day, there is nothing in the structure of Capitalism that directs production to meet need. It is not centered on human flourishing (why the natural law tradition back to the Greeks and especially the medieval folks have consistently opposed usury, greed, etc... not that capitalism existed during those times, but the critiques still apply now that it does).
And I see very little 'socialist' about the current Democrats (and the ones who call themselves 'socialist' are pretty repugnant): I think we agreed they abandoned the working class long ago, at least back to Clinton and the eventual removal of all union leaders from their Board of Directors.
Marx sure would. To be honest, I think there is a legit critique of the Marxist tradition, and probably touching on himself (to show I’m not uncritical of the tradition). The German Critical Theory folks got disgruntled with the working class for not carrying out the revolution and decided women, racial minorities, and other marginalized people might become the agents of revolution and changed the focus. You might let Marx himself off the hook on that, but I think Marx did not really understand the working class fully and that was due to limitations of his theory itself (ie, this is a hard critique of Marx). His materialism and overly deterministic understanding of history got in his way.
Michael, thank you for the nice back-and-forth today (and in the discussions leading up to today). Social media is not conducive to that, not even Substack really, -- it 'rewards' snarkiness, trolling, and shitposting.
The point being exactly that (in my plebeian understanding), Hegel was the philosopher... Marx was the intellectual... and Lenin... we all know a politician when we hear one... ;)
On a broader note... one can argue about specifics until the proverbial cows come home... but the overriding root problem with "Socialism" as it's portrayed and understood in the modern vernacular, and as it exists in political reality, is a problem of scale... together with, of course, the inescapable factor of human greed.
"If AI integrated robotics actually displace the large majority of human workers (as Elon Musk and an array of other tech moguls say it will) we will be in a position we have never been in before:"
My bet is that any advancements in robotics and AI will just be machines, that do what machines have always done, act as a force multiplier for human labor, ultimately, in terms of production anyway, making human labor more valuable not less.
I think the tech moguls promote the idea of robotics and AI replacing human labor because it's what they want to be the case, it's what they want their investors to think is the case, and it's what they want the public to think.
That last one might be nefarious. If they can get the public to think that this is the case they could use it as cover for devaluing labor, and cutting wages, through whatever means, maybe the usual offshoring, or importing cheap labor, or maybe they have something new up their sleeve, but whatever the case this supposed replacing of human labor by robotics and AI, would make a good cover story.
Great breakdown of how different economic frameworks handle the person-centered versus commodity-centered tension. The subsidiarity principle you pull from CST is the key move here because it dodges both teh leviathan state and the unchecked market consolidation problem. I'veconsistently seen bottom-up socialist experiments struggle once they hit like 150 people though, probably that Dunbar number effect. Distributism captures something right about property being widespread enough to create genuine autonomy without collapsing into corporatism's negotiated oligarchy.
As a final comment, I want to go on record saying that "we can't survive without government" is like saying that "animals can't survive without farms".
> In this regard, and possibly no other, we are equal.
You know I'm all for this!
> This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of multinational corporations, international banking, national governments and international NGOs is what I mean when I speak of ‘capitalism.’
If you'll forgive me, I immediately pictured the meme of the children's book cover with the kid sledding down a hill and the title, "Everything I Don't Like Is [whatever the bogeyman term of the moment is]" . . . Everything I Don't Like Is Racism! Everything I Don't Like Is Antisemitism! Everything I Don't Like Is Socialism! Everything I Don't Like Is Fascism! Everything I Don't Like Is Nazism! Everything I Don't Like Is Marxism! . . . and now, Everything I Don't Like Is Capitalism! 😅
> “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (which is modelled on Jesus’ descriptions of the Kingdom of God, especially in Matthew 25
This isn't the first time I've "Matthew 25" used to justify something that looks close to Marxism. It's common to cite verse 31-46 and read into them some sort of Marxist ideal. But Matthew 25 is a long chapter. I wonder how many people would be surprised to realize the first description of the Kingdom of God/heaven in Matthew 25 ("The Parable of the Ten Virgins," verses 1-13) explicitly shows winners and losers, and the winners *withholding* from the losers. That's followed by arguably the greatest parable on the differences between people and the praiseworthiness of *unequal* achievement and competition ("The Parable of the Talents," verses 14-30). And even the final portion of the chapter doesn't really support the Marxist notion; it reinforces the belief that each person is made in the image of God, which can be expressed without resorting to anything resembling Marxism.
> Distributism (or Jeffersonianism or republicanism) is an appealing option.
Distributism seems to be what is arrived at when people undermine government and uphold natural human rights. It looks a lot like grassroots capitalism without the corruption and centralizing drives of a monopoly-violence institution (government).
Like Michael wrote several hours before me in another comment, it's a problem of scale. Everything is terrible when it's scalability results from monopoly-violence institutions imposing upon / coercing everyone in a given territory.
And before anyone else posts it in reply, I'll gladly admit to it: Everything I Don't Like Is Government! 😎
Dom, I guessing we agree at least 99% on how we ought to treat one another, AND on the reasons for that. Just maybe not on the structures that support that.
>> This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of multinational corporations, international banking, national governments and international NGOs is what I mean when I speak of ‘capitalism.’
>If you'll forgive me,
No.
>I immediately pictured the meme of the children's book cover with the kid sledding down a hill and the title, "Everything I Don't Like Is [whatever the bogeyman term of the moment is]" . . . Everything I Don't Like Is Racism! Everything I Don't Like Is Antisemitism! Everything I Don't Like Is Socialism! Everything I Don't Like Is Fascism! Everything I Don't Like Is Nazism! Everything I Don't Like Is Marxism! . . . and now, Everything I Don't Like Is Capitalism! 😅
Wow. Your feeling is not an argument. Let's break down this emotional reasoning with some other qualitative information.
>>This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of:
multinational corporations = all of them
international banking = World Bank, IMF, whatever their new bullshit branding is, so I've heard, and all of the evil banks that deal with them
national governments = corrupt throughout the world, accepting cash so their citizens can die
international NGOs = complicit in the fake redistribution of welfare and domination
Everything I don't like IS capitalism. I HATE capitalism. Capitalism is the scourge of existence. I will die fighting capitalism (but I won't have to, cause nobody else really forreal forreal likes it either). I am on Substack to fight capitalism and save people like myself from killing themselves because they hated their lives under capitalism and its masters. Capitalism must be destroyed, and I will not tolerate disrespect to the human spirit suggesting it should live.
I love my feelings and myself. Capitalism is unlove and unself. We cannot be mortal enemies because we are one. Non-duality. We are all connected. This is where capitalist epistemology cannot account for our withness.
Oh, let’s not be (mortal enemies). I know both of you, though you don’t know each other. Let’s be mortal enemies together against something that isn’t a name we’re disagreeing on.
Aristotle and anyone else and anything else have nothing to do with it.
"So, there is no ‘system’ or ‘ideology’ that I see as the ‘magic bullet’ to create a human, flourishing-directed, egalitarian economy."
Exactly. Hence, the solution is no system and no ideology and--magic bullet? (or non-obvious key)--no "economy".
There's another word that sums it all up. (It takes a book to contextualize and convey, so…)
Looking to (certain well known, mostly male, mostly European, etc.) individuals' (limited, flawed, biased, archaic) reasoning (or self-justifications and rationalizations?) rather than directly reasoning through the problem (or asking someone not of that 'economic thinker' group or of the few remaining not--yet--'captured' by "the global economy"?) is apparently a significant aspect of how it has persisted for so long.
That noted, it was more an instantaneous realization of the reality than a long thought process. (That followed, to determine the validity.)
Honored by the mention!
I think it's a problem of scale, for one. As history has more than proved, once a system gets too big the distinctions between capitalism and socialism disappear and the idealistic impulses that initiated them are perverted. That's probably why I prefer some form of distributism: it has "not getting too big" built into it. But we don't have that in the US and nobody else does either.
It was easy for Pete Seeger or even Dorothy Day to play communist. In a more or less democratic society, no one will stop them, if that's what they want to promote. But neither of them moved to a communist/socialist country--and for a reason.
So, since we live in a less than perfect society in a less than perfect world, I would choose to live in a capitalist society over a socialist (and I'm not talking about the ideal, but how they actually work in the world). As I mentioned before, you don't see the Amish--the most Christian anarchist players out there--fleeing to socialist or communist countries. And for a reason. They even voted for Trump rather than live out the demonic socialist nightmare the Democrats were and are promoting--and the Amish NEVER vote.
I agree that scale is a huge part of the problem. Also that Distributism is probably the most appealing vision, but thus far (I think) lacks much of an account about how to transform a capitalist economy into a distributist one.
I don't think it was easy for either Pete or Dorothy to 'play' communist: Dorothy was jailed multiple times (locking up Servants of God has to be almost as bad as attacking farmers or Amish folks-- who have also been jailed in waves in American 'democratic' history for their pacifism) and Pete was blacklisted and prosecuted by the federal government for over a decade (so much for supposedly 'democratic'). I don't see anything in our moral or political commitments that would entail moving to some other country: we should be moral where we are placed. I think anything good about how Capitalism works in the world is almost entirely due to people resisting and fighting against it for almost 200 years (worker safety provisions, child labor laws, minimum wage, the right to collectively bargain, the 40 hour week, etc... etc... all these were won, not given). If you want to see what Capitalism does in a pure form, you have to look at how it was before working people won any concessions for themselves (or to where they have not yet made many gains; ie those places the corporations in alliance with our national governments moved the jobs to during de-industrialization).
At the end of the day, there is nothing in the structure of Capitalism that directs production to meet need. It is not centered on human flourishing (why the natural law tradition back to the Greeks and especially the medieval folks have consistently opposed usury, greed, etc... not that capitalism existed during those times, but the critiques still apply now that it does).
And I see very little 'socialist' about the current Democrats (and the ones who call themselves 'socialist' are pretty repugnant): I think we agreed they abandoned the working class long ago, at least back to Clinton and the eventual removal of all union leaders from their Board of Directors.
I shouldn't have called the Dems "socialists." They're cultural Marxists--which even Marx would find bewildering, methinks.
Marx sure would. To be honest, I think there is a legit critique of the Marxist tradition, and probably touching on himself (to show I’m not uncritical of the tradition). The German Critical Theory folks got disgruntled with the working class for not carrying out the revolution and decided women, racial minorities, and other marginalized people might become the agents of revolution and changed the focus. You might let Marx himself off the hook on that, but I think Marx did not really understand the working class fully and that was due to limitations of his theory itself (ie, this is a hard critique of Marx). His materialism and overly deterministic understanding of history got in his way.
that entire generation was ruined by Hegel
Michael, thank you for the nice back-and-forth today (and in the discussions leading up to today). Social media is not conducive to that, not even Substack really, -- it 'rewards' snarkiness, trolling, and shitposting.
The point being exactly that (in my plebeian understanding), Hegel was the philosopher... Marx was the intellectual... and Lenin... we all know a politician when we hear one... ;)
On a broader note... one can argue about specifics until the proverbial cows come home... but the overriding root problem with "Socialism" as it's portrayed and understood in the modern vernacular, and as it exists in political reality, is a problem of scale... together with, of course, the inescapable factor of human greed.
"If AI integrated robotics actually displace the large majority of human workers (as Elon Musk and an array of other tech moguls say it will) we will be in a position we have never been in before:"
My bet is that any advancements in robotics and AI will just be machines, that do what machines have always done, act as a force multiplier for human labor, ultimately, in terms of production anyway, making human labor more valuable not less.
I think the tech moguls promote the idea of robotics and AI replacing human labor because it's what they want to be the case, it's what they want their investors to think is the case, and it's what they want the public to think.
That last one might be nefarious. If they can get the public to think that this is the case they could use it as cover for devaluing labor, and cutting wages, through whatever means, maybe the usual offshoring, or importing cheap labor, or maybe they have something new up their sleeve, but whatever the case this supposed replacing of human labor by robotics and AI, would make a good cover story.
Great breakdown of how different economic frameworks handle the person-centered versus commodity-centered tension. The subsidiarity principle you pull from CST is the key move here because it dodges both teh leviathan state and the unchecked market consolidation problem. I'veconsistently seen bottom-up socialist experiments struggle once they hit like 150 people though, probably that Dunbar number effect. Distributism captures something right about property being widespread enough to create genuine autonomy without collapsing into corporatism's negotiated oligarchy.
Nice summary Neural!
As a final comment, I want to go on record saying that "we can't survive without government" is like saying that "animals can't survive without farms".
Well-presented piece, very understandable.
> In this regard, and possibly no other, we are equal.
You know I'm all for this!
> This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of multinational corporations, international banking, national governments and international NGOs is what I mean when I speak of ‘capitalism.’
If you'll forgive me, I immediately pictured the meme of the children's book cover with the kid sledding down a hill and the title, "Everything I Don't Like Is [whatever the bogeyman term of the moment is]" . . . Everything I Don't Like Is Racism! Everything I Don't Like Is Antisemitism! Everything I Don't Like Is Socialism! Everything I Don't Like Is Fascism! Everything I Don't Like Is Nazism! Everything I Don't Like Is Marxism! . . . and now, Everything I Don't Like Is Capitalism! 😅
> “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (which is modelled on Jesus’ descriptions of the Kingdom of God, especially in Matthew 25
This isn't the first time I've "Matthew 25" used to justify something that looks close to Marxism. It's common to cite verse 31-46 and read into them some sort of Marxist ideal. But Matthew 25 is a long chapter. I wonder how many people would be surprised to realize the first description of the Kingdom of God/heaven in Matthew 25 ("The Parable of the Ten Virgins," verses 1-13) explicitly shows winners and losers, and the winners *withholding* from the losers. That's followed by arguably the greatest parable on the differences between people and the praiseworthiness of *unequal* achievement and competition ("The Parable of the Talents," verses 14-30). And even the final portion of the chapter doesn't really support the Marxist notion; it reinforces the belief that each person is made in the image of God, which can be expressed without resorting to anything resembling Marxism.
> Distributism (or Jeffersonianism or republicanism) is an appealing option.
Distributism seems to be what is arrived at when people undermine government and uphold natural human rights. It looks a lot like grassroots capitalism without the corruption and centralizing drives of a monopoly-violence institution (government).
Like Michael wrote several hours before me in another comment, it's a problem of scale. Everything is terrible when it's scalability results from monopoly-violence institutions imposing upon / coercing everyone in a given territory.
And before anyone else posts it in reply, I'll gladly admit to it: Everything I Don't Like Is Government! 😎
Dom, I guessing we agree at least 99% on how we ought to treat one another, AND on the reasons for that. Just maybe not on the structures that support that.
>> This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of multinational corporations, international banking, national governments and international NGOs is what I mean when I speak of ‘capitalism.’
>If you'll forgive me,
No.
>I immediately pictured the meme of the children's book cover with the kid sledding down a hill and the title, "Everything I Don't Like Is [whatever the bogeyman term of the moment is]" . . . Everything I Don't Like Is Racism! Everything I Don't Like Is Antisemitism! Everything I Don't Like Is Socialism! Everything I Don't Like Is Fascism! Everything I Don't Like Is Nazism! Everything I Don't Like Is Marxism! . . . and now, Everything I Don't Like Is Capitalism! 😅
Wow. Your feeling is not an argument. Let's break down this emotional reasoning with some other qualitative information.
>>This economic system, later developed through a period of imperialism and now operating on a global scale under the domination of:
multinational corporations = all of them
international banking = World Bank, IMF, whatever their new bullshit branding is, so I've heard, and all of the evil banks that deal with them
national governments = corrupt throughout the world, accepting cash so their citizens can die
international NGOs = complicit in the fake redistribution of welfare and domination
Everything I don't like IS capitalism. I HATE capitalism. Capitalism is the scourge of existence. I will die fighting capitalism (but I won't have to, cause nobody else really forreal forreal likes it either). I am on Substack to fight capitalism and save people like myself from killing themselves because they hated their lives under capitalism and its masters. Capitalism must be destroyed, and I will not tolerate disrespect to the human spirit suggesting it should live.
> Your feeling is not an argument. . . . Everything I don't like IS capitalism. I HATE capitalism. Capitalism is the scourge of existence.
You're entire response is feelings, which you're entitled to, but still, it's feelings 🤷
> I will die fighting capitalism (but I won't have to, cause nobody else really forreal forreal likes it either).
I like capitalism, because I know what it is: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/capital-offenses
Looks like we're mortal enemies 😉 🤣
I love my feelings and myself. Capitalism is unlove and unself. We cannot be mortal enemies because we are one. Non-duality. We are all connected. This is where capitalist epistemology cannot account for our withness.
Ok, you two are the only two people I know who like professional wrestling. Cage match.
Dog collar. 1983. Greg Valentine vs Roddy Piper (of THEY LIVE fame). Legendary bloody match. I will blade brüther.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7z27ty
Oh, let’s not be (mortal enemies). I know both of you, though you don’t know each other. Let’s be mortal enemies together against something that isn’t a name we’re disagreeing on.
"I’m for human flourishing for everyone…."
Period. Likewise.
Aristotle and anyone else and anything else have nothing to do with it.
"So, there is no ‘system’ or ‘ideology’ that I see as the ‘magic bullet’ to create a human, flourishing-directed, egalitarian economy."
Exactly. Hence, the solution is no system and no ideology and--magic bullet? (or non-obvious key)--no "economy".
There's another word that sums it all up. (It takes a book to contextualize and convey, so…)
Looking to (certain well known, mostly male, mostly European, etc.) individuals' (limited, flawed, biased, archaic) reasoning (or self-justifications and rationalizations?) rather than directly reasoning through the problem (or asking someone not of that 'economic thinker' group or of the few remaining not--yet--'captured' by "the global economy"?) is apparently a significant aspect of how it has persisted for so long.
That noted, it was more an instantaneous realization of the reality than a long thought process. (That followed, to determine the validity.)