Alternatives to Capitalism

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

I have very little trust in theoretical political systems created by armchair intellectuals with no actual experience in real government.

They fabricate highly unnatural (which, as used here, means "do not correspond with human nature"), fanciful, idealistic, and baroque systems that only work in the lala land of words on paper.

The basic systems (and don't get lost in terminology here) are A) rule by one with power, B) limited rule by one with multiple powers, C) leadership by one with multiple powerful rulers, D) shared leadership with multiple powerful rulers.

These exist, and every theoretic system will revert to one of these, because they are natural (which, as used here, means "correspond with human nature"), having evolved along with human societies.

[thalassa]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

The thing is, all of these systems are "unnatural" (and by unnatural, I mean that they are created as a consequence of cultural evolution that has far surpassed our biological evolution). A hunter-gatherer, small group, nomadic, egalitarian society is likely our "natural" state--if you want to know what the "natural state" of human socio-economics are, look no further than the lifestyles of the so-called San/Bushmen peoples--the ǃKung, ǀXam, ǂKhomani, Nusan (Nǀu), Khwe, Naro, Haiǁom, Tsoa, Auen, Kua, Gǀui and Gǁana (like most peoples, they prefer their group names to the names given to them)...about 50-60 years ago before they were largely "encouraged" (forced) to "modernize" and take up farming. These peoples are the decedents of the *ultimate* ancestors of *all* of us and seem to have lived a life fairly unchanged, until the past 100 years..

[TxanGoddess]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

Well both of you prior posters bring up a question that is highly pertinent to this discussion, which is , how fixed it human nature really? We are learning so much about how negativity can shape the human mind ... apparently there is even new data suggesting that tragedy that happens prior to pregnancy can shape the genetic pattern one passes on to their children. So how can we really say with any certainty what is "human nature" when it comes to leadership, and what might simply be what we have trained ourselves to believe is immutably "natural" to us?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

The thing is, all of these systems are "unnatural" (and by unnatural, I mean that they are created as a consequence of cultural evolution that has far surpassed our biological evolution). A hunter-gatherer, small group, nomadic, egalitarian society is likely our "natural" state...

Believe it or not, Thalassa, I'm going to disagree with you because in this case you are (as rarely happens) so very, very wrong.

Each form of government I outlined is human-normal - they are all based on dominance, either by an individual, or by cooperative coalitions, or by a combination of the two. How, exactly, each will play out, or which will play out, is modified by culture, the complexity of the specific society, and the history of the specific society. But a struggle for dominance is human-normal.

Cooperative human utopian anarchy is not possible among humans. If everybody were willing to forswear their innate desire for dominance (only possible for those among whom the desire for dominance is already weak), such a society might last a day, a week, or maybe even a year. But, eventually, someone with a strong desire for dominance will arise, and the egalitarian utopia goes by by - maybe in a nice way, maybe in a bad way, but it will go by by.

As proof, look at every single sad country that has a weak or ineffective government. The people do not revert to "noble savages." Warlords, mafias, bandit bands - all inevitably arise, let by those with a strong urge to dominate.

Those who had the strongest voice in founding the US understood this- this is why they protected free speech, freedom of association, and created a form of government with the separation of powers - forcing cooperative coalitions and individuals to negotiate.

And even that doesn't work perfectly, as economic powers have now taken over the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Well both of you prior posters bring up a question that is highly pertinent to this discussion, which is , how fixed it human nature really? We are learning so much about how negativity can shape the human mind ... apparently there is even new data suggesting that tragedy that happens prior to pregnancy can shape the genetic pattern one passes on to their children. So how can we really say with any certainty what is "human nature" when it comes to leadership, and what might simply be what we have trained ourselves to believe is immutably "natural" to us?

You can't say anything about individuals unless you have carefully studied the individual, but you can say a lot about masses of people by looking at averages and history.

Human nature is malleable, self-adjustable, modifiable by culture, education, introspection, etc., but it is not entirely plastic. Bend it enough and it will break. Remove controlling influences, and it revert.

This means that things like Chairman Mao's "wipe the slate clean so you can write what you want on it," and B.F. Skinner's "with proper conditioning I can make a person into anything" are wrong in a horrendously destructive way.

[thalassa]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

Believe it or not, Thalassa, I'm going to disagree with you because in this case you are (as rarely happens) so very, very wrong.

Each form of government I outlined is human-normal - they are all based on dominance, either by an individual, or by cooperative coalitions, or by a combination of the two. How, exactly, each will play out, or which will play out, is modified by culture, the complexity of the specific society, and the history of the specific society. But a struggle for dominance is human-normal.

Cooperative human utopian anarchy is not possible among humans. If everybody were willing to forswear their innate desire for dominance (only possible for those among whom the desire for dominance is already weak), such a society might last a day, a week, or maybe even a year. But, eventually, someone with a strong desire for dominance will arise, and the egalitarian utopia goes by by - maybe in a nice way, maybe in a bad way, but it will go by by.

As proof, look at every single sad country that has a weak or ineffective government. The people do not revert to "noble savages." Warlords, mafias, bandit bands - all inevitably arise, let by those with a strong urge to dominate.

Those who had the strongest voice in founding the US understood this- this is why they protected free speech, freedom of association, and created a form of government with the separation of powers - forcing cooperative coalitions and individuals to negotiate.

And even that doesn't work perfectly, as economic powers have now taken over the government.

I'm not saying that the hunter-gatherer, small group, nomadic, egalitarian society isn't based on dominance of a person/s. It is--there is generally one or two (usually elders) that the group follows, that are either male or female, that make the big decisions. And there are even some gender roles (when it comes to child bearing women, mostly) and age roles, etc. By egalitarian, I mean that individuals are largely treated as being of equal worth to the group. But, when members of the group decide that they don't want to follow the leader (either they suck or the leader sucks), they leave or get a new leader. I'm not saying that these groups are some happy consensus making utopia, I'm saying that as an economic system, they are likely the closest example of what our "original state" was as human beings.

[anunitu]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

Thing is,humans can and do screw up ANY Utopian dream society all the time....I think it is our personal ego's that get us in trouble all the time.

[Azvanna]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

So I've been trying to keep up with the discussion and also research alternatives ... Kind of failing at both! While I was looking up alternatives, I came across this idea repeatedly of Worker Self-Directed enterprises. Which I think falls under Democratic Economics? http://rdwolff.com/content/alternatives-capitalism

The principles are to have more evenly distributed profits and losses, and to couple sustainability of business with the local landscape. The workers who also own the business belong to a community who require their environment to thrive.

As an employee of a company like this, I could either be empowered or highly frustrated depending on the size. Can you imagine a business being operated by a democratic process where 200 people's active contribution is required? The business would stagnate. Maybe that's the point?

I've yet to come across anarchaism-syndicism (sorry, I've forgotten the term but I will look it up).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

I'm not saying that the hunter-gatherer, small group, nomadic, egalitarian society isn't based on dominance of a person/s. It is--there is generally one or two (usually elders) that the group follows, that are either male or female, that make the big decisions. And there are even some gender roles (when it comes to child bearing women, mostly) and age roles, etc. By egalitarian, I mean that individuals are largely treated as being of equal worth to the group. But, when members of the group decide that they don't want to follow the leader (either they suck or the leader sucks), they leave or get a new leader. I'm not saying that these groups are some happy consensus making utopia, I'm saying that as an economic system, they are likely the closest example of what our "original state" was as human beings.

LOL - oh darn. Now I have to erase the note I wrote on my calendar "Thalassa was wrong!"

The thing is, none of the basic forms I outlined is necessarily bad. ALL can be as egalitarian as the size and complexity of the state allows.

Small tribal groups may look more egalitarian, but that is because in a small, relatively homogeneous society, a coalition of one, or two, or three individuals can wield considerable influence.

But when you get to a state the size of the US, for example, a coalition of three is entirely powerless - unless they can snowball into a much larger coalition. Which means "getting a voice" and/or "getting votes."

- - - Updated - - -

Thing is,humans can and do screw up ANY Utopian dream society all the time....I think it is our personal ego's that get us in trouble all the time.

That, my friend, is a function of human nature.

[anunitu]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

As an example,when I lived in SF,I got involved with a group who's goal was helping aids sufferers and homeless people. Good goal,BUT it was torn apart by two people who wanted to be the one in charge. It ended as a kind of feud between two separate groups...really sad...good cause,bad mix of people because of ego's

[thalassa]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

Small tribal groups may look more egalitarian, but that is because in a small, relatively homogeneous society, a coalition of one, or two, or three individuals can wield considerable influence.

But when you get to a state the size of the US, for example, a coalition of three is entirely powerless - unless they can snowball into a much larger coalition.

theres actually a size limit for optimal group dynamics, and a mazimum ....which i want to say is 120? I'm on my phone, so i cant look it up without losing what i type. And that is just the social ties..when you add in the ecological factors,,the group gets even smaller. Bushmen are hunter-gatheres...the live,very close to the land and are subject to thw whims of nature in a way that we,are,not. Any trade is a limited barter for those few that still live traditionally. No money, what you find you eat, and the leftovers go to thw group. A surprising amount of leisure time, and very,few material goods...




That, my friend, is a function of human nature.[/QUOTE]

[ApexPredator54]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

An good alternative to capitalism would be any economic system where the means of production are commonly owned and democratically managed. Libertarian socialism, undeniably, in whatever form (syndicalism, communism, mutualism, etc).

- - - Updated - - -

I think the problem with capitalism is that it's not really a political system at all. It's purely an economic system. You can have capitalism without restraints, or blend it with various forms of social systems to create something a bit humane. Like socialism, it exists on a scale. You don't have capitalism or not capitalism...there are options in between.

Socialism doesn't exist on a scale. Socialism is a set of many various economic systems that have one thing in common: social ownership of the means of production. Some forms of socialism are obviously more radical than others, but all are anti-capitalist.

Socialism and capitalism can and do mix. You can allow private enterprise and an open market without compromising regulation, state enterprise, or social structures. Many democratic socialist and social democratic governments allow private companies to exist and allow them to operate in markets. However, their operations may not defy the laws of the country that govern things like health and safety. Such countries also usually take direct control over necessities such as health care and education, and many include state-run companies that control things like power and transportation. In such a government, it is totally possible to place restrict business activities that harm the environment, form state-run corporations that develop environmental alternatives, and subsidize environmentally friendly practices. These things already happen in parts of Europe. I think the problems stem from the fact that the trend since the 80s has been to reduce government activities in favor of private enterprise, and it takes a big government to take on stuff like that.

What you describe is social democracy. This is completely different from socialism. Social democracy is a synthesis of capitalism and the welfare state (it was advocated by the most moderate reformist socialists as a means of transitioning to democratic socialism, but this idea has been abandoned in the modern day). Any system that maintains any level of private ownership of the means of production is socialist.

[anunitu]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

You know social systems and economic systems come and go,and many have pie in the sky ideas as to how to make everything even for everyone,only generally when someone try's to make their ideas into reality,a Lot of people tend to be swept aside and end up dead.(see Pol pot,Stalin,Mao,and many others) The whole reeducation thing is an example.

Until you actually can demonstrate your theory's will not get people killed or even start a war...keep your theories as theories.

[ApexPredator54]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

You know social systems and economic systems come and go,and many have pie in the sky ideas as to how to make everything even for everyone,only generally when someone try's to make their ideas into reality,a Lot of people tend to be swept aside and end up dead.(see Pol pot,Stalin,Mao,and many others) The whole reeducation thing is an example.

Until you actually can demonstrate your theory's will not get people killed or even start a war...keep your theories as theories.

Except that isn't possible. Political theories are intimately tied to governance. If we "keep our theories as theories", what do we base social or economic relationships on?

Lastly, just because people have killed in the name of certain ideas does not mean they are bad ideas. I disagree with liberalism not because it started the French and American Revolutions, but because its ideas are no longer radical or revolutionary. The same applies to many different ideologies. There are few ideologies that can really be blamed solely for the deaths of millions (Nazism is really about it).

[Azvanna]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

An good alternative to capitalism would be any economic system where the means of production are commonly owned and democratically managed.

Until you actually can demonstrate your theory's will not get people killed or even start a war...keep your theories as theories.

I know you are talking about re-education, but worker self-directed enterprise have been operating successfully. It would be interesting to see if it could succeed large scale.

It would take an overhaul of the education system at tertiary level as many educators and teachers are teaching how to succeed as an executive. In WSDE, everyone would need to be taught a degree of management skill.

[thalassa]

Re: Alternatives to Capitalism

*circular economy*