Tag: Capitalism

This Human Nature

Db040 Comments

Is Communism or Anarchism impossible to achieve due to the inherent flaws of “Human Nature”. Not at all. On the contrary, it’s human nature that makes it possible and yearns for it.

A group of youth interacting

We interrupt your regularly scheduled program to look into an argument that is starting to annoy the tits out of me.

One of the most frequent arguments against Communism that I seem to face almost every day now, is the one that says that human nature is such that a system based on cooperation and altruism could never be achieved.

The claim is that this human nature is necessarily greedy, competitive, aggressive and whatnot. With such a nature then it’s only understandable that we’d have wars, poverty and capitalism as these are the only things that our nature is compatible with. It’s then no wonder that Communism has failed every time it was attempted. It went against human nature! Nevermind other factors, it was doomed to failure from the start.

These interpretations basically take the view that human nature is generally “flawed” and is such that only under Capitalism can it be somehow tamed. It is with such reasoning that white becomes black and vices become virtues in order to defend the current system. Against the human nature argument one cannot win for nobody can escape his nature.

Or can they?

The point of calling something a human nature is that a human cannot escape or avoid it. I cannot avoid eating for it is my nature to need energy. Perhaps at some indefinite point in the future we might arrange that we won’t need food anymore but we’ll certainly still need energy, thus our nature remains. The same goes with anything else that we cannot escape.

And this is where evolutionary psychology comes in and tell us that we have genetical predispositions to various behaviours. Fight or Flight, children’s language learning capability etc. One of these predispositions is then posited to be Competition and thus that the human society must be organised in a way that Competition is put to good use. Ergo Capitalism.

Putting aside the quite large controversy around Evolutionary Phychology itself, I have the following arguments:

Reason

If one thing is said to certainly be part of our nature, then that is our ability to reason and use logical arguments. Indeed we are the only known animal that uses it so one can easily even call it our defining nature. It is the only reason why humans are capable of introspection and thus of managing their own predispositions.

It is with reason that not only can we control our psychological predispositions, but even our biological ones. It is because of it that I can suppress my urge to eat because I am overweight. It is because of reason that men can suppress urges to rape women when they otherwise could and are driven to it by their biology. And it is because of it, that I can suppress whatever urge I have to compete or simply turn it into a noble or friendly competition.

Thus, the strongest and undeniable part of human nature, indeed the one that can be said to be defining humans, is the one that allows us to control all other parts of our nature, whatever they may be. This means that even if, theoretically, competition, greed or whatever else is in our nature but it is against our benefits, we have the innate capability to suppress it.

Cooperation VS Competition

Humans are a social animal, that much is certain. As such we have a definite predisposition towards cooperation with other humans. But is it stronger than any predisposition we may have towards competition? I believe that is the case.

Someone reading about the origins of the family and the state can easily see how before civilization, the humans were barely competitive with each other at all. Within a gentile community, the predominant behaviour was of mutual cooperation and the further back one goes into the stages of barbarism and then savagery, the more powerful this cooperation becomes. This is simply because the less tools and ability humans had to survive independently, the more they had to cooperate with each other to survive.

The only cause of competition that could have happened, was when meeting another band of humans and there was a lack of resources to go around. Then, as a results of humans being separated into haves and have-nots, competition emerged. Other than that, there was no other competition to be had. Their societies were ones of group marriages and thus there was not even male competition for women.

This cooperative method of living persisted for millions of years with the strongest forms of cooperation lasting longer (as the lesser forms of evolutionary progress lasted longer) until eventually, roughly 9000 years ago, humans enterred civilization. It is with civilization that the monogamy, private property and the state emerged. This was the reason why humans were separated, for the first time in history, into classes. And it is because of the friction between those classes that competition became the fact of life.

The larger the society grew, the bigger the class separation, the larger the gap with other humans in one’s society, The impression of individual independence grew even though it is patently false. Nevertheless, the human within a huge society finds it impossible to perceive it and ends up assuming that he actually has no codependence on other humans. Thus in this vast society, competition feels like the only choice, add to that the constant reinforcement of this idea by popular media and memes and it’s no wonder that this feels like “human nature”.

But what do you think is evolutionary stronger. Cooperation which lasted millions of years or competition which in the grand scheme of things is as long as a blink of an eye? Not only logic but simple empirical evidence points to the former. Cooperation survives even in the most hostile environment of Capitalism – the system which honestly expects people to act rationally and individualistic and ends up having to work with emotional cooperative humans.

And to top it all off, we still have reason, as explained above, which can further suppress competition in favor of cooperation when warranted.

If there is any truth to evolutionary psychology, it is as Marx noted, in that humans have the nature of cooperation and individualism. Our nature do not prevent Communism at all, it yearns for it, for it is both in all of our best interests and also closer to our psychology.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What do corporations resemble?

Db08 Comments

I am not the most experienced person but I have a bit of it in working in small & big national or multinational companies. In any company I’ve worked for, I’ve noticed a very distinct authoritarian way of doing things but I never got around to thinking exactly what is is. Fortunately, my recent post regarding proprietary software companies led me to an insight on this.

A corporation works in a very distinct way…

WASHINGTON - SEPTEMBER 12: (L-R) John Krenick...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am not the most experienced person but I have a bit of it in working in small & big national or multinational companies. In any company I’ve worked for, I’ve noticed a very distinct authoritarian way of doing things but I never got around to thinking exactly what is is. Fortunately, my recent post regarding proprietary software companies led me to an insight on this.

A corporation works in a very distinct way.

  • Non-Management workers in it, have no political rights, as in, they have no say in the direction the company takes and in the choice of the people who rule them. Indeed, the people who rule them, are selected by each other with small or no oversight.
  • The workers of a company are always assumed to be working for the best of the company. Those who are not or who do not fully align themselves with the wishes of management, are ejected.
  • The workers of a company do not receive the full result of their work. There must always be some profit which is the difference from what the company makes and what it has to pay on workers, maintenance and raw materials. Thus, one can consider that the profit, divided equally among the workers, is the “tax” they have to pay in order for the whole company to prosper.
  • Workers can be discarded or moved around at any point. Without them having any say in it.
  • Barring external factors (as in, a larger state), workers have no rights. One cannot demand a bigger pay or less hours, or a pension. They will only receive what bonuses the company deems right in regards to what is best for the company. In short, they will only grudgingly give a bonus if they are cornered.
  • The Management has all the power in their hands in hierarchical order. The owner answers to no-one. The owner alone has the last word on “what is best” for the company.

There is one political system that very closely resembles this type of setup. “Socialist” Dictatorships, of which the purest form is Stalinism (But Fascism, Nazism, Maoism etc are all very similar)

In Stalinism, which unfortunately is what most people think of when they think of “Socialism”, the state is simply the ultimate Capitalist. All the conditions I described above apply to Stalinism but in the place of Company, we simply put “Country” or “The Party”.

We can easily agree that such political systems are bankrypt. I know very few people who would wish to live in a Socialist Dictatorship and there are quite a few people, especially US Americans who love to call their opponents “Socialists”, who find the perceived antonym to be the best possibility: Capitalist Democracy.

But my question is this: Do you really have a Democracy when your society’s basic group for production is organised like a Dictatorship? Doesn’t this fact undermine your whole concept of democracy?

Indeed, this is true. Democracy has become a farce of hypocricy under this setup. Because people are living a significant part of their daily lives within a mini-dictatorship, they are conditioned to think in a similar vein. The workers, if they care to at all, only exercise a political action twice per decade and maintain an illusion of democracy. The management live in a constant state of power and thus find it only natural to extend this state to the rest of their lives.

It should come thus as no surprise that Corporations were best buddies with Fascist regimes ((Not with Socialist Dictatorships though, as those actually took their power away and gave it to the state officials instead, making them equal to the workers)) who’s rampart cronyism gives corporations eventually absolute power over the whole country.

Like seeks like.

It is the biggest irony that for all the U.S. American’s foaming at the mouth against “the evils of socialism”, they are more than happy to work their whole lives in exactly the same state they would be, were their fears to materialize.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Socialists must learn from the Free Software movement

Db032 Comments

It is my impression that the Free Software movement has one of the best recipes for Socialism. Perhaps we can apply it to real life somehow.

redtux
Image by redtux2000 via Flickr

Socialism is a very difficult thing to achieve. Up until now there have been two attempted paths towards reaching that goal: Revolution and Reformism. Neither has succeeded. The first path (usually) fell victim to counter-revolution and nowadays lacks enough traction in its necessary base, the working class. The second path always gets corrupted and sidetracked too much and simply ends up perpetuating the status quo while keeping the name.

There is however one method which not only has not been attempted yet but also shows considerable promise of success. The peer-organised, distributed, lead-by-example method of Free Software.

For those not familiar with the history of the Free Software movement, the basic thing you need to be aware of is that it was initiated in a completely hostile environment (of propriertary software), without any help “from-above”. It was simply based on a simple ruleset that ensured that the fruits of this effort would not be corrupted or misappropriated and thus lead to fragmentation. The GPL.

Thus, there was no need for leaders ((While there are some recognisable figures in the movement, they are no more leaders than Marx or Engels were)) or sponsors.

This result-oriented method has been a tremendous and monumental success. From an obscure hacker’s hobby in universities and basements, in 20 short years it has become a force to be reckoned with, respected and supported by major software players while still ensuring that they cannot abuse it for their own ends.

I believe there is here a method that not only has not yet been attempted but perhaps might be the key to finally breaking the stranglehold of Capitalism.

The method is simply to work within the system. Show people how much better Socialism can work and then, once they have given it a try for practical reasons, introduce them to the ideology behind it.

Now do not be alarmed. I am not talking about reformism but about subversion. Let me explain:

The Free Software movement is based on Copyright law. It gains power and utility by using the same system it was created to oppose! How does it achieve this? By placing additional terms and restrictions on its supporters in order to ensure that the effort they put towards the movement will always remain with the movement and not leave with them. Like a Judo master, it uses the considerable power of the system to defeat it.

Supporters come because the development method of Open Source is simply superior, it is easy to join, progressive and free. Then, not all of them, but a sufficient amount get to hear about the philosophy behind it, adopt it and continue spreading it. And guess what. It not only worked but this socialistic culture has spread outside of Software (See Wikipedia, Creative Commons etc).

To put things into perspective, lets see how the current two paths to Socialism would have worked when attempting to achieve a Free Software world.

  • Revolution: The Software developers would forcibly or simply arbitrarily take the source code of the programs they had been hired to write and distribute it to their peers. This would of course trigger a “counter-revolution” where the software bourgeois would attempt to stop such a unaccepted distribution.
  • Reformism: The Software developers would attempt to become company executives or shareholders with the purpose in mind to liberate the source code to their peers when they had enough power. Unfortunately, not only power corrupts but the people in charge would never allow one who is incorruptible to achieve power.

Not only would it have been extremely difficult for either of these methods to succeed (as has been the case with similar Socialist movements) but without having a GPL to back them up, simply releasing the source into public domain would allow the effort to be subverted by the remaining active forces, thereby giving them a competitive advantage over our (alternative universe) free software movement.

I hope you’re still with me.

So how can socialism use a similar method? How about working within Capitalism? Here’s a rough idea

  • Create a constitution of similar ideals to the GPL that is a legally binding contract. The whole point of this constitution would be to prevent the labour put into Socialism to be turned against it. For example, have the clause that once a person becomes a member, he agrees to redirect all wealth acquired as a member back to the group. He retains previous wealth (so if at any point he decides to leave, he can be as when he first joined). Thus while a member, he eschews private property.
  • Create a commune based on this constitution. People joining this commune will have their future acquired wealth redirected back to this commune which should then ensure that individual members have a much higher standard of living on the bottom end than any other system. If the commune has rules such a direct democracy and the like, based on Socialist ideology, it should also ensure that it is not corrupted.
  • Because of the superior bottom level of the commune, more people living in the bottom end of the current society will wish to join. Such individuals can easily then be monitored to make sure that they follow the constitution and rules and slowly bring them into the ideology so that they follow the rules on their own volition.
  • To preserve direct democracy, Communes that become too large should be able to split and create smaller ones. A clause in the constitution could be that any number of people can leave the commune with a direct percentage of the current wealth provided they create a new commune under the same constitution. Thus the number of people living in such communes could increase without necessitating the formation of a state system within.

Slowly, though such a system more and more communes would form until it becomes the obvious choice for the proletariat to belong in one for their own security. People could still choose to stay outside, but they would be at a competitive disadvantage. Once these communes start owning enterprises and reap their own surplus value, they will be capable of stealing the lifeblood of Capitalism. Labour.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Another fatal flaw of Capitalism: Myopia

Db08 Comments

Capitalism is very good at exploiting natural resources. So good in fact that it can deplete them to a degree that impedes the actual lives of humans.

Sóc miop / I'm short-sighted
Image by vitelone via Flickr

It seems that something’s gotten into me recently and I keep writing about Capitalism-related subjects. I don’t know if this is triggered by the ongoing world-crisis or my late frictions with Libertarians but I guess it’s one of those things that needs to run its course.

There’s one thing that Capitalism does very well and that is to exploit resources and when those are running low, find something to replace them due to supply and demand. Thus when there is a demand for energy, capitalism will open opportunities for people to provide that energy.

There is however a fatal flaw in the procedure. The flaw is not fatal for Capitalism but unfortunately for the whole world.

You see, Capitalists are extremely short sighted by necessity. If a Capitalist does not seek to maximize profits, they will not have enough money for reinvestment and thus their competitors will overcome them. It’s a dog-eat-dog situation where you can be zero from hero in a short amount of time.

Capitalist Apologists will explain then that this is ultimately good for the consumer as this constant competition drives costs down and we all gain. But what they do not mention, is that this need to outdo your competitors by reducing costs does ultimately more harm than good.

Because one needs the maximum amount of short term profit, the consideration is always on using the technology and knowledge already available in order to cut down costs. Research & Development is not only expensive but also a risky endeavour which is why it is undertaken only when current costs are rising too high in the previous business model.

This is all well and good theoreticaly, but practically it is slow enough to create very real problems for everyone. Take for example oil. Until now, it has been the most valuable resource on Earth and it’s abundancy meant that there was enough supply to make it the number one choice for the Energy Capitalist. However Oil creates quite a few problems, the main ones of which are that it destroys the environment through global warming and that it funds and supports fanatics (religious or not).

In the long term, for the benefit of the whole humanity, it is far more beneficial to move away towards energy independence and clean energy sources. On the contrary, staying on oil means that the problems we have already increase at an exponential rate.
Because however the Capitalist is absolutely blind to the long term future –by necessity ((meaning that those who are not, are outpaced by those who are and drop out of the race))- they will keep using oil until other factors make it impossible to continue doing so. Only then will the capitalist seek to develop clean energy sources.

But by then, it will be too late. What use will clean energy be when the whole planet is in the process of meltdown with billions of people dying? Capitalism cannot foresee this. it can only see the short term profit.

And that’s not all. Not only is the Capitalist unaware of the damage he is doing for the long term, but he will seek to silence and muddle the waters to his benefit for as long as possible for his continued existence depends on him doing so. There is a very specific reason why Capitalists are the biggest deniers of Global Warming.

And this applies mostly to unregulated capitalism, completely free from Government intervention or assistance. The only reason companies are doing R&D now, which is a totally long-term strategy, is because they know the Government will protect them with artificial scarcity laws (AKA: intellectual Property). The Government has enough disconnection from profits to be able to see the coming events and attempt to steer the rudder away from turbulent waters. This is the reason R&D is very often subsidized in order to promote it or environmental (and not only) policies are made mandatory.

I am no fan of the State control, but I recognise that an unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster. It will stimulate tremendous “economic” ((where “economic” means that the rich will get richer and they will pass that as a benefit for everyone)) and productive growth until, like a bacterium which found ample room to grow and expand, it will end up killing its host and thus itself and all it has achieved.

If we had an environment with unlimited resources, Capitalism would have been a passable choice. If we had achieved unlimited energy production or space exploration enough to allow us to mine other planets, then this might have been possible (and even then regulation for not destroying the Earth ecosystem would still be necessary). But we are limited and are very close, or have even passed our limits.

We recognise this, because we can see further than next quarter’s profits but they cannot. To give you another metaphor:

If Humanity is a train and we let Capitalism steer the wheel, all they will be able to see is the straight tracks in the next ten meters ahead and keep accelerating. They will fail to see the sharp turn 1 kilometer away, until it’s too late to slow down anymore. It will not be any consolation to anyone that we managed to break the speed of sound as we go over the cliff. We still won’t be able to fly…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Back to the needs of Capitalism

Db051 Comments

It seems I’ve been informally challenged to a debate. Robert from Making my Way is attempting to refute the points I raised in the needs of Capitalism.

There were various points raised which I will attempt to counter.

There can be no infinite goods.

Yes and no. While Robert took ‘infinite’ in the literal sense, I did not mean or require it that way. My first example was not of machines producing infinite food but quite enough food to feed everyone five times over, thus bringing the price of food to nearly zero.

Robert’s explanation of how such thing can never happen due to limited resources is simply skirting the issue. Not only that but we already have the capability to produce infinite goods (digital goods due to their nature are infinite, and yes, Copyrights are very much indeed a form of artificial scarcity) and enough food to feed the world population. The reason why we do not is exactly the problem I raised in misery and profit.

This is not strictly about self-generating goods. It is about having enough goods so that the price, due to supply, drops to (nearly) zero. Even when such thing would be overwhelmingly positive for the whole of humanity, as in the case of food or shelter, for capitalism this is negative.

The argument about trends is laughable. They do not apply to everything and people impoverished do not care about them. Honestly I don’t even know what you are replying with that.

Basic needs for free are not possible

Here I believe I need to clarify. Of course someone will have to do the work to produce the food people eat but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about having enough increased production from each food maker that the amount of food produced by very few people (or none as in the case of the theoretical incredible food machines) is enough to feed everyone in the earth. As these few people do not need to be paid a lot for the staggering amount of food they would provide, the relevant costs of this for each person would be close to zero.

Now you have to realise that we’re talking theoretically here. It may very well be the case that we may never reach this level of production (although the rising production per worker in the modern day points otherwise) but we’re talking that if it were possible, it would not be even feasible under capitalism.

It’s unclear why you conflate work with misery, when work is simply a fact of life. You might as well say life is misery.

You misunderstand, I do not say that work is misery. I say that misery is what Capitalism uses to make people do the unwanted work.

Capitalism is the best thing we have because of how the world is

This is actually false. Capitalism is not here because it’s the best thing. We can already feed and shelter everyone in the world, even without infinite resources (as humans are not infinite either) but that would mean that there would have to be a redistribution of wealth. The rich would have to become less rich in order for poverty to go away.

Because of Greed, these people do not allow that to happen. Because of misery, the endless brutal cycle continues.

The fact that Capitalism is what is in force now does not make it exempt from criticism. Shutting your eyes does not make it’s problems go away. There are indeed systems that can work better than Capitalism and even if there weren’t, it should be our duty as humans to invent them.

Things that were not addressed

While Robert attempted to refute or skirt what was generally easy, the basic issues were not addressed.

Capitalism requires misery and Capitalism requires greed.

What Capitalism needs

Db011 Comments

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's n...

In previous times I have had sporadic thoughts on how would it ever be possible to reach a utopic society through a system such as Capitalism. I just couldn’t fathom how such a thing could occur.

My classic thought example was that we develop machinery that is capable or creating enough food to feed the whole populace of the earth 5 times over. This would be obviously be a good thing for everyone as nobody would ever have to starve again but I couldn’t just see how our current society would work with it.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's n...
Image by just.Luc via Flickr

In previous times I have had sporadic thoughts on how would it ever be possible to reach a utopic society through a system such as Capitalism. I just couldn’t fathom how such a thing could occur.

My classic thought example was that we develop machinery that is capable or creating enough food to feed the whole populace of the earth 5 times over. This would be obviously be a good thing for everyone as nobody would ever have to starve again but I couldn’t just see how our current society would work with it.

The recent Quote of the Day gave me the insight, or rather the mental push I needed. Capitalism just cannot work with such concepts. While things like infinite goods (food & shelter included) would seem as something positive for any humans, for the concept of Capitalism they are anathema. When you have infinite food, automatically the value of it must approach zero. When you have enough place to shelter everyone on earth, by necessity, the cost of residence must approach zero.

Thus, there is absolutely no way for a capitalist to ever want to invest in a technology which would produce any kind of infinite good unless they can act as the monopoly or they can insert artificial scarcity. And indeed, we already see these kind of limitations used where much more good would be done without them.

A good example is genetically engineered food-producing plants which are much more resistant to disease and produce a higher wield. The companies that created these seeds have also made them produce sterile plants, the seeds of which will just not grow. Thus farmers are forced to buy seeds from the company every year, instead of using part of their crop to sow the next year.

Artificial Scarcity.

My biggest revelation however was not that. It was that Capitalism needs two very specific things in order to be able to exist. These two things incidentally, are the ones that prevent the world from ever approaching Utopia. Misery and Greed.

Why Capitalism requires misery

Can there ever be a Capitalistic society in which work is not required in order to be fed and sheltered? I can’t see how it can. If this happened, it means that the cost of food & shelter would have become zero. But if the cost of food is zero, then there is no profit to be had, thus nobody would care for producing food and shelter, which means there will be a shortage and thus the price will rise above zero due to supply and demand. Thus it’s impossible. (unless we can make the aforementioned machinery somehow)

It does not stop only there but this is the basic idea. Capitalism requires people to be in some degree of misery so that it will be able to sell them something to alleviate it. A healthy human does not need medicine. A fed human does not need food. A warm human does not need shelter etc.

Misery is the driving force that makes humans take the worst, but necessary jobs. Without misery you would not have people willing to be abused at McDonalds or a Nike sweatshop. It is the acid which turns humans into the necessary grease for the economic gears.

Without people being in some state of misery, all those industries which exist to prevent or stop it must cease to exist. Without it, nobody would be willing to put humiliate or punish himself for the thankless benefit of others. And finally, without misery, the only other thing left to keep Capitalism going is greed.

Why Capitalism requires greed

Although greed is very closely tied to misery (one who does not have the object of his greed becomes miserable) it plays such a big role in a Capitalistic society that I believe it deserves special analysis.

Greed is arguably the basic driving force of capitalism. When misery has been vanquished for an individual, it is greed that takes the baton and drives them to continue playing the capitalist game.

A content human is the true enemy of Capitalism.

Having a society where work is not required for basic food and shelter would mean that there would be a significant amount of humans stopping working in order to do the activities they really enjoy. Perhaps these activities would simply be a waste of time, or perhaps they would be some of those activities that are not considered valuable enough to sustain someone (notably the arts). These people would thus not be productive member of society as defined by “what people will pay for”.

Capitalism requires people to be greedy and greed demands capitalism. It is a vicious circle that a society cannot break away from without a significant shift in beliefs and desires which will lead humanity to ditching both of them together.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Quote of the Day: Capitalism

Db02 Comments

Quoth the Barefoot Bum

The problem our capitalist economy faces is not how to feed everyone, but how to make a profit feeding everyone.

Aptly said and so true. We would have no problem feeding everyone on the planet but the capitalists can’t make a profit that way and this goes for most goods.

Just look at the situation with Intellectual Property where the right holders are trying to reign in infinite goods just because they can’t figure out a business plan to make money out of them.

Quote of the day: Economics

Db03 Comments

Quoth the Barefoot Bum

I am no more impressed by the assertion that “The vast majority of economists agree that capitalism is the most sound system there is for producing wealth and responding to demand,” than I’m impressed by the equally true assertion that the vast majority of theolgians agree that religious belief is the most sound system of creating and maintaining social, moral and ethical socialization.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. This is exactly the same way I feel every time someone brings in the “vast majority of economists that support capitalism” or whatever.