Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 204 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Humanity is facing problems it never faced before so any existing solution will probably not work. I'm talking about pollution, overpopulation, climate change, deforestation, etc. Capitalism doesn't seem to be able to address these and I have some ideas why.

Capitalist ideology basically says that people "vote" with their money so as people get concerned about a given issue, competition will drive companies that don't take it seriously out of business. So capitalism relies on how people "vote" and this is known to be an imperfect system. Winston Churchill famously said:
> Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

There is a psychological bias that makes people ignore long-term problems in favor of short-term ones. Even if we ignore that, "voting" with your money will only work if the voting is informed and this is a fundamentally faulty assumption. The video below, while on a diff
erent subject, illustrates why this is the case. It also shows how decisions which are good for a minority and bad for a majority pass.


I would also argue that in one of the most capitalist countries in the world, about half the population denies climate change.

The world's industry today creates enormous amounts of waste and one of the reasons is planned obsolescence (one particular example is how millions of people buy a new phone each year). Capitalism is incapable of fighting with that as it is fundamental to the survival of
businesses.

The bottom line is something needs to change - we need to transition to sustainable development. One idea I like a lot is the Venus project.
Its founder, Jacque Fresco said:
> Our times demand the declaration of the world's resources as the common heritage of all people.

I believe future generations will be puzzled by how superficial the world is today. We know what the problems are and we have the knowledge and technology to solve them. Yet people are so obsessed with numbers written on green paper that they see each other as competition and don't think about the issues we all face. It's ironic that we created artificial barriers like capitalism.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
Most people who haunt these forums know I am a huge Jacques Fresco fan as well as a proponent of Communism.

Everything you say is exactly right, but, you miss the real meat of the issue although you suggest another tangent that would take us closer to a proper path for pragmatic reasons.

The real and only issue is that society needs to have a fundamentally moral foundation. It's odd in the extreme that people can understand that Communism offers some value, but, that they:

1) Classify it incorrectly as a Utopia
2) Dissociate its aims from morality
3) Vacillate between Communism's idealistic and pragmatic concerns rather than addressing both at the same time.

---

The trouble is that roughly 52% of the people in the world are more pragmatic and that 47% are idealistic. Only maybe 1% can properly balance both pragmatism and idealism in what is referred to properly as wisdom.

Socrates and through him his pupil Plato, in the Republic mapped out a system of government 2500 years ago that is superior in concept to any we have seen since. That government, which he deemed the aristocracy, the philosopher-kings, is the proper and essentially only path for mankind. The Venus Project is right about so much, but essentially delusional about the no government and no laws thing. Humans are incapable of operating and making errors (immoral choices) in a world with no structure. But the structure itself becomes the problem in Capitalism and any system that allows for systemic immorality. Going forward there is only one meaningfully wise path - rule of the wise - founded on the basis of emerging ongoing moral truth and dedicated to its pursuit via perfection-aiming, not Utopian arrival at perfection itself.

The people who are opposed to these truths (99% and more) are all invested in the current immorality. That is WHY they oppose the truth. They prefer their chosen immorality and would fight to the death to stay immoral in their choices.

The right wing and pragmatics in general, prefer to stick with accountability and punishment. They are immoral to others who do not fit their definition of acceptable and in general this means 'anyone not their own and even some of their own.' Pragmatics fail at the moral truth of the unity principle and equality of worthiness of each living thing. They simply cannot handle these moral ideals and further they will angrily demand that these ideals are not ideals. They want and prefer selfishness and thus separation.

The left wing and idealists in general, prefer to stick with unity and equality. They are immoral in their personal indulgences. They are terrible at accountability and planning. They simply cannot handle self-restraint and in general they demand that morality is relative to escape their lack of accountability. They want to use the power of social unity to FORCE laziness and indulgence upon everyone else.

---

Both the morals of the left and the right are GOOD and needed. Both the immorality of the left and right is WRONG and EVIL. Both the left and the right, 99% and more of people, DEFEND immorality together in a deal that has lasted since government began. The right accepts the self-indulgence of the left as long as they can control things and be personally greedy. It's profoundly sick and ridiculous. Both sides are mortally TERRIFIED of facing their own moral failures.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,958 Posts
 
Most people who haunt these forums know I am a huge Jacques Fresco fan as well as a proponent of Communism.

Everything you say is exactly right, but, you miss the real meat of the issue although you suggest another tangent that would take us closer to a proper path for pragmatic reasons.

The real and only issue is that society needs to have a fundamentally moral foundation. It's odd in the extreme that people can understand that Communism offers some value, but, that they:

1) Classify it incorrectly as a Utopia
2) Dissociate its aims from morality
3) Vacillate between Communism's idealistic and pragmatic concerns rather than addressing both at the same time.

---

The trouble is that roughly 52% of the people in the world are more pragmatic and that 47% are idealistic. Only maybe 1% can properly balance both pragmatism and idealism in what is referred to properly as wisdom.

Socrates and through him his pupil Plato, in the Republic mapped out a system of government 2500 years ago that is superior in concept to any we have seen since.
That government, which he deemed the aristocracy, the philosopher-kings, is the proper and essentially only path for mankind.
 
The Venus Project is right about so much, but essentially delusional about the no government and no laws thing. Humans are incapable of operating and making errors (immoral choices) in a world with no structure. But the structure itself becomes the problem in Capitalism and any system that allows for systemic immorality. Going forward there is only one meaningfully wise path - rule of the wise - founded on the basis of emerging ongoing moral truth and dedicated to its pursuit via perfection-aiming, not Utopian arrival at perfection itself.

The people who are opposed to these truths (99% and more) are all invested in the current immorality. That is WHY they oppose the truth. They prefer their chosen immorality and would fight to the death to stay immoral in their choices.

The right wing and pragmatics in general, prefer to stick with accountability and punishment. They are immoral to others who do not fit their definition of acceptable and in general this means 'anyone not their own and even some of their own.' Pragmatics fail at the moral truth of the unity principle and equality of worthiness of each living thing. They simply cannot handle these moral ideals and further they will angrily demand that these ideals are not ideals. They want and prefer selfishness and thus separation.

The left wing and idealists in general, prefer to stick with unity and equality. They are immoral in their personal indulgences. They are terrible at accountability and planning. They simply cannot handle self-restraint and in general they demand that morality is relative to escape their lack of accountability. They want to use the power of social unity to FORCE laziness and indulgence upon everyone else.

---

Both the morals of the left and the right are GOOD and needed. Both the immorality of the left and right is WRONG and EVIL. Both the left and the right, 99% and more of people, DEFEND immorality together in a deal that has lasted since government began. The right accepts the self-indulgence of the left as long as they can control things and be personally greedy. It's profoundly sick and ridiculous. Both sides are mortally TERRIFIED of facing their own moral failures.
And, in your theory, just who in the hell is going to do/capable of doing that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
And, in your theory, just who in the hell is going to do/capable of doing that?
I do feel that there are people who exhibit a more proper dedication to wisdom and at least understanding wisdom itself as objective and that both pragmatists and idealists have a lot to offer. Your question is essentially a doubting one regarding idealism. And the thing is - moral courage - is simply required to be wise.

That means one must boldly expect more of others morally, to do their moral duty as Kant would say, and proceed in good faith with awareness and rules in place to account for what is known/accepted of morality.

We DO NOT organize society based on what people can and cannot do. We organize it currently as a sort-of capability/motivation model, in which practical immorality runs the show. This default has not changed since the dawn of mankind really. We have approximated baby steps to some moral truths and wholly neglected others. We are accelerating towards a time where we either have to realize that objective moral truth as a whole must be balanced or we simply cannot proceed. If this balancing does not happen, then over-expression of some moral truths, e.g. immorality, will probably destroy us. In truth, that is for the best if we cannot make the decision to pursue morality in good faith with ... God (objective moral truth).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,958 Posts
I do feel that there are people who exhibit a more proper dedication to wisdom and at least understanding wisdom itself as objective and that both pragmatists and idealists have a lot to offer. Your question is essentially a doubting one regarding idealism. And the thing is - moral courage - is simply required to be wise.

That means one must boldly expect more of others morally, to do their moral duty as Kant would say, and proceed in good faith with awareness and rules in place to account for what is known/accepted of morality.

We DO NOT organize society based on what people can and cannot do. We organize it currently as a sort-of capability/motivation model, in which practical immorality runs the show. This default has not changed since the dawn of mankind really. We have approximated baby steps to some moral truths and wholly neglected others. We are accelerating towards a time where we either have to realize that objective moral truth as a whole must be balanced or we simply cannot proceed. If this balancing does not happen, then over-expression of some moral truths, e.g. immorality, will probably destroy us. In truth, that is for the best if we cannot make the decision to pursue morality in good faith with ... God (objective moral truth).
A doubting one only? It’s a question worthy of asking. Take a look around you, including you, and what do you see? I see humans... I know this isn’t moral enough for your theory and that is my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
A doubting one only? It’s a question worthy of asking. Take a look around you, including you, and what do you see? I see humans... I know this isn’t moral enough for your theory and that is my point.
No, humans are moral enough, they just do not have enough faith in themselves or each other. A parent expects a child to behave and is right to do so, even though we all know every child will misbehave at some point.

Society has to go beyond the simple terms, the easy morality.

Greed and self-indulgence must be addressed. They must be made as illegal as immoral violence is. Increasing the level of equity and happiness will yield more aware and ready to accept moral duty humans. I believe. Can you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
A planned/command economy would be infinitely worse.

Why? China has a planned economy and there seems to be many strengths to it, as it enables them to take a grip on society as a whole and works towards some sort of harmonious long term development with regards to many different goals.

Of course China is also a party state lacking political pluralism and individual freedoms, and that I don't sympathize with, but that's really a different question.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that in a democratic society, people should have a say on which direction society should be moving towards. Thats kinda even the defintition of democracy. But that's not possible if the economy is controlled by a bunch of corporations working towards their own limited private interests.

Of course the state should not micro manage society, but the commanding heights should be under transparent democratic control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,981 Posts
Says the problem is government....
Advocates for more government...
Advocates for the abolition of capitalist government actually. The modern government was founded and created with the purpose of enforcing private or council monopolies on land/resources historically. The police were created historically too as a means of doing this. They were created as a 'public entity' to prevent power from becoming centralised into the hands of whoever were to pay for law enforcement, when 100% of everything is privatised the power is centralised into the hands of whoever owns or has the most power over what you use.

It can be said capitalism is outdated because you are forced to fit into a mould, and be a cog/machine in the system to survive and sacrifice your individuality to do so.

There was no publicly funded police before capitalism, only privately contracted guards that enforced the laws made by the count/king/lord/baron on the vicinity of land they governed.

Capitalism cannot exist without the state because it plays the vital role in enforcing private property claims on land/resources, without which no one single person would be able to lay claim to a vast acre of land because nobody would care and just use it anyway.

Abolishing capitalism means not only abolishing private ownership but the government itself too with a new state created in having the purpose of enforcing the commons' interests over private interests, and the common's ownership of property rather.

Before the modern government you had kings, lords, counts who ruled a few paces out of their kingdom but did not own all the land in the wild. The means of production were not privately owned or claimed by councils and left to the commons with complete free access. Feudalism did not emerge from 'government intervention' btw but from an economy system more decentralized than capitalism.

Capitalism is actually alot more centralized than the system that came before it. It IS the system that started saying "If you use the means of production or build your home on land we will shoot you because this is private property/belongs to the council. Go get a job." to the peasants.

A planned/command economy would be infinitely worse.
The feudal economies were all planned by king/nobility with all prices on goods set by them instead of private enterprises plus they prevented businessmen from becoming too powerful and quickly came in with swords to crush any attempts at claiming land as private property. It was not democratically planned as in by the public but the economy was fully 'commanded' by the emperor or king and his administration, yet they all lasted far longer than capitalism.

Everybody was guaranteed a job however because there was no monopoly on the means of production, thus no need to go find work from a boss to survive. There was no law preventing you from erecting a home anywhere also out of your own hands.

History shows whenever a civilization and urbanization outright collapsed feudalism always somehow came about taking over the remnants, why do people choose it then if its so bad?

If we cannot get socialism then feudalism would also be better to live under than capitalism where all resources/land/means of producing things are the monopoly of atleast one or a few people who you need to accept into their industry to survive.

The King or Feudal Lord would hang the bankers/businessmen or do something worse to them and confiscate their wealth for defying him, then reduce their status to a class of peasant just as they used to be so they can never grow powerful again for centuries. Private property claims as in a person monopolizing everything for themselves are very fragile and in often times of history did not exist at all.

Artisans would flourish under a feudal economy too and many to all occupations never require any qualifications, or anybody accepting you but simply doing it yourself. Whether its being a herbalist, crafts-person, mercenary for hire, artist, fisherman, farmer or metalworker. That is feudal life and you only have to do the minimum amount of work required to keep yourself alive then free-time all day long afterwards.

The king or person who rules the land would be held fully accountable and responsible for all it's economic prosperity in feudalism.
 

·
MOTM January 2013
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Totes. But a new system only needs to be divised to keep the blue collar worker down. The one we are living in the end days of, it served much purpose but a new system of exploitation and heirarchy needs to already be mapped out and implemented. Maybe it is already making itself known, a cashless society which will be called communism by some and feudalism/serfdom by others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
feudalism
Watch the movie Ironclad to see why that doesn't work out for the "common folk" (whom you claim to champion) the way you think it does. I side with Baron Albany. Viva la Magna Carta Libertatum!

If the authoritarian monopoly of mammon-worshiping bankers and globalist business whores is terrifying enough, how much more terrifying is the authoritarian monopoly of an autocratic state?

Freedom is more important than order.

Of course, the state should not micromanage society
That's exactly what would happen under a command economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,981 Posts
Watch the movie Ironclad to see why that doesn't work out for the "common folk" (whom you claim to champion) the way you think it does. I side with Baron Albany. Viva la Magna Carta Libertatum!

If the authoritarian monopoly of mammon-worshiping bankers and globalist business whores is terrifying enough, how much more terrifying is the authoritarian monopoly of an autocratic state?


Freedom is more important than order.


That's exactly what would happen under a command economy.
All I'm saying is that Feudalism or atleast the even more decentralised economic system that it existed in also would be better and more flexible to live in than the modern capitalist state which demands you give up individuality to fit into a framework. Only downside is whomever pays for the law enforcement gets to decide the law(similar thing would happen under attempts to create anarcho-capitalism), which the 'government' as you know it and publicly funded law enforcement via state coffers was created to prevent. When you get rid of all 'government' naturally somebody will eventually be able to centralise power under their hands.

What if the said king was more righteous than all of them and ensured everything was run morally? I mean if your economy is bad then you would know exactly whom to blame. Their rule also would not extend outside the acres of land that counts as theirs and there would be others.

What matters is righteous rule, good people are incharge regardless and you could make whatever form of feudalism that is implemented in today's times have to follow the abstract elements of chivalry in not abusing or killing the vulnerable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
To address the video specifically @martinkunev, we the people, have got to realize that we are too fallible. Each step in the process the voter, the politician, the bureaucrat, and indeed the businessman (not mentioned); are all points of extreme (not just ordinary) error. Further, the type of the error is a low hanging error at least in one of the chains (the weakest link), usually the most empowered self-interested party, e.g. the bureaucrat and the businessman. The politician is just a distraction. The voter is the victim.

Understanding these truths makes most people throw up their hands in frustration. In fact they will only really get interested and vote precisely when they SHOULD NOT. That is because their immoral motives are then being threatened, e.g. their low hanging fruit. NO ONE is on the high game.

---

What does this mean?

This means that elitism is required. Most people cannot participate properly in the process and if they do, they do so to break the wise action cycle, not to help it. Their catalysts are to protect their evils, not to do good.

Again I say and I feel like a broken record, ONLY one trait in a person breaks this rule. That trait is wisdom. Only the wise will properly restrain their own selfish self-interest. Further, if their self-interest is wisdom, then that is in fact the one tyranny we should all welcome (with some careful resignations/reservations concerning enneatype 1). Regardless, we the people, most of us, can understand on some level that MOST OF US are not capable of proper participation. We need elites to do it. If we must choose an elite that works for everyone, that irritates everyone almost equally, that elite is only possibly 1 elite, the wise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
Watch the movie Ironclad to see why that doesn't work out for the "common folk" (whom you claim to champion) the way you think it does. I side with Baron Albany. Viva la Magna Carta Libertatum!

If the authoritarian monopoly of mammon-worshiping bankers and globalist business whores is terrifying enough, how much more terrifying is the authoritarian monopoly of an autocratic state?
They are both precisely equally terrifying and wrong and deplorable. We need the best of both and we need to discard the worst of both, ... both.

Freedom is more important than order.
Untrue. Precisely untrue. They are precisely equally important. Their balance as forces is required for moral truth. If you side with one over the other, YOU are the problem.

That's exactly what would happen under a command economy.
No, not exactly. You take for granted the inequality as maintained. Use Communism FOR REAL, implement it properly, not in error as it has been, and you end up with a fair society in terms of resource distribution for the first time since some few and temporary tribal societies.

Indeed the government (the people) micromanages issues, but those issues have a character that espouses the only real truth, moral truth. There are JUST AS MANY order moral virtues as their are chaos (freedom) ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
capitalist state
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system, so that's a misnomer.

which demands you give up individuality to fit into a framework.
If you're an individualist, then how are you also a socialist? That's a rhetorical question.

Only downside is whomever pays for the law enforcement gets to decide the law
Feudal police state.

What if the said king was more righteous than all of them and ensured everything was run morally?
Don't put too much faith in the supposed "goodness" of people, especially people in authority. The rule of law is superior to the rule of men. Don't make me quote Dustin from the first season of Stranger Things.

What matters is righteous rule, good people are in charge
You'll never have that due to human nature. Not to sound cynical. Let's just say I'm skeptical of the plausibility, so I'll stick with the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

Even Asgore would agree with me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,304 Posts
They are precisely equally important. Their balance as forces is required for moral truth. If you side with one over the other, YOU are the problem.
I'm usually one to advocate balance and harmony, but when it comes to this, I favor freedom over order. Yes, even if it means a certain degree of chaos.

You take for granted the inequality as maintained.
I'm not asking for perfection. I'm not asking for utopia. Only civility.

Use Communism FOR REAL, implement it properly, not in error as it has been, and you end up with a fair society in terms of resource distribution for the first time since some few and temporary tribal societies.
Ever read The Peace Child?

Indeed the government (the people) micromanages issues
Ah, here's another core issue where our respective factions differ in how they perceive the underlying microcosmic architecture of ultimate reality. Our side views "the people" and "the government" as being at odds with each other, whereas your side actually thinks they're one and the same. If governments serve The People's interests, then why do so many of them seek to disarm and control The People through fear and coercion, rendering us as helpless victims?

those issues have a character that espouses the only real truth, moral truth.
It is a moral truth that there is no Justice without Liberty.

There are JUST AS MANY order moral virtues as their are chaos (freedom) ones.
If order means "Justice," then I'm all for that. If order means "oppression," then I'll take chaos any day.

*summons Chaos Saber*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system, so that's a misnomer.
Not true, of course. Maybe a worthy comment in the pure theoretical sense. Capitalism espouses the systemic support for and encouragement of immoral greed and hoarding of resources. The mechanism by which this is accomplished is the government's allowance of these processes. Essentially it is disingenuous and in fact immorally unaware to suggest that economy is not governance. This classic right wing fallacy is the love of personal order and group chaos. It denies the moral truths of consequential morality, e.g. inequality of worthiness and therefore wealth and the unity principle.

If you're an individualist, then how are you also a socialist? That's a rhetorical question.
Both are required. The juxtaposition of moral truth requires both in equal measure. You are BOTH an individual and you yet must fit into the framework of your society and the greater moral unity of all living things. All of these are true.

Feudal police state.
The overbalanced order is indeed a police state. But you are wrong to think that restraint of immorality need be a police state. Loving concern is not bound to order as an aim, but to good. There is a difference in ways and means.

Don't put too much faith in the supposed "goodness" of people, especially people in authority. The rule of law is superior to the rule of men. Don't make me quote Dustin from the first season of Stranger Things.
What is the rule of men? Is that goodness? No, then, you are wrong. Goodness is superior to order. We must merely acknowledge that truth to cause more happiness amid mankind.

You'll never have that due to human nature. Not to sound cynical. Let's just say I'm skeptical of the plausibility, so I'll stick with the rule of law rather than the rule of man.

Even Asgore would agree with me.
You are conservative, pragmatic, based in fear. Your imbalances are clear to me. Develop more anger (compassion) and desire (passion) to balance this foolish and unwise fear you have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
First of all thank you for responding. I was worried you were going to just ignore discussion.

I'm usually one to advocate balance and harmony, but when it comes to this, I favor freedom over order. Yes, even if it means a certain degree of chaos.
It is a moral error then, and worse, an aware, e.g. intentional failure.

I'm not asking for perfection. I'm not asking for utopia. Only civility.
You ask for too little. Still perfection-aiming IS NOT asking for Utopia(perfection itself). You are conflating.

Ever read The Peace Child?
Nope, what was its lesson in wisdom?

Ah, here's another core issue where our respective factions differ in how they perceive the underlying microcosmic architecture of ultimate reality. Our side views "the people" and "the government" as being at odds with each other, whereas your side actually thinks they're one and the same. If governments serve The People's interests, then why do so many of them seek to disarm and control The People through fear and coercion, rendering us as helpless victims?
People do that to people and people only they remain. Take away the idea/capability of differential advantages in as many ways as you can, and you begin to solve these issues. If people know the machinery of society will offer them fair access to resources regardless of what they do or do not do, they will cease to be fearful or comparative in the negative senses. They can focus on their own happiness which DOES include industry and achievement.

It is a moral truth that there is no Justice without Liberty.
Agreed and also it is a moral truth that there is no justice without order. The balance is 50/50.

If order means "Justice," then I'm all for that. If order means "oppression," then I'll take chaos any day.
Moral restraint IS NOT oppression.

*summons Chaos Saber*
Summons order shield and turns chaos on itself (Modesitt books) Only the druids are correct (balance).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,148 Posts
I imagine it's in the sense that socialism gets made synonymous with state intervention into markets or at the very least the sense that it's not a truer capitalism for it to be so hindered by the state.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/works/capitalist.htm
The Formulas of the Improvisers Among the improvisers who seek to deny the capitalist nature of German economy, a few have hastily read Marx in order to cull from his works some definition of capitalism which is no longer applicable to the Third Reich. In the main their procedure comes down to defining capitalist economy as a “market economy.” Then they conclude: Since prices in Germany are determined not by the automatic laws of the market but by state decrees, therefore the economy is no longer capitalist. To be sure, the intervention of the state into the sphere of circulation affords certain supplementary channels for the manipulation of prices. But there is essentially nothing new in this. For almost half a century monopolies and cartels have precisely set themselves the task of converting free trade into its opposite. Are monopolies then “non-capitalist” enterprises? The formula of the improvisers is false because they attempt to define capitalism by seeking its essential characteristics in the sphere of circulation.

Marxism teaches us that a correct definition of capitalism can be established only by seeking out the essential relations in the sphere of production, which, in turn, determines those in the sphere of circulation.
Which of course there is something true in the effort to achieve socialism via the state
http://libcom.org/files/marx, marginalism and modern sociology - clarke.pdf
Within a capitalist society the anonymous rule of the market and inequalities of wealth tend to secure the dominance of the economic sphere, so that value conflicts tend to be resolved in favour of economic rationality. Political and hierocratic organisations, writers, artists and intellectuals, have to have as much regard to their economic viability as does the capitalist enterprise, while the power and patronage of the rich helps them to secure the dominance of their interests in all social spheres. However socialism, far from resolving the contradiction between the formal rationality and the substantive irrationality of modern society, threatens to develop this contradiction to its ultimate limits in supplanting the dominance of economic rationality by the dominance of bureaucratic rationality, sacrificing the economic rationality and relative political freedom of capitalism for the ultimate nightmare of a totalitarian bureaucratic tyranny

The contradiction between the formal rationality and the substantive irrationality of modern society cannot be overcome through the dominance of one form of rationality, embedded in one sphere of social life, over all others, but only by developing some means of resolving value conflicts on the basis of a coherent system of overarching values. The dilemma is that for Weber the fragmentation of social life makes it increasingly difficult to sustain any coherent view of the social world as a whole, let alone to reshape the world in accordance with such a view, and equally makes it very difficult to develop a shared view of the world, which can unite significant social groupings. Weber tended to follow the logic of his argument to take a pessimistic view of humanity’s tragic fate, leaving the individual to scrabble in the ruins to construct a personal meaning as best she may. The only possibility of salvation lay in the emergence of a charismatic figure, who could provide moral and political leadership on the basis of a coherent world view. The ultimate tragedy is that this diagnosis led Weber to promote the inclusion of the clause in the Weimar constitution which permitted Hitler to come to power as just such a figure a decade after Weber’s death.
I think in the end, if there is to be any solution to capitalism, it will be in actions to overcome alienation of labor, anything less is merely playing with the dials of capitalist relations.
 
http://libcom.org/files/marx, marginalism and modern sociology - clarke.pdf
It is at this point in his analysis, at the very end of the first manuscript, that Marx takes the decisive step, one which has bewildered most of those commentators who have not simply passed it by. Thus far Marx has described the forms of alienated labour characteristic of the capitalist mode of production. He now seems to be moving smoothly to an explanation of alienated labour as the consequence of private property. In alienated labour a social relation between people appears in the form of the subordination of a person to a thing. This social relation is the relation of private property, in which the capitalist appropriates the means of production as his private property, so permitting him to subordinate the labourer to his own will (Bell, 1959, pp. 933–952; Schacht, 1971, p. 107; Oakley, 1984, pp. 63, 66). Thus we find again the ‘hidden premise’ of political economy, already identified by Proudhon and by Engels.

This explanation would be entirely in accord with the orthodox interpretation of Marx’s ‘historical materialism’, for which capitalist social relations are de- fined by the private ownership of the means of production, which implies that property relations are prior to production relations (and which also has the very embarrassing implication that ‘juridical relations’ are prior to ‘economic relations’ (Plamenatz, 1954, Chap. 2; Cohen, 1970)) However this is not the step that Marx takes. He is quite clear that alienated labour is the cause and not the consequence of private property. Before labour can be appropriated in the form of property it must first take the form of alienated labour. Thus the proprietorial relation between a person and a thing expresses a more fundamental social relation between people. The legal form of private property presupposes the social relation of alienated labour:


Thus through estranged labour man . . . creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product . . . The relationship of the worker to labour creates the relation to it of the capitalist . . . Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labour (CW, 3, p. 279).


Marx recognised that this argument may seem paradoxical, but he was unequivocal:


True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labour (of alienated life) in political economy. But analysis of this concept shows that though private property appears to be the reason, the cause of alienated labour, it is rather its consequence . . . Later this relationship becomes reciprocal (CW, 3, pp. 279–80).
...
Although Marx’s theory of alienated labour has been wilfully or unwilfully misinterpreted by almost all the commentators, it is the very foundation not only of his critique of political economy and of Hegel’s philosophy, but also of his critique of the presuppositions of liberal social thought in general. It was this insight which, Marx later acknowledged, ‘served as a guiding thread for my studies’ (Marx, 1968, p. 181). Private property is the hidden presupposition of liberal social thought because it is private property that constitutes the abstract individuality of the bourgeois subject, the individual having been isolated from society through her private appropriation of the conditions and products of her social existence.


If Marx’s critique had remained a critique on the basis of private property, as the orthodox interpretations would have it, it would have remained, like that of Proudhon, a critique on the basis of political economy and, more generally, within the limits of bourgeois social thought. But if the relation of private property between a person and a thing is only the juridical expression of a social relation between people, the abstract individual subject of bourgeois social theory is found to be only a philosophical abstraction, expressing particular social relations of production. The starting point of philosophy and of social theory has to be not the abstract individual, whose social qualities are concealed behind a property relation between the individual and a thing, but the historically developed social relations which characterise a particular form of society. Marx’s apparently innocent argument that private property is the result of alienated labour has devastating implications, for it undermines the apparently a priori character of the fundamental categories of bourgeois thought.

To which I wonder what Jacque Fresco's solution is to the dominance of exchange value.
Because appeals to a common humanity and acknowledging such a crisis will not bring us closer to the solution to capitalism's amoral destruction of our own well being and existence.
Which makes me concern it's simply a modern form of Utopian socialism that doesn't penetrate far enough into capitalism. Because I think many are right emphasizing that we totally could do such a thing technologically and even with political support one can still fail to overcome.
If can't address the irrationality of capitalism, then all the technology in the world will only go so far but necessarily be restrained by the necessity of pursuing profit. Which is indeed a necessity within our system, one might temper it in various ways but it is ultimate in that capitalism is like a vulgar Darwinism, you either make profit and keep improving to remain competitive or dominate the market with a monopoly or you go under.
 
1 - 20 of 204 Posts
Top