This isn't particularly well-argued. Just a lot of handwavy grievance about "elites" as though there's some kind of coordinated conspiracy.
But there is direct evidence that politicians are influencing corporations to alter return to office policies:
- Mayor of SF asking businesses to pledge to implement RTO policies: https://sfist.com/2022/03/03/mayor-breed-would-like-you-back...
- Mayor of NYC basically doing the same: https://archive.is/si6xd
But no evidence that this is related to property values alone or even in large part. SF is desperate to ensure the downtown does not enter a full-on doom loop which would impact all businesses as well as anyone who lives there or visits regularly. [0] Other knock-on effects include BART facing severe financial problems due to low ridership. They want people back any way they can get them so San Francisco does not end up like Detroit.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-crime-downtown-do...
Here's another related one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/02/17/new-york-c...
To my mind, this is more a systems-level description of currents in capital. Yes, there's a clickbaity headline about 'elites', but if you think more in terms of wealth doing things of its own accord (similar to how e.g. Dawkins got us talking about selfish genes -- selfish dollars?) then this observation might cash out after all.
That said, I do agree that the editorial style of the article is needlessly conspiratorial --- it likely appeals strongly to leftists (like me) who see and sense that capital flows and floes seem to have a mind of their own, but who (unlike me) think this requires smoky backroom deals.
Corporations have an incentive to not lose money on real estate that they’ve already purchased, whether or not they have employees warming that space.
Landlords have an incentive to make money through rent, but they can’t really exert pressure on corporations to rent the space landlords own.
Where is the chain of incentives?
I don't see how this is different from consensus among actors, or rather it looks the same.
The label or attribute conspiracy is a tool used to discredit findings or positive correlations.
I see now that you think elite is overloaded and programmed to have conspiracy relation. This is not true though according to m-w: "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence".
If you pay attention to main stream media, you will see almost all forms of dissent attributed to conspiracy.
A lot of financial news outlets have been pointing out the risk of corporate real estate risks.
Making the connection to back-to-office doesn't have to be a coordinated conspiracy.
It just has to be a few middle managers being like "Hey Bob in Dev, this is Steve from Operations, I'm in a real bind with the empty office on 5th, can you see about filling it. Sure Man."
However this article did not present any evidence of any given group of elites doing this, for this reason, so...
Let's use our influence over corporate decision making to try to get people to use buildings in order to prop up commercial real estate asset prices feels like a bank-shot at best.
Doesn't everyone know that corporations Boards, and C-suit, and Republican donors, etc, etc, etc.. All vacation together, meet together, perhaps even chug beers with Supreme Court Justices together.
Does the author really need to 'prove' this in order to reference it???
This whole post is people arguing about what level of 'coordination' does it take before we can call it a 'conspiracy'. There isn't any 'conspiracy', it's just friendly chatting and innuendo, but of course there is a common 'problem with a solution we should perhaps generally steer towards (wink)'.
Just because there is a lot of noise being made about anti-racism in the US doesn't mean it's the most progressive country in the world. It just means that a lot of noise is being made there.
> 1982 François Mitterrand's proposals in the 110 Propositions for France and alliance with Jean-Pierre Chevènement's Socialist Party faction CERES, committed France to an explicitly socialist ‘rupture with capitalism’. Full nationalisation (100%): the Compagnie Générale d'Electricité, the Compagnie Générale de Constructions Téléphoniques, Pechiney-Ugine-Kuhlmann, Rhône-Poulenc, Saint-Gobain-Pont-à-Mousson, Thompson-Brandt. Partial nationalisation (51%+): Dassault, Honeywell-Bull, Matra, Roussel-Uclaf, Sacilor, Usinor. Thirty-nine banks, two financial houses, and the remaining 49% of the SNCF were also nationalised, taking the size of the French state to unprecedented levels within a year of Mitterrand's election as president in 1981.
Clearly that is not the case in any European country.
>Dassault
Literally family owned.
I don't think you realize just how capitalist European countries really are. State owned corporations are usually quite rare and generally known for being run extremely badly. On the other hand many of the largest corporations are still controlled by the families of their founders.
It is not an easy comparison.
They have the luxury of the US taxpayers taking care of their defense while they propped up Russia, which US is also paying the most by a large margin to fix now [1, 2, 3]. Hilariously US socialists are against US defense spending except when it comes to US spending on Europe.
They also have the luxury of oil money which American "socialists" are totally against [4].
All in all, a pretty neat scam if you ask me.
[1] https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88764 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
[4] https://www.barrons.com/news/norway-earns-record-oil-gas-rev....
Edit: All of what I say is objective. Luxurious Western Europe and Nordic "socialism" can't survive without gullible US taxpayers footing the bill over decades.
EDIT: how could I forget Trump's undermining of NATO, cozying up to Russia, and withholding aid to Ukraine?
2. All I am saying is socialism that exists due to the benevolence of capitalism and exploiting nature is not real socialism and is not sustainable.
3. > how could I forget Trump's undermining of NATO, cozying up to Russia, and withholding aid to Ukraine
Wasn't Trump the one who warned the snickering Europeans against Russia? Even if that is the case, it doesn't go against my point #2.
>they're trending more Socialis
Indeed. More and more ridicolous taxes and less and less useful social investments.
On the human level, sure. On the level of "fundamental economic system" (which is, I believe, the line of discussion), there really aren't.
They're both WEIRD countries with market based-economies and a social safety net. They both end up at the top of the lists on economic power (adjusted for population).
The differences between them are political fine-tuning of the system to target an extra 5-10% of the population with the safety net, or to target those people in different ways. That's incredibly minor in terms of economic systems.
When comparing two different economic systems, you tend to see differences on the order of "mass-famines" and "percentage of the population involved in subsistence farming".
One of the problems with this whole "debate" is that defenders of the status quo apply a huge motte and bailey to the definition of "capitalism". Both strawmanning any criticism of it as a rejection of all aspects claimed by capitalism, and also giving capitalism credit for systems that share some aspects of capitalism even though they haven't gone all-in and let capital run roughshod over everything else.
This dynamic is so common it has become a trope - kneejerk cries of "socialism". The original link that kicked off this comment tree was basically doing the same thing in more words.
The distinction between the motte and the bailey is easiest to see when aspects that we associate with capitalism end up in direct opposition to capitalism itself. For example, free markets can be directly opposed to capitalism, like in the context of imaginary property. A capital-centric view says that inventing a new form of capital out of whole cloth is the right thing to do. A market-centric view says that competition should drive the cost of information to within an epsilon of the copying/distribution cost.
This is a fair call-out, given that there's so much drive-by arguing on the internet.
I'm pretty sure I'm using a standard definition, but let me state the definition I'm using just to be as explicit as possible: A system is capitalist if it has private ownership of the means of production.
So, to give an example, a country would be a capitalist country regardless of their tax scheme/welfare spending so long as the means of production were privately held. Another country that nationalized industries (the oil industry is a common one) would be, at the very least, a mixed-economy, regardless of how free their markets are.
Given the above comments on Europe, I would argue that European countries do meet the definition of capitalist for the most part. While some European countries do completely nationalize a handful of industries, it's rare, and the majority of industries are privately owned, even if they are highly regulated.
Meanwhile I'd say most critics of "late stage capitalism" aren't bemoaning the private ownership aspect itself. Rather they're criticizing the wealth concentration, industry consolidation, and government corruption that large accumulations of capital symbiotically buy and benefit from.
But it is wrong. The Chinese government has demonstrated repeatedly that they are the de facto owners of, effectively, all of the wealth in the country.
Meaningful ownership isn't a legal status, it's the power to do... well... whatever you want with the thing in question.
Which I suppose puts ownership (and thus also capitalism) on a spectrum and makes it all messy, but all real life things are messy.
> Meanwhile I'd say most critics of "late stage capitalism" aren't bemoaning the private ownership aspect itself. Rather they're criticizing the wealth concentration, industry consolidation, and government corruption
And they can criticize all of that they want. I'd, frankly, like a less corrupt government along with a more decentralized world. But equating that to capitalism itself is roughly as lazy as the old boomers who think that socialism is when the government does anything.
But capitalism is the only system of economics I'm aware of that doesn't seem to have periodic famines, which I have a vested interest in preventing (I enjoy eating). And until I see serious evidence to the contrary (and several smaller scale experiments), I'm going to keep pushing it.
Comparing absolute numbers isn't fair to China, but look at the percentage of the population that starved in each country during those relative time periods.
They imported Lysenkoism from the soviets (who also had massive famines while implementing it).
Which is one of the reasons it's a bad idea to give control of the means of production to the politicians. There are a lot of things that sound good to a politician, but are a bad idea in practice.
There is plenty of this messiness in the US as well. Which puts the judgement solidly in "I know it when I see it" territory, leaving that definition pretty useless. This is also bordering on giving capitalism credit for the rule of law.
( considering China as capitalist would seem to make for more productive analysis. We can then start criticizing things we don't like about their system within the context of capitalism, rather than othering it and pretending we can't have similar problems )
> But equating [corruption] to capitalism itself is roughly as lazy as the old boomers who think that socialism is when the government does anything.
I'm not drawing this connection lazily in general, but rather due to specific forms of corruption that seem like "private" ownership run amok and are thus reasonable to pin on capitalism itself. I already mentioned imaginary property, which is a form of ownership/capital invented out of whole cloth, under the idea that its better to have more forms of ownership rather than unowned commons. But rather than stopping at creating the general concept, we get things like the DMCA that privilege large accumulators of capital over distributed individual ownership.
There are also our overfinancialized money markets, which have paperclip maximized their way to creating financial assets from of any future rent stream they can. This is backed up by governmental help from the federal reserve supplying an endless stream of money for creating said financial instruments, such that the first-order asset ownership of most of society hardly matters in the larger economic picture.
And I haven't even touched upon "private" entities themselves promulgating paradigms that reject the concept of private ownership (eg "trusted" computing, SaaS/platform sharecropping). Those seem solidly in the realm of capitalism trumping/abhorring free markets and freedom in general.
In a different context I can see myself arguing that these things aren't "true" capitalism (the centralized vs distributed distinction I made elsewhere), and if only the government held truer to the concept of private ownership we'd be in a better spot. But I'm also sympathetic to the argument that mass accumulations of capital will inevitably change the rules of the game to benefit themselves, despite those changes going against other people's private ownership interests. In a way it seems that corrupt legislation and precedents are themselves forms of capital that have been invested in because they facilitate rent streams, at the direct expense of our distributed societal freedom.
The general thrust of my critique is why should we put the philosophical focus on capital itself defaulting to the label of "capitalism"? Why not private property, free markets, the rule of law, personal freedom, etc? It feels like a propaganda push from large centralized capital holders to privilege themselves over those other ideals.
I'd rather go the other way, and give rule of law credit for capitalism. Probably one of its better effects. Capitalism requires an external neutral enforcer (for varying degrees of neutrality, but generally more neutral is better) to enforce property rights. Otherwise you end up with capital owners that need their own security forces, which morph into de facto states (see medieval feudal lords for an example). This state control of the means of production may work well on a 5-10 year period occasionally, but it's disastrous in the long term.
> considering China as capitalist would seem to make for more productive analysis
I think you can look at them in that lens post Deng or so (and they've had significantly fewer famines since then). Although with the recent consolidation of power, I'm not sure if the lens of totalitarianism might yield a better light. The union of political, military, and economic power completely within a single institution has certain properties that don't hold true for any single one of those.
> ...rather due to specific forms of corruption that seem like "private" ownership run amok and are thus reasonable to pin on capitalism itself.
Might I ask you to elaborate on this? Because the failures I see in China tend to pattern match more towards the patronage networks you see crop up in public systems. But I'll admit to not having a perfect understanding of China, and am willing to hear a case be made.
> I already mentioned imaginary property, which is a form of ownership/capital invented out of whole cloth, under the idea that its better to have more forms of ownership rather than unowned commons.
I'll give you this one. Intellectual property is dumb, as there's no scarcity requiring an efficient distribution of goods. You can argue private ownership of (non-intellectual) property is an evil, but I would argue that it is a necessary one (on the level of taxation). And one we get quite a bit of benefit from.
> There are also our overfinancialized money markets, which have paperclip maximized their way to creating financial assets from of any future rent stream they can. This is backed up by governmental help from the federal reserve supplying an endless stream of money for creating said financial instruments, such that the first-order asset ownership of most of society hardly matters in the larger economic picture.
So, I mean... let them fail. They've been trying to fail since the 80s or so with the bond crisis back then, and we keep propping them up. I'm gonna be honest, blaming capitalism for the actions of politicians feels like an unfair slight. Propping up ventures well past their point of usefulness because of political necessity is one of the hallmarks of a politically owned system, not a privately owned one. One that has happened over and over (see the soviet army's capture of the USSR's budget, or Lysenkoism).
You could say that the capitalists pressure the politicians, which is fair on some level, but seems like a symptom of a political system corruption. I would argue that as long as you have that, none of your economic systems are going to do what you want, though I will still argue that being as capitalistic as possible will, generally, still perform the best.
> But I'm also sympathetic to the argument that mass accumulations of capital will inevitably change the rules of the game to benefit themselves
This is probably the best argument here. Nobody, least of all me, argues that capitalists are supremely ethical. In fact amorality is generally one of the big points of it. There does need to be some sort of external arbiter.
I guess, the general avenue of my counter-argument is that it works well. Sure, it has downsides, but we have billions of lives riding on this. Show me a system that has a decently scaled example of working better.
> why should we put the philosophical focus on capital
Because capital + labor is how you make stuff, and we need a bunch of stuff made. And since the industrial revolution the majority of the advancement has been from the refining of capital rather than throwing more labor at the issue.
I know a fair bit about about the housing shortage for instance, and it's not "capitalism". It's a specific set of rules and institutions that cause the problem.
To me, the root causes of the housing crisis are zoning and the endless supply of newly created money from the Federal Reserve. Both of these policies are direct results of those who own housing (aka capital owners) politically insisting that the value of their "investments" continually go up. That's capital acting on the meta-system to optimize for capital itself. It's sensible to lay the blame for this on capitalism itself, and doing so doesn't mean I'm looking to somehow blow away the entire system in favor of some completely different -ism.
I'd personally make my own distinction of centralized capitalism versus distributed capitalism. But that's more of a constructive argument of how to specifically reform the system, while still sharing the general criticism.
> When comparing two different economic systems, you tend to see differences on the order of "mass-famines" and "percentage of the population involved in subsistence farming".
There are plenty of capitalist countries that do a lot of subsistence farming.
I disagree. When laid against things like the end of mercantilism, I don't think that qualifies as transformative.
I think the effects would look pretty much like the existing US system, because Denmark looks pretty close to the current US system by the standards we're talking about. If you want to argue they'd be fundamentally different, you can make a case, but I'd like to know why they would produce different results.
> There are plenty of capitalist countries that do a lot of subsistence farming.
Do you have some examples? The areas I'm aware of that practice subsistence farming, don't have a long history of leaving the means of production alone in private hands for very long.
That may be your benchmark but it's not mine. I think permanently pulling 30m people out of poverty in the US would be a multi-trillion dollar multi-decade endeavor on the scale of combating climate change (you need housing reforms, education reforms, health care reforms, criminal justice reforms, etc). That may not qualify for you, but it definitely does for me.
> Do you have some examples? The areas I'm aware of that practice subsistence farming, don't have a long history of leaving the means of production alone in private hands for very long.
Besides being something of a no-true-scotsman, examples are India, Brazil, and Mexico.
This is not correct. Under, for example, the Roman Empire, privately held land was routinely leased to free men, either for a share of the produce (métayage) or for a fixed fee. This practice lasted hundreds of years. The end of subsistence farming has everything to do with technology and nothing at all to do with capitalism.
In the eigth century in France, around 50% of the land was under a sharecropping-like system, too. This page, and the page in French wiki it links in the intro, give a good rundown of capitalist-like subsistence farming in antiquity and the middle ages : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metayage
Or, to put it another way, the large landowners you're referring to, also had large armies, the largest armies around by definition, otherwise they wouldn't have owned that land. They _were_ the state in their area, in the modern sense.
That's not private ownership of the means of production.
Roman landowners did not own their land by stealing it from other citizens with large armies. They owned their land by either receiving it from the state as payment, or by buying it. The Roman state had a definite monopoly on violence. In fact, when people commanded armies to take power in Rome, what they were trying to do was to take over the state, and the vast majority of the time those weren't private armies, but State armies that they were misusing.
The Roman state very very much had a monopoly on violence and roman agricultural tenants very very much were renting the landlords privately owned means of production.
Capitalism doesn't magically stop subsistence farming. The advance of science and nothing else makes that possible. The Romans had little interest in advancing fundamental technology because there was no money to be made doing it, and so they never made any advances beyond the domains engineering which were immediately profitable (like weapons and aqueducts and bridges). That's why they made barely any scientific progress in a thousand years.
I call BS here. The Romans basically never had this. During the Republic, you had literal private armies.
And once you get past the Diocletian reforms, the large land owners have enough arms to shield locals from Roman military service. Generally in exchange for service to themselves in agriculture (I believe this is the basis for Europe's system of serfdom).
The type of modern state (or even the concept) we're used to doesn't really emerge until the treaty of Westphalia.
> Capitalism doesn't magically stop subsistence farming.
No, it doesn't. Of course it isn't magic. It just provides an incentive for people to improve things, usually via new technology.
Incentives are surprisingly powerful.
If you can't recognize that the Roman state had a monopoly on violence for the vast majority of its duration I can't help you. Obviously, it got weaker during its terminal decline - that's how state decline works. As soon as the monopoly of violence weakened the Empire started imploding, and indeed when it was healthy the state did enjoy it's monopoly.
The bucellarii, the private armies which were able to rival the Roman state, only became a thing in the late 300s. Rome fell only a hundred years later. For the vast majority of Roman history armies belonged to the State, and any mercenary formations were negligible - the regime you're describing was due to the Empire crumbling and is indeed what led to feudalism.
> The type of modern state (or even the concept) we're used to doesn't really emerge until the treaty of Westphalia.
Westphalia formalized the modern Eufopean state. But there were a great many similar states before, with a monopoly on violence, a defined political system, since ~4000BC. They just didn't bother formalizing what being a state meant.
> No, it doesn't. Of course it isn't magic. It just provides an incentive for people to improve things, usually via new technology.
Technology maybe, and only in the most basic sense, and Rome is the example. In 1100 years of Roman history, not a single basic scientific discovery was made, because it was completely unprofitable. Technology advanced, yes, but soon enough it was limited by the extremely primitive scientific understanding they had, so they barely made any progress for hundreds of years.
> Incentives are surprisingly powerful.
Practical technological is incentivized in every political economy.
Incentives are surprisingly powerful.
Anytime this point comes up, someone on the right/Republican will say any taxation is Socialism, that Europe is Socialist. So, to compare Europe/Nordic socialist policies, to US policies is not a large leap. You can't just say, "well technically that isn't really socialism so we can't use that as an example in this argument", when literally for a decade the 'right' has specifically called them socialist.
Nonsensical strawman. Socialism has a real meaning and "taxation" isn't it.
I know this, but there is 50/50 chance that whoever is posting on the internet does not know it.
And Republicans argue that both are socialism.
Half of the country thinks "anything the government does is socialism" and campaigns to stop it, or get rid of it, or handicaps it, or how it is just evil and control.
Basically to the right: 'government' = 'socialism'. And they haven't realized yet they are arguing for anarchy.
I thought republicans wanted to strengthen borders?
I do not follow US politics, but I never heard anyone advocating that taxation should be abolished. Seems a bizarre claim. Here in Germany parties publish the platforms they are running on, is there something similar in the US?
https://www.lp.org/issues/taxes/
https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarian-party-don...
Libertarians typically don't get a candidate into the election, so they end up voting Republican.
In the Venn Diagram, Libertarians are a sub-set of Republicans.
Republican views are also administration dependent.
If there is a Democratic President then Republicans think government is evil, socialist and place a high value on reducing the debt, reducing the size of government.
But if a Republican is president, then debt no longer matters, increasing spending on defense, walls, and having a 'strong government of law and order' is the priority. So debt is ok, and the bigger the gov the better. It's a bit schizophrenic.
But, agree, not relevant to the original story. Just a little.
The original story was about 'elites'. In the US, any conversation on that subject gets wrapped up in different opinions on who the 'elite's are, and if they are Socialist. One side thinks the 'elite's are Socialist, the other side think the 'elite's are corporate CEO's.
This thread digressed to the discussion of Socialism (not the academic definition), and I was just following along with that tangent.
About the republicans calling taxation socialism. Zero evidence of that.
They are Republicans.
https://www.lp.org/issues/taxes/
https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarian-party-don...
Then it should be trvial to link to a republucan publication/website/statemrent claiming the same thing.
To be honest I think you are just making stuff up.
I started searching and had dozen hits, and was like "wait, why do I have to search for this person, this is a troll at this point".
It has been in debates, articles, arguments. Like non-stop for 6 years. It was in the Republican debates. You go look it up.
Seems like being extra pedantic now , "well, they didn't mean it, those other links don't count, show me the official Republican documentation".
More of an academic point though, as Europe, as a whole, is still basically completely capitalist under this definition as well.
Edit: An example of a socially-owned company that is not state-owned would be an employee owned company.
- there are big differences between US capitalism and European social democracy
- European social democracies are trending more socialist all the time
> European countries are capitalist, not socialist, and got where they are by being so.
Ehhhh communist movements, multiple devastating wars, and unions had a hand in it too.
Eh? Which ones? As a European this is very much news to be; not much seizing of the means of production going on. If anything, some divesting of the means of production; heavily regulated privatisation of state energy, transport etc monopolies has been going on all over Western Europe for a while.
I realise that in the US, the colloquial definition of ‘socialist’ these days is more or less “not actively going around kicking poor people”, but the idea that Europe is becoming more socialist by any reasonable definition is a bit out there.
No, you are seeing governments force green policies against the will of the majority.
This is a ranking of economic freedom which strongly aligns with capitalism. The U.S. ranks 25th behind European countries like Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Iceland, etc.