Hacker News Reader

Comment by theossuary | Hacker News Reader

This isn't the difference between a small town and city, it's the inevitable result of late stage capitalism. In cities it's still possible to go to small stores and create connection with your local grocer, butcher, etc. I purposefully do it, but I have to seek out the places it's still possible, they're dwindling every year. The problem is capitalism wants to consolidate and treat people as fungible to extract more value, which has the side effect of preventing the formation of social bonds.

View on HN

Capitalism isn't a person, it doesn't want things.

The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.

No, the issue is pedantic people like you who can't understand that "want" is a simple way of saying that a system is biased towards certain outcomes. Capitalism is not an expression of human nature, it's a single possible pareto equilibrium. To say otherwise ignores huge swaths of humans history, and many modern nations which have achieved equilibrium in different ways.

I understand capitalism as “things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”.

> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium

I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism

> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature

Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).

Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.

> Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).

The idea that something a two year old does is a suitable basis for the foundations of society as a whole is both hilarious and terrifying. Two year olds are tyrants.

Yup. That is _part_ of human nature.

That’s why power corrupts.

Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths so any definition is going to be fuzzy. However, it's probably useful to specifically say that in capitalism specifically private property and/or capital can be owned. Generally speaking, socialist systems still allow personal property to be owned, they just place restrictions on the ownership or private property and/or capital.

It's also probably worth considering that socialism doesn't necessarily have to forbid ownership of private property or capital outright. It could, for example, mean that revenue/profit/income derived from private property or capital is taxed more highly than revenue/profit/income derived from labor.

> Both capitalism and socialism are spectrums of systems rather than single monoliths

Seems a reasonable and useful way to define it.

> any definition is going to be fuzzy.

Definitely! (That is why I preemptively added my attempt at the definition, to avoid a discussion past each other)

probably a lot of people are using terrible definitions of 'capitalism' such as '“things can be owned and sold” + “you can profit from investment”', which explains why these discussions are full of so much nonsense

wikipedia's current definition says:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, profit motive, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor and the production of commodities. In a market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, or ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

this is not a perfect definition but it is a much better one

Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous.

No nation has ever achieved equilibrium but we are enjoying the most peaceful times in history during a time after the previous wave of capitalism-alternatives failed miserably or acquiesced.

Just about every measure of human flourishing is in the rise, globally.

Measures of human flourishing are rising for the mid-stagers and so globally it might look ok. In late stage countries human flourishing has begun a decline.

While the last 20 years we have made progress on a some acute problems like heart disease, complex ill-health is very much on the rise - Cancer, nearly all mental health issues, obesity & diabetes, suicide. Poverty is on the rise, literacy rates are down.

Human flourishing is just keeping its head above water in these places. Humans are resilient, but there are limits.

Capitalist-fundamentalists will also throw up their hands when asked how we might solve existential problems for which the is no end in sight - eg global warming, the toxifying of our food systems with plastics and industrial chemicals, government debt, etc.

> Capitalism is a system built by people that recognize that humans are reliably selfish and seeks to align their selfish interests as best as it can with the rest of the populous.

You just described mass institutional psychopathy.

I don't consider my family to be innately selfish within the family dynamic, or my friends to be innately greedy.

If you build a system that rewards greed and selfishness (and punishes giving), people will be greedy and selfish within that system. Don't reverse the cause and effect.

That's simply not true. Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy has been very successful.

It's also quite possible that humanity can eventually find a new system that works better than capitalism. After all it took thousands of years for humanity to find capitalism.

The countries you are likely thinking if who say they are those things are still capitalist countries with a touch more of social welfare than other similar countries.

There are other countries who claim to be socialist but are just totalitarian dictatorships (not surprising, in order to control the economy, you have to control the people), are lying or both.

That's just semantics. Whether we want to call them left wing forms of capitalism or moderate forms of socialism isn't really important. What's important is that there ARE nations with successful economic systems that are better than what people call "late stage capitalism".

These successful economic systems are still based on private ownership rights and the right to assemble (in this context the right to form business partnerships with low exit costs). In other words: the core capitalist building blocks.

Like I said, what you call them isn't the point. The point is that there are better options than what we currently have.

That's like saying anything with four tires and a motor is a sedan. Name economic systems (including socialism) have the right to create businesses and own property. Capitalism is ownership of private ventures by an investment class who reap the profits (paying the employees as little as possible); socialism is when companies are owned collectively (most may be owned by employees, some may be owned nationally). Everything else is unrelated.

And now the pitch.

They're not wrong. Late stage capitalism sucks, but the alternative systems out there seem to lead to mass starvation or total collapse. People have been lifted out of poverty worldwide as well. Some kind of balance seems necessary.

The welfare states of Western Europe and the Nordic countries seem much better than America's system of late stage capitalism and they have not lead to mass starvation or total collapse.

Likewise, America's economy seemed to be much more healthy when it had a more active/successful labor movement.

Those welfare states only exist as such because the US subsidizes their drug discovery, R&D, defense, spooks, and related.

Without the US taking one for the team, Europe could not maintain its social democracies or its welfare states.

Then I think that the US should stop taking one for the team and we can work from there.

I'm not sure if the current success of Norway can be replicated everywhere. It has a small population living off a state oil fund that has something like $300k/person.

I think capitalism is fundamentally different than other systems because of one important nuance. In capitalism you can buy a plot of land and go start a communist society, or a socialist one, or whatever you want. So long as your little society can feed itself, you can do whatever you want. Well even if it can't feed itself, it can still do whatever it wants - but it probably won't be particularly long lived. But in socialist or communist societies you can't just go start up your own little capitalist society.

Capitalism is biased towards whatever the governing authority says it is. In America, due to onerous regulations and taxes, it's difficult for independent players to become established and the regulations favor a handful of large companies in most sectors. This is not universally true in every country, and they're just as capitalist (arguably more so) than us

Onerous? More like pathetically lacking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com