I do not doubt that capitalism is effective at increasing productivity. So let us imagine the ultimate outcome of capitalism - infinite or near infinite labor productivity. If you need help imagining that, watch an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In this imaginary universe, so-called replicators can make any physical object that is desired almost instantly. Only a few goods cannot be 'replicated.' Energy is extremely cheap and abundant. Any entertainment experience desired can be obtained at a holodeck. Artificial intelligence and replicators can accomplish most tasks people are paid to do today, and life-like intelligent androids are a reality.
Now, let's imagine that humans achieve Star Trek level technology while still in a capitalist economy. Suppose that 25% of the society are owners of replicators to some degree - large owners can produce large things like star ships, while smaller owners can produce consumer goods for sale or personal use. 50% of the population has marketable skills, to varying degrees, and can use these skills to provide services in exchange for wages with which to purchase the produce of the replicators. Another 25% of the population both lacks ownership of any replicators and possesses no marketable skills (nothing that a computer or replicator can't do better and cheaper).
Given this scenario, how will the bottom 25% feed themselves? The answer can only be "accept charity from the other two classes." How will the middle 50% feed themselves? The answer can only be "accepting employment, mainly from the ownership class."
Recipients of charity are not free people - they must find a benefactor, subjugate themselves to them, and if they cannot find a benefactor they may starve. They must make themselves humble and attractive to benefactors. Recipients of wages have some degree of freedom only. To the extent that their skills are in demand, they have power negotiate the conditions of employment and to choose among masters/employers. Still, they must make themselves humble and attractive to employers, or else be thrown into the class of people dependent on charity.
Capitalism has no cure for poverty or political subjugation. Capitalism may make an economy even infinitely productive without eliminating the insecurity and subjugation caused by being reliant on others for charity, or reliant on the profitability of ones skills in an abstract and changing market. In other words, capitalism, by itself, actually creates artificial scarcity, in the sense that the goods needed by the non-ownership class are not actually scarce, in that they can be summoned at a word with no effort, but are only artificially scarce due to the concentration of the ownership of their production. Capitalism, on its own, has no way of reconciling effective demand with real human needs without sacrificing human freedom and making one individual the dependent or slave of another.
It doesn't have to be this way, or course. A publicly owned replicator bank would provide necessities of life to anyone who wanted them, for free, and so eliminate the requirement that anyone defer to anyone else under coercion of real material needs. Contracts in such a system would be truly voluntary, because they would in no instance be undertaken to avoid harm, but only to enhance happiness. Careers would truly be freely chosen, because the option of not having a career would also be a possibility.
Of course, this is relevant because there is not a hard line between a primitive economy and a Star Trek economy. Rather, we are somewhere in between and moving steadily (and rapidly) towards the Star Trek economy. The danger is that social ills will persist (or are persisting) longer than is absolutely required by the level of economic development attained.
This is not to say that elements of capitalism - (markets, private ownership etc.) would or necessarily should disappear in an ideal economy - but it is to point out that capitalism by itself cannot resolve many problems and evils without being complemented with non-capitalistic additions.
Ultimately, it is a question of who is in charge; is the purpose of humans to serve markets, or is the purpose of markets to serve (all) humans? If the answer is that the purpose of economic systems is to serve all of humanity, then capitalism has a strong claim to legitimacy on the basis of its efficiency and productivity but it does not have a totalitarian claim to be the only legitimate system which should be implemented everywhere and totally.
Recipients of charity are not free people - they must find a benefactor, subjugate themselves to them, and if they cannot find a benefactor they may starve.
Moreover, you assume that the existence of replicators suddenly means that it is illegal to farm or something. Its not.
Still, they must make themselves humble and attractive to employers, or else be thrown into the class of people dependent on charity.
Capitalism has no cure for poverty or political subjugation. Capitalism may make an economy even infinitely productive without eliminating the insecurity and subjugation caused by being reliant on others for charity, or reliant on the profitability of ones skills in an abstract and changing market.
In other words, capitalism, by itself, actually creates artificial scarcity, in the sense that the goods needed by the non-ownership class are not actually scarce, in that they can be summoned at a word with no effort, but are only artificially scarce due to the concentration of the ownership of their production.
It doesn't have to be this way, or course. A publicly owned replicator bank would provide necessities of life to anyone who wanted them, for free, and so eliminate the requirement that anyone defer to anyone else under coercion of real material needs.
but it is to point out that capitalism by itself cannot resolve many problems and evils without being complemented with non-capitalistic additions.
but it does not have a totalitarian claim to be the only legitimate system which should be implemented everywhere and totally.
In theory, "capitalist" societies could be populated with many communist enclaves, it just kind of turns out that collectivism sucks in practice.
A publicly owned replicator bank would provide necessities of life to anyone who wanted them, for free, and so eliminate the requirement that anyone defer to anyone else under coercion of real material needs.
</thread>
Clayton -
First, your post is a very imaginative way of making your arguments.
Another 25% of the population both lacks ownership of any replicators and possesses no marketable skills (nothing that a computer or replicator can't do better and cheaper). Given this scenario, how will the bottom 25% feed themselves? The answer can only be "accept charity from the other two classes."
Given this scenario, how will the bottom 25% feed themselves? The answer can only be "accept charity from the other two classes."
Let's start with that number, 25%, which seems like a very large number for the real world. Are you saying that 25% of the people on Earth have no marketable skills? So that unemployment is 25% under ideal conditions in the real world as lived in today?
At any rate, I think the key words here are "the answer can only be". How do you know that? Which is tied in to the next key phrase: "no marketable skills". We are assuming no minimum wage, right? And also, as you wrote, energy is extremely cheap and abundant. So obviously, with cheap energy and all those replicators, things will be very inexpensive.
What I'm saying is these unfortunate 25% certainly could find, with no minimum wage in the way, some unskilled job or other for a small wage that would keep them living better than most people are now. After all, things are dirt cheap because of those replicators. Worse comes to worse, they could provide some service or other that people might like. After all, might no thtere be people who prefer getting a massage from a human and not from a robot? Or being served food by a human, or having one's hair cut, or many other things of that nature?
50% of the population has marketable skills, to varying degrees, and can use these skills to provide services in exchange for wages with which to purchase the produce of the replicators.'...How will the middle 50% feed themselves? The answer can only be "accepting employment, mainly from the ownership class."
You make it sound like something bad. Are we to assume they cannot save their money, then get together and chip in and buy a replicator? Why not?
I think everyone agrees that it's not the best life, living off charity. Unless it's living off gov't charity. No need to subjugate themselves at all, or work at all either. They can be as arrogant and unattractive as they wish.
Youe description of employees sounds like someone who has never hired people to work for him. Employers in this real world need people, and it is not easy to find someone who is really good. I assume that in Replicator World too, the employers will need their employees, else why hire them at all? The technical term is symbiotic relationship. For some odd reason, you don't describe it that way.
Capitalism has no cure for poverty Has anyone said it does? What I read people saying is that more and more people have better and better economic lives the longer capitalism is free to operate. That it benefits everyone, but most especially the masses. I'm sure you can find plenty of backup to that statement here on this site. Or in the real world, for that matter. So I suppose this statement is just the beginning of the story, that the continuation will be that some other system WILL have a cure for poverty. OK, let's see what it will be. or political subjugation. How did political subjugation get in here? We were talking about the subjugation that someone on charity or who has to work for a living must endure. What has that to do with politics? maybe that word politics doesn't belong here, and you are just contrasting capitalism with some other system that will eliminate subjugation. OK. Capitalism may make an economy even infinitely productive without eliminating the insecurity and subjugation caused by being reliant on others for charity, or reliant on the profitability of ones skills in an abstract and changing market. I smell a denial of that hard fought intellectual discovery, one that has been empirically proven over and over again, the law of supply and demand. The more you produce of something, the lower its price will be. So that in a world where there are few cars, you have to kiss a lot of ass to get the money to buy one. But were there are millions and millions of cars, being produced cheaply, then the subjugation goes down too, cause you only have to kiss $1,000 worth of ass, not $10,000. In other words, capitalism, by itself, actually creates artificial scarcity, in the sense that the goods needed by the non-ownership class are not actually scarce, in that they can be summoned at a word with no effort, but are only artificially scarce due to the concentration of the ownership of their production. This is contrary to economic history. All those members of the ownership class got that way by producing what the masses wanted at a low price. Not only that, but historically prices have been lowest and the goods provided to the most people precisely when there was concentration of the ownership of production. [We are speaking about when there is no govt interference, of course]. Read up on the robber barons on this site. You'l be surprised, I think. Capitalism, on its own, has no way of reconciling effective demand with real human needs I'm not sure what "effective demand" means. If it means making sure people can afford to buy their real human needs, of course it does. By it's very nature, capitalism makes sure that producers only get rich by producing, meaning supplying real human needs. And the law of supply and demand ensures that the more they produce, the cheaper the product. without sacrificing human freedom I guess you mean the intolerable situation you you described above, that to get a job, you have to make yourself presentable to the employer. And that charity thing is a straw man. 25% of the world needs charity? A very very small percent need it, and can get it from their families and from generous people who are glad to provide it, as has been the case in those cultures that preach its importance. and making one individual the dependent or slave of another. It's not capitalism that makes an unemployable person dependant on charity, it is his lot on life that made him that way. And an employee is not a slave. He can quit whenever he wants. "But then he will starve." "And the employer will not get what he wants either. So he will starve, too. Symbiotic relation, remember?"
Has anyone said it does? What I read people saying is that more and more people have better and better economic lives the longer capitalism is free to operate. That it benefits everyone, but most especially the masses. I'm sure you can find plenty of backup to that statement here on this site. Or in the real world, for that matter.
So I suppose this statement is just the beginning of the story, that the continuation will be that some other system WILL have a cure for poverty. OK, let's see what it will be.
or political subjugation.
How did political subjugation get in here? We were talking about the subjugation that someone on charity or who has to work for a living must endure. What has that to do with politics? maybe that word politics doesn't belong here, and you are just contrasting capitalism with some other system that will eliminate subjugation. OK.
Capitalism may make an economy even infinitely productive without eliminating the insecurity and subjugation caused by being reliant on others for charity, or reliant on the profitability of ones skills in an abstract and changing market.
I smell a denial of that hard fought intellectual discovery, one that has been empirically proven over and over again, the law of supply and demand. The more you produce of something, the lower its price will be. So that in a world where there are few cars, you have to kiss a lot of ass to get the money to buy one. But were there are millions and millions of cars, being produced cheaply, then the subjugation goes down too, cause you only have to kiss $1,000 worth of ass, not $10,000.
This is contrary to economic history. All those members of the ownership class got that way by producing what the masses wanted at a low price. Not only that, but historically prices have been lowest and the goods provided to the most people precisely when there was concentration of the ownership of production. [We are speaking about when there is no govt interference, of course]. Read up on the robber barons on this site. You'l be surprised, I think.
Capitalism, on its own, has no way of reconciling effective demand with real human needs
I'm not sure what "effective demand" means. If it means making sure people can afford to buy their real human needs, of course it does. By it's very nature, capitalism makes sure that producers only get rich by producing, meaning supplying real human needs. And the law of supply and demand ensures that the more they produce, the cheaper the product.
without sacrificing human freedom
I guess you mean the intolerable situation you you described above, that to get a job, you have to make yourself presentable to the employer.
And that charity thing is a straw man. 25% of the world needs charity? A very very small percent need it, and can get it from their families and from generous people who are glad to provide it, as has been the case in those cultures that preach its importance.
and making one individual the dependent or slave of another.
It's not capitalism that makes an unemployable person dependant on charity, it is his lot on life that made him that way. And an employee is not a slave. He can quit whenever he wants. "But then he will starve." "And the employer will not get what he wants either. So he will starve, too. Symbiotic relation, remember?"
If this were really so, would there not be one single generous soul who will donate a replicator to the public? Why do you assume there won't be? Do rich people never give any charity at all? Do the poor have a monopoly on good heartedness?
Yes, this is the heart of the matter, right here. What is moving us steadily (and rapidly) to a Star Trek economy? It is precisely capitalism that is getting us there. Educate thyself, grasshopper. Read the wealth of material here, presented in many ways, that prove this. Just as a teaser, why did all the socialist countries move toward a cave man economy? Was it coincidence?
That's like saying total freedom and liberty is a great thing, and should not disappear, but has to be augmented by slavery. Those non capitalistic additions destroy the benefits capitalism provides.
I think we can all agree that the purpose of humans is not to serve markets. Have you seen someone saying otherwise? The real question is, which system will best serve humanity [=capitalism], and which wil lead to starvation and slavery both [=anything else].
Nobody is making a totalitarian claim here. On the contrary, it is socialism and its buddies that are totalitarian, stealing and coercing.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
ravochol:It doesn't have to be this way, or course. A publicly owned replicator bank would provide necessities of life to anyone who wanted them, for free, and so eliminate the requirement that anyone defer to anyone else under coercion of real material needs.
Whoever controls the "public replicator bank" is the defacto ruler. This is why capitalism is a system where everyone can seek their own replicator bank, rather than be a supplicant to the one and only.
The rest of your characterization of capitalism was very amusing.
This is contrary to economic history. All those members of the ownership class got that way by producing what the masses wanted at a low price
So europeans wanted to be peasants? And the native americans wanted to live on reservations? And small business owners want the mafia to take half their profits? And other small business owners wanted JP Morgan and his like to thug them out of business? So.. you're saying we want corrupt business and government running our lives subject to the fractional reserve system of the FED?
Look, we can either accept the world as it was, or as we think it should have been based on theory.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
oops. shouldnt have said all
perhaps. the rest is pretty good. I just hate to see people compare the system we have had the last 200 years to real capitalism.
Why would the distribution be like that? Its random and senseless. The replicators would be sold to the rest of the population as a last attemp to do bussiness. Or they would be replicated for the rest. But once that is done the economic necessities are over because there is no scarcity. You would hardly need an economic system. That is the end game of capitalism: a society where nobody has to work because there is no scarcity.
And your solution of having a dictator ration everything for society. Its ridiculous. The dictator (or central bank, or whatever you want a call it) has all the interest on stopping the population from accessing the replicators and keeping everybody in a artificial scarcity situation.
A happy ending? Why, exactly, does there need to be an ending? Capitalism, free markets, and productivity are not means to an end, it they are the end. A market system does not exist to provide everyone with some glorious "ending" where the Party provides plenty for all and everyone lives in harmony. It is there to facilitate each individual making his own ending, happy or otherwise, in according to his own choices. Money and trade allow one to acquire the products needed to live a virtuous life, and to produce and distribute more so that others may do so as well. All attempts to give everyone an equally happy ending have only ended with everyone living with equal misery, poverty, and tyranny.
Socialism is by its definition political subjugation, and has always produced nothing but poverty, albeit fairly equal poverty. Poverty and tyranny are illnesses built into the human condition and will never go away completely. There is no cure, only constant, vigilant treatment. Poverty is treated with continual opportunity and freedom to trade, whereas tyranny must be treated by periodic, massive doses of cold steel and hot lead.
I feel particularly disturbed that the whole article utilized Star Trek to illustrate Socialist rhetoric of class inequality. I will give forewarning that I am about to spark a lot of "nerd rage" from some readers, and no doubt from the author as well. People in the "Trekie" cult (yes, they are a cult) always like to point out that Star Trek is how a Socialist system should work. Even as a child, watching the old series, it always disturbed me that there was nobody in the known universe who did not in one way or another work for the government. If this was the military, who did all the grunt work? Why did you never so much as see an enlisted man? And who made all those computers with inexplicable flashing lights and high-tech magnetic tape readers aboard the ship?
As I got older, I came to the conclusion that this wasn't really the future, but a story about life aboard a "floating fortress" in Orwell's 1984. The crew is there to enforce the will of the Upper Party, bringing new civilizations in to the Oceania "Federation" so they can be taxed in labor and repaid with worthless, ever inflating "latinum" and other debased Trekie metals. The Prols, who are never seen, are in a constant state of servitude, making phasers and food replicators for the "ownership class" in the Upper Party, who take the products of their labor and use them to keep the Prols oppressed and dependent. The "Lower Party" can be found in the real-life groups of cultish followers, preaching the virtues of their failed system. Meanwhile, there are constant violent but limited conflicts with "Neo-Bolshevist" Romulans and "Death-Worshiping" Klingons, providing an excuse for perpetual, massive war production. All the while, the Ministry of Truth goes to Hollywood and markets their "TrekSoc" propaganda to the masses.
Where was I? You cannot assume that advanced technology will just appear out of thin air with no incentives for its production, then take care of everyone with nobody to maintain it. Anything that is either publically owned, and/or given a government-sanctioned monopoly, will fall into ruin and be vastly more expensive than if it were owned privately in a free market.
liberty student:Whoever controls the "public replicator bank" is the defacto ruler. This is why capitalism is a system where everyone can seek their own replicator bank, rather than be a supplicant to the one and only.
This.
ravochol takes care to note that being wholly reliant on charity requires you to subjugate yourself to their whims, but conveniently leaves this out when describing a public replicator bank. What is a public replicator bank except a charity built on the ill-gotten gains of taxation, and whose control is hotly contested in any manner possible so as to gain power over others?
Well, for one thing they could just get a job. Why do they need to be charity cases or slaves or whatever? There is an infinant need for labor and in a world where goods can be produced very cheaply (as you describe) you wouldn't need to make very much to live like a king (by today's standards), thus you are still far better off than you would be today.
Also, they could become farmers. Why not just live off the land and whittle your own tools, etc., like humans did for centuries. They would only work for replicateor owners if they felt they would be better off by doing it than by not doing it.
The vast majority of "social ills," as you call them, are caused by government intervention, the use of force against non-consenting individuals, and economically ignorant people who are trying to "help" but advocate human-killing socialist policies.
mgmcintyre:The vast majority of "social ills," as you call them, are caused by government intervention, the use of force against non-consenting individuals, and economically ignorant people who are trying to "help" but advocate human-killing socialist policies.
What would Attlee's Labour Party have done with a replicator bank, do you think?
@ Smiling Dave - I picked the 25% "no marketable skills" figure because, like I said, in this imaginary world there is (cheap) technology that can do most things people do now - for example artificial intelligence and androids. A person would not only have to do things better and cheaper than other people to be employable, but also better than technology. You won't hire a person to mop the floors if robomop 3000 does it faster and cheaper. Maybe there will be job openings for artists or designers or psychologists or spiritual gurus, but will everyone be good at such work? Would full employment even be desireable? Why would consumption have to be strongly linked to production if human labor is only weakly linked to production? If sodapop production is 100% automated, with no human labor input whatsoever, why should the amount of sodapop a person can consume be linked to how much they contribute to the economy?
As capitalism develops, isn't production less and less strongly linked to human labor? Moreover, isn't that the whole goal and idea of investing in capital goods? The whole idea of capitalism even?
In Maoist China, a Communist Party boss was supervising a team of hundreds of conscripted laborers digging a ditch. A passing journalist asked him why he did not use a bulldozer to dig, since there was one sitting idly by the side of the road. The party boss then replied, "If we did that, think of all these people that would be unemployed."
I am so tired of all this damn Trekie/Socialist (TrekSoc) rhetoric. People wouldn't have to mop floors, as their labor could be put to more effective and efficient use elsewhere, as business was able to expand using al that money they saved by utilizing "Robomop 3000".
You are right about one thing, though I doubt you realize it. Full employment would not be desirable, since it has never been desirable. The purpose of an economy is to produce more goods with less work, and for people to need to exert less physical labor. More goods are produced at lower prices, and so people can buy the goods they need using a much smaller percentage of their income. Meanwhile people can use their energies to find ways to make money in other industries that require human labor, since somebody has to fix all the new labor-saving gadgets when they break down, or they can use their minds to find new ways to make money sitting on their butts. Either way, opportunities abound once you realize that there is no limit to what the masses can do once self-proclaimed "experts" get the hell out of their way.
Today, by the way, China has abandoned the Maoist principles of physical labor entirely. Using Hong Kong as a model, they are now selling state industries to private investors, and production has boomed. Their government now only has to sit back and collect the money, instead of wasting endless resources trying to manage work it knows nothing about. China is both richer and more secure because of it, and is overtaking its western competitors, who rely more and more on the state to employ people. When you stop trying to control everything, you end up with more control.