Are We in Late Stage Capitalism?

[PureX]

I don't think this accurately describes what happens in capitalist economies at all. Private businesses cooperate and share information and collaboratively benefit all the time. No business is an island unto themselves.

Only if and when it serves their prime directive: to maximize the profit returned of the capital invested. That's their single unifying factor.

 

[Left Coast]

No one ever went into business to 'adapt to the desires of the market".

That's just flatly wrong, I'm sorry. People go into business all the time because they recognize demand in the marketplace for a good or service that people want or need. And they organize their business in a way that will meet consumers' requests.

Do you actually know any human beings personally who own a business?

No owner/investor ever gave up an ounce of oversight/control willingly to anyone else, ever.

You can say this about literally anyone or anything at any time about any measure of control they have over something. We are all selfish and rarely if ever surrender control unless the environment prompts us to do so - individuals, businesses, governments, or anything else.

 

[Left Coast]

Only if and when it serves their prime directive: to maximize the profit returned of the capital invested. That's their single unifying factor.

That completely flattens business owners as human beings into conscienceless supervillains bent on narcissistic world domination at any cost. That is a silly caricature that does not describe the real world.

 

[PureX]

That's just flatly wrong, I'm sorry. People go into business all the time because they recognize demand in the marketplace for a good or service that people want or need. And they organize their business in a way that will meet consumers' requests.

Only because they HAVE TO, to gain a profit from it. They aren't doing it to "serve the market", they're doing it to exploit the market.

Do you actually know any human beings personally who own a business?

Do you know anyone, anywhere, that doesn't try to get as much for themselves out of every commercial trade/interaction as they possibly can? And who aren't happily willing to exploit any advantage they might have over the person on the other side of the trade? Do you know anyone anywhere who has turned down a raise or a bonus because they felt they hadn't "earned it"? Or who suggested that it be given to some other employee that deserved it, more? Of course not. Because in our culture greed is "normal". Greed is accepted as a universal cause of action, like gravity. It's so ever-present among us that we don't really even see it, anymore.

We spew all this ideological hot air about free markets and free trade and market equilibrium and yet in every commercial interaction we engage in we are seeking to find and exploit a captive market for maximum personal advantage. And we don't even see ourselves doing it, or the damage it does to us all, because it's so "normalized" and pervasive that it's invisible to us. This is the effect of capitalism. This is what it does to our humanity. It turns us all into willing participants in the economic abuse and destruction of each other. It sets us in a profound state of enmity with our fellow human beings.

 

[PureX]

That completely flattens business owners as human beings into conscienceless supervillains bent on narcissistic world domination at any cost. That is a silly caricature that does not describe the real world.

Ever notice that the larger a business gets, and the further away from the actual producers and consumers the owner/investor gets, the more abusive and exploitive they become? That's because the people making the decisions don't have to see the human consequences of the decisions they make. It can be all about the 'numbers' (profit margins), for them. And it is.

I don't believe in "super-villains". There is nothing super about the villains among us. They are just small, stupid, selfish, men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to "win" at the Game of Greed. And we all have some of their poison, in us. Because that's what greed does. It creates fear and resentment in everyone that is exploited and abused by it; that festers and becomes greed, in them. We become greedy just to to survive in a culture that's controlled by it. Even when we don't want to.

 

[Left Coast]

Only because they HAVE TO, to gain a profit from it. They aren't doing it to "serve the market", they're doing it to exploit the market.

Again, this is just simply inaccurate. Many people go into business because they want to help their community by providing a good or service the community wants or needs. Every business interaction is not an attempt to exploit the other. Again, that is a silly caricature.

Do you know anyone, anywhere, that doesn't try to get as much for themselves out of every commercial trade/interaction as they possibly can?

Yeah, my own father. He owns his own business. He has often underbid jobs for people who he has a personal connection to, or who he knows are in a financially precarious position, or who have done business with him before.

Again, do you personally know anyone who actually owns a business?

And who aren't happily willing to exploit any advantage they might have over the person on the other side of the trade? Do you know anyone anywhere who has turned down a raise or a bonus because they felt they hadn't "earned it"? Or who suggested that it be given to some other employee that deserved it, more? Of course not. Because in our culture greed is "normal". Greed is accepted as a universal cause of action, like gravity. It's so ever-present among us that we don't really even see it, anymore.

Greed is not exclusive to "our culture" (by which I assume you mean American culture?). Greed is a perennial feature of the human psyche and has been for as long as we've been around. But it is offset by other motivations. We are complex creatures motivated by a multitude of different impulses, some selfish, some selfless, some in between. You analysis flattens us to conscienceless psychopaths who are only ever motivated by the desire for our own benefit to the exclusion of all others.

That is the stuff of fantasy dystopian teen novels. Reality is more grey and complicated.

 

[Left Coast]

Ever notice that the larger a business gets, and the further away from the actual producers and consumers the owner/investor gets, the more abusive and exploitive they become? That's because the people making the decisions don't have to see the human consequences of the decisions they make. It can be all about the 'numbers' (profit margins), for them. And it is.

Yes, I have noticed this. That is why, again, the ideal is to have limits in place on markets that set boundaries for what businesses can and can't do and to ensure genuine competition occurs in markets.

I don't believe in "super-villains". There is nothing super about the villains among us. They are just small, stupid, selfish, men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to "win" at the Game of Greed. And we all have some of their poison, in us. Because that's what greed does. It creates fear and resentment in everyone that is exploited and abused by it; that festers and becomes greed, in them. We become greedy just to to survive in a culture that's controlled by it. Even when we don't want to.

Again, capitalism didn't create greed. Read some history of precapitalist societies for goodness' sake.

 

[PureX]

Again, this is just simply inaccurate. Many people go into business because they want to help their community by providing a good or service the community wants or needs. Every business interaction is not an attempt to exploit the other. Again, that is a silly caricature.

I think the instances you describe are very few and far between. And anyway, no one needs to become a business to do that. They could just do it. But in our culture you can't just do it. You have to get paid for it. You have to 'engage in the battle of commerce', just to stay alive. This is what you don't seem to be getting in my comments.

Yeah, my own father. He owns his own business. He has often underbid jobs for people who he has a personal connection to, or who he knows are in a financially precarious position, or who have done business with him before.

I suspect that if he were to discover that this was costing him in a serious way, he'd stop it, or he'd go broke. Because the capitalist business model does not allow for serious philanthropy. And his competitors would eventually drive him out of business.

Greed is not exclusive to "our culture" (by which I assume you mean American culture?).

Of course not. But our culture has made it a virtue, and enshrined it. Capitalism is greed, systematized. It rewards excess wealth with the power to generate even more excess wealth. And it doesn't care who or how that excess wealth was generated. Nor who gets hurt in the pursuit of it.

Greed is a perennial feature of the human psyche and has been for as long as we've been around.

So are the other 6 deadly sins. That doesn't justify them. Nor does it provide us with an excuse to engage in them freely, and willfully, as we please. And it certainly is not a reason to REWARD our engaging in them.

But it is offset by other motivations. We are complex creatures motivated by a multitude of different impulses, some selfish, some selfless, some in between. You analysis flattens us to conscienceless psychopaths who are only ever motivated by the desire for our own benefit to the exclusion of all others.

What? You think crime is "offset" by punishment?? Try telling that to the victims!

That is the stuff of fantasy dystopian teen novels. Reality is more grey and complicated.

Yeah, it appears that way when you've drunk the capitalist's cool aid all the way to the bottom of the glass. And you, too, think greed is normal and natural and inevitable and therefor justifiable. (Maybe even laudable.)

 

[Friend of Mara]

I'm seeing a lot on social media about us (the US, the West, the world?) being in late stage capitalism. The idea as I understand it is that capitalism will soon collapse and/or be replaced by another economic system.

Do you agree? Is capitalism doomed? How will it end? What will, or should, replace it?

If we in late stage capitalism we are only "just" entering it. It is still very useful with no major alternative.

What will probably end capitalism will be advanced automation. In the next 10 years we will see major automation that will squeeze the workforce while making greater profits for the owner class. Though that is nothing compared to the next 100 years. Although another major issue may be climate catastrophe. The most doomer scientific projection is major global interruptions by 2035. A conservative scientific projection is only 2050.

So when capitalism fails it will fail in waves. First it will be equator adjacent poorer nations that will find it incredibly hard to sustain themselves. Then after that it will be a fight for more developed nations. From there we either find a way to reorganize resources for the good of people rather than profit or we see terrible unrest.

 

[Left Coast]

I think the instances you describe are very few and far between. And anyway, no one needs to become a business to do that. They could just do it. But in our culture you can't just do it. You have to get paid for it. You have to 'engage in the battle of commerce', just to stay alive. This is what you don't seem to be getting in my comments.

On the contrary, what you don't seem to be getting is that money and the need to pay for things doesn't magically evaporate because the state owns the means of production. No one, in any economic system, has ever been able to "just do" things to help others for no cost. There is no tree where goods and services magically and endlessly grow on. Material things have value because a) we want them or need them and b) they are limited in supply. This dynamic doesn't evaporate outside of a capitalist framework. Even in societies prior to the invention of money when they operated on a barter system, that dynamic existed. So materially helping others has a cost, and can't be done infinitely.

I suspect that if he were to discover that this was costing him in a serious way, he'd stop it, or he'd go broke. Because the capitalist business model does not allow for serious philanthropy. And his competitors would eventually drive him out of business.

Again, this is the case in any economic system. No one, including no government or cooperative or any other unit of human organization, can endlessly help others for free. So yes, obviously there is a limit to the degree to which my father can help others. As there is a limit to everyone's ability to help others in any economic arrangement.

Of course not. But our culture has made it a virtue, and enshrined it. Capitalism is greed, systematized. It rewards excess wealth with the power to generate even more excess wealth. And it doesn't care who or how that excess wealth was generated. Nor who gets hurt in the pursuit of it.

"Our culture" is a complicated set of competing values and goals on which we don't all agree. I know zero people, including the most right wing folks I've ever met, who would say "Greed is a virtue." I'm aware there are Ayn Rand's of the world who might think this way. Most people don't go that far.

So are the other 6 deadly sins. That doesn't justify them. Nor does it provide us with an excuse to engage in them freely, and willfully, as we please. And it certainly is not a reason to REWARD our engaging in them.

You seem to be understood the impression that any financial transaction where someone privately sells something to someone else is inherently selfish and exploitative. I just think that's a ridiculous strawman of how the world actually works.

What? You think crime is "offset" by punishment?? Try telling that to the victims!

Huh? There is no "victim" to thoughts in our heads (other than maybe ourselves). All I said is that we are internally and externally motivated by multiple competing interests, some of them noble and some of them awful. I don't know how you can reasonably disagree with that.

Yeah, it appears that way when you've drunk the capitalist's cool aid all the way to the bottom of the glass. And you, too, think greed is normal and natural and inevitable and therefor justifiable. (Maybe even laudable.)

That something is "normal" or common does not justify it. It just means it is what it is. We're unlikely to ever get rid of it completely.

 

[metis]

Capitalism will have to be adjusted to new situations as it always has, and laissez-faire capitalism is long dead-- fortunately.

 

[PureX]

On the contrary, what you don't seem to be getting is that money and the need to pay for things doesn't magically evaporate because the state owns the means of production.

Who said anything about the state owning the means of production?

No one, in any economic system, has ever been able to "just do" things to help others for no cost. There is no tree where goods and services magically and endlessly grow on. Material things have value because a) we want them or need them and b) they are limited in supply. This dynamic doesn't evaporate outside of a capitalist framework. Even in societies prior to the invention of money when they operated on a barter system, that dynamic existed. So materially helping others has a cost, and can't be done infinitely.

Ah, but in a capitalist economy that cost of things is based on their exploitation factor, not the value of the object of the trade. The cost of a used car is not based on it's actual value to the seller. It's based on how much the seller can get for it from the buyer: on if and how the seller can exploit the buyer's position in relation to it. And likewise, if and how the buyer can exploit the seller's position in relation to it. Neither care about the actual value of the object in question. Neither are looking for a 'fair trade'. Both are looking to exploit the other for their own maximum gain. The main concern is the exploit-ability factor. That's how people think in a capitalist culture. And it's that thinking that gets rewarded in a capitalist culture. But we could be taught to think differently. We could be taught that greed is the enemy of fair trade, and is the cause of cultural distopia and collapse. We could negotiate and determine the values of things based on the goal of mutual well-being and respect. We could be conducting our interactions with each other very differently.

"Our culture" is a complicated set of competing values and goals on which we don't all agree. I know zero people, including the most right wing folks I've ever met, who would say "Greed is a virtue." I'm aware there are Ayn Rand's of the world who might think this way. Most people don't go that far.

It doesn't matter what we think or say about greed. It controls nearly all of our decisions and actions, now, regardless of what we think or say. It has totally infected and corrupted our government to the point of it's being at best, useless, and at worst downright malevolent toward the society it's supposed to be serving. And WE ALL participated in it's downfall because of our own acquiescence to the inevitability of greed. Our own greed, and everyone else's.

You seem to be understood the impression that any financial transaction where someone privately sells something to someone else is inherently selfish and exploitative. I just think that's a ridiculous strawman of how the world actually works.

I think you are being absurdly naive. What exactly is it that you're trying so hard to defend, here? Why do you think that giving the wealthy elite total control of whatever they invest their excess wealth in, for their own profit, is a good thing? Even if one in a thousand of them chooses to behave in favor of the well-being of those his actions are effecting, instead of for his own profit, how is this economic autocracy better than socialism? Especially when he can decide otherwise at any time, for any reason, regardless of the effect on everyone else involved.

That something is "normal" or common does not justify it. It just means it is what it is. We're unlikely to ever get rid of it completely.

Don't you think we have an obligation to try?

 

[Left Coast]

Who said anything about the state owning the means of production?

How do you think everyone in society having equal control over all businesses actually shakes out in practice at the national level?

Ah, but in a capitalist economy that cost of things is based on their exploitation factor, not the value of the object of the trade. The cost of a used car is not based on it's actual value to the seller. It's based on how much the seller can get for it from the buyer: on if and how the seller can exploit the buyer's position in relation to it. And likewise, if and how the buyer can exploit the seller's position in relation to it. Neither care about the actual value of the object in question. Neither are looking for a 'fair trade'. Both are looking to exploit the other for their own maximum gain. The main concern is the exploit-ability factor. That's how people think in a capitalist culture.

No, it really isn't. You're using the word "exploit" when you're simply describing privately selling something. I own a used car right now. I wasn't "exploited" for it, by any reasonable use of that word.

And it's that thinking that gets rewarded in a capitalist culture. But we could be taught to think differently. We could be taught that greed is the enemy of fair trade, and is the cause of cultural distopia and collapse. We could negotiate and determine the values of things based on the goal of mutual well-being and respect. We could be conducting our interactions with each other very differently.

What does that actually mean in practice? Those are wonderful ideas to consider in the abstract. Things get messier when applied in the real world. That has always been Marx's problem.

It doesn't matter what we think or say about greed. It controls nearly all of our decisions and actions, now, regardless of what we think or say. It has totally infected and corrupted our government to the point of it's being at best, useless, and at worst downright malevolent toward the society it's supposed to be serving. And WE ALL participated in it's downfall because of our own acquiescence to the inevitability of greed. Our own greed, and everyone else's.

That kind of absolutizing, unfalsifiable narrative is very emotionally appealing, I'm sure.

I think you are being absurdly naive. What exactly is it that you're trying so hard to defend, here? Why do you think that giving the wealthy elite total control of whatever they invest their excess wealth in, for their own profit, is a good thing?

I never said that "the wealthy elite should have total control of whatever they invest their excess wealth in." You made an absurd dogmatic statement about capitalism being "anti-human" and I pointed out that reality is more complicated than the simplistic binary way you seem to think.

Even if one in a thousand of them chooses to behave in favor of the well-being of those his actions are effecting, instead of for his own profit, how is this economic autocracy better than socialism?

Okay so you are advocating for socialism?

What I said is that societies seem to do best when they incorporate elements of both capitalism and socialism. Neither extreme seems to be very successful.

 

[PureX]

How do you think everyone in society having equal control over all businesses actually shakes out in practice at the national level?

There are many possible methods and variations. I think we ought to start with mandating changes in how a commercial business is conducted; giving equal representation to labor and community. The owner/investors don't get to make all the decisions. And some sort of clarified business goal ought to be spelled out for the various factions to aim toward.

No, it really isn't. You're using the word "exploit" when you're simply describing privately selling something. I own a used car right now. I wasn't "exploited" for it, by any reasonable use of that word.

How would you even know? You have no idea what the seller had invested in it. Or maybe you exploited him by trying to get it as cheaply as you could. I assume you tried to get it as cheaply as you could. Just as I assume he did not tell you what he had in it.

What does that actually mean in practice? Those are wonderful ideas to consider in the abstract. Things get messier when applied in the real world. That has always been Marx's problem.

Well, fortunately we do have some models to look at in other countries. And we can set some more humane, equitable goals without breaking our brains, I'm sure. Then all we need is the will to begin implementing and modifying our attempts according to those goals. It's not rocket science. And it's not impossible. All we need to do is stop drinking the capitalist cool-aid, and start acknowledging that greed is a very big and very real problem for us, that's destroying our collective well-being in a significant way, and will eventually destroy the whole country if we don't go something, soon.

I never said that "the wealthy elite should have total control of whatever they invest their excess wealth in." You made an absurd dogmatic statement about capitalism being "anti-human" and I pointed out that reality is more complicated than the simplistic binary way you seem to think.

Yet that is exactly what capitalism is, and what it ensures.

What I said is that societies seem to do best when they incorporate elements of both capitalism and socialism. Neither extreme seems to be very successful.

I don't understand what you think that means. Either the capital investors get to make all the decisions, or the people being effected by the decisions (including the capital investor) do. So, what is this compromise that you are imagining? The reason I ask is that I still don't think you get what 'capitalism' IS. It's all about control, and who gets it. 'Capitalism' means the investors get all the control. They define the business, they run the business, and they can kill the business however, why ever, and whenever they choose. 'Socialism just means that by some method or other, the people (society) involved and effected by the business get a say in how it operates, and to what end. I don't know how to spell it out any more plainly.

 

[Left Coast]

There are many possible methods and variations. I think we ought to start with mandating changes in how a commercial business is conducted; giving equal representation to labor and community. The owner/investors don't get to make all the decisions. And some sort of clarified business goal ought to be spelled out for the various factions to aim toward.

Equal representation how, exactly? Representation on boards of directors? Co-ownership of the business? What?

How would you even know? You have no idea what the seller had invested in it.

Actually we can know the market price of a given car. Have you ever bought a car before?

Or maybe you exploited him by trying to get it as cheaply as you could. I assume you tried to get it as cheaply as you could. Just as I assume he did not tell you what he had in it.

Assuming doesn't generally get you too far.

Well, fortunately we do have some models to look at in other countries.

Oh, which country's model would you like to emulate? Please say somewhere in Northern Europe.

I don't understand what you think that means.

The irony of this conversation is that it is you who it is painfully obvious do not know what these terms mean.

Either the capital investors get to make all the decisions, or the people being effected by the decisions (including the capital investor) do.

Or there's the real world the rest of us live in, where business owners enjoy some degree of autonomy over their business practices, but are limited by the community (ie government law and regulation) in how much latitude they have.

So, what is this compromise that you are imagining? The reason I ask is that I still don't think you get what 'capitalism' IS. It's all about control, and who gets it. 'Capitalism' means the investors get all the control. They define the business, they run the business, and they can kill the business however, why ever, and whenever they choose. 'Socialism just means that by some method or other, the people (society) involved and effected by the business get a say in how it operates, and to what end. I don't know how to spell it out any more plainly.

Again....no, I'm sorry, but that's not an accurate description of either one of those terms.

Capitalism and socialism are broad umbrella terms that cover a variety of different economic arrangements. There is no capitalist economy on Earth I'm aware where business owners or investors have unilateral and absolute authority over how they may conduct business.

What capitalism does mean, broadly, is an economic system where there is private ownership of property and other capital or means of production. Socialism, on the other hand, describes systems where there is social ownership of the means of production, often by the state but at times on a smaller scale by smaller social units. Most modern economies feature a mixture of these systems, wherein there is a capitalistic framework governed by varying degrees of regulation by the state of how businesses may operate and at times social/state ownership of certain industries, like health insurance or energy.

So again, your thinking on this issue is overly simplistic.

 

[Friend of Mara]

On the contrary, what you don't seem to be getting is that money and the need to pay for things doesn't magically evaporate because the state owns the means of production. No one, in any economic system, has ever been able to "just do" things to help others for no cost. There is no tree where goods and services magically and endlessly grow on. Material things have value because a) we want them or need them and b) they are limited in supply. This dynamic doesn't evaporate outside of a capitalist framework. Even in societies prior to the invention of money when they operated on a barter system, that dynamic existed. So materially helping others has a cost, and can't be done infinitely.

I agree to this point. There are certain limitations with just pure scarcity. However there are a lot of resources we have plenty of but choose not to allow them to be allocated purely for profit motive. Food and shelter are two good examples. We could end world hunger but we choose not to. Housing, especially in the USA, shouldn't be an issue but it is purely for profit reasons.

 

[Kooky]

What capitalism does mean, broadly, is an economic system where there is private ownership of property and other capital or means of production. Socialism, on the other hand, describes systems where there is social ownership of the means of production, often by the state but at times on a smaller scale by smaller social units. Most modern economies feature a mixture of these systems, wherein there is a capitalistic framework governed by varying degrees of regulation by the state of how businesses may operate and at times social/state ownership of certain industries, like health insurance or energy.

I take it by "socially owned", you are referring to companies that are partially or completely controlled by governments or government-owned holdings, but are otherwise run as a profit-oriented operation, such as VW, EdF, Gazprom or the many formerly state-owned companies in the PRC?

 

[Left Coast]

I take it by "socially owned", you are referring to companies that are partially or completely controlled by governments or government-owned holdings, but are otherwise run as a profit-oriented operation, such as VW, EdF, Gazprom or the many formerly state-owned companies in the PRC?

Social ownership usually refers to state ownership, but can include other, smaller scale arrangements like cooperatives. Joint public/private ownership or control of corporations would fall on a spectrum between private and social ownership, I'd imagine.

 

[Kooky]

Social ownership usually refers to state ownership, but can include other, smaller scale arrangements like cooperatives. Joint public/private ownership or control of corporations would fall on a spectrum between private and social ownership, I'd imagine.

My point is that in this arrangement, we're still operating a profit oriented company on the free market. The sole difference in that case would be that the owner of said profit oriented company on the free market just so happens to be a public institution rather than a private individual.

That's why I struggle to define Volkswagen as a "socialist" institution, for example.

 

[PureX]

Equal representation how, exactly? Representation on boards of directors? Co-ownership of the business? What?

However we want to do it. The idea would be that a single owner/CEO wouldn't be making decision on behalf of his own interests, or that of his investors, but instead would have to gain the agreement of some entities representing everyone else that is going to be effected by those decisions: labor, consumer, and community. Who those entities are and how they are accountable to those they represent would have to be worked out according to the proclivities of the society involved. But it's not rocket science. We are quite capable of managing it.

What capitalism does mean, broadly, is an economic system where there is private ownership of property and other capital or means of production. Socialism, on the other hand, describes systems where there is social ownership of the means of production, often by the state but at times on a smaller scale by smaller social units.

"Ownership" is a meaningless title. What this is about is control. Capitalism assumes that ownership = control. Period. And so are you. You must be a capitalist.

Socialism does not equate ownership with control. It wants to put control in the hands of the society, community, or the segments of the these that are being effected by the decisions being made. REGARDLESS of who "owns" what. Socialism does not take "ownership" away from you. It's simply takes away your ability to unilaterally make decisions based on ownership that would negatively impact everyone around you.