Capitalism: why eternal growth is self-destructive

[Revoltingest]

Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism....

It's self servingly narrow claim.
Eternal growth is impossible for every system.
it afflicts socialist countries too....just far more
slowly (in between famines).
I oppose growth as a public policy.
Shrinkage is better.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's self servingly narrow claim.
Eternal growth is impossible for every system.
it afflicts socialist countries too....just far more
slowly (in between famines).
I oppose growth as a public policy.
Shrinkage is better.

I remind you that without people, Capitalists would not exist.
Because Capitalists will be forced to till the soil themselves...without using labor force.

So Capitalism exists because exploitation of labor force exists.
Imagine if every person on Earth had their own piece of land.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not a technological problem imo; the problem is cultural. It's people

People are so afraid of losing the most minute amount of convenience that they are willing to turn a blind eye to gross exploitation of the planet and other people just so they can keep their little comforts. Until people are willing to acquiesce to the circumstances and accept that we have to change the way we live, things will continue down this dead end of a path

Our situation came about gradually, over the course of generations. Technology may not be the problem, but if technology offers people the ability to use a car to get somewhere, rather than walking or riding a horse, then most people will use the car. If technology offers air conditioning, then they'll use it. People have grown accustomed to it and have now come to expect it - and perhaps that's some discredit to those who are irresponsible and take too much for granted. An unfortunate malady that affects most humans at one time or another.

Still, I can see where some might try to find ways to improve the ways we use technology, while hoping there might be advancements to enjoy the benefits while reducing the liability and consequences to the environment. I've heard it said that necessity is the mother of invention, so the need is definitely there, so now all we have to do is invent something to meet that need.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remind you that without people, Capitalists would not exist.

Without people, what system would exist?

Because Capitalists will be forced to till the soil themselves...without using labor force.

So Capitalism exists because exploitation of labor force exists.

There is no modern system that doesn't exploit the worker.
Kim Jong Un & fellow elites don't dirty their hands....except with blood of the workers.

Imagine if every person on Earth had their own piece of land.

You'd want everyone to be a farmer?
No doctors, engineers, or telephone sanitizers?


What's the purpose of your thread?
1) Bashing capitalism?
Or
2) The problem of eternal growth?

 

[Soandso]

Our situation came about gradually, over the course of generations. Technology may not be the problem, but if technology offers people the ability to use a car to get somewhere, rather than walking or riding a horse, then most people will use the car. If technology offers air conditioning, then they'll use it. People have grown accustomed to it and have now come to expect it - and perhaps that's some discredit to those who are irresponsible and take too much for granted. An unfortunate malady that affects most humans at one time or another.

Still, I can see where some might try to find ways to improve the ways we use technology, while hoping there might be advancements to enjoy the benefits while reducing the liability and consequences to the environment. I've heard it said that necessity is the mother of invention, so the need is definitely there, so now all we have to do is invent something to meet that need.

When I consider historically where the crux of change is placed, it seems to be done because of a different reason than simply necessity. What happens more often is that abuse goes on and on unaddressed and the only thing standing in the way of the change that's needed are those in power who either do nothing to solve the problem or specifically go out of their way to cover up the problem or downplay it

We saw this with how Congress dragged their heels in dealing with the American dust bowl where meaningful and widespread change didn't happen until Washington DC literally started seeing dust storms and then Black Sunday happened

The Black Sunday Dust Storm of April 14, 1935

We saw this with how Parliament drug their heels in dealing with the "Great Stink" of the river Thames where nothing was done despite the death and damage experienced by normal people until it started effecting Parliament to the point where they considered moving off the shores of the river themselves

Great Stink - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Meaningful changes won't happen until it's too late and the damage is done, seems to me. Necessity is the mother of invention, but inventions aren't going to do any good if they're just collecting dust. We know what we need to do right now. Let's be proactive in solving the problem now instead of waiting until damage is done for once

 

[Estro Felino]

Without people, what system would exist?

What I mean is that if there were 200,000 people on Earth, everyone would have a piece of property and nobody would work for other people.
That's the point.

There is no modern system that doesn't exploit the worker.

Absolutely false. If everyone owns land, nobody is exploited by anyone.

Kim Jong Un & fellow elites don't dirty their hands....except with blood of the workers.

And in fact that system is even worse...because in Communism people are exploited by a tyrannical government.

You'd want everyone to be a farmer?

Exactly. A farming business owner.

No doctors, engineers, or telephone sanitizers?

You can be both. Do you know how the Amish communities work?

What's the purpose of your thread?
1) Bashing capitalism?
Or
2) The problem of eternal growth?

Both.
What's the purpose of being a capitalist?
To maximize profits by exploiting others?

 

[Heyo]

I oppose growth as a public policy.
Shrinkage is better.

Then you have to oppose capitalism.

Growth is a necessary ingredient for capitalism.

Banking was the proto form of capitalism, so I'll explain it this way:
A banker gives you money for interest. I.e. he wants to get more money back than he gave you. Thus, you have to produce a surplus to pay back the loan. Without that more, surplus, growth, no capitalist would invest in anything.

The same goes for state capitalism, only that there, the state takes the role of the banker or capitalist.

The only way out is a system that isn't based on growth. We have never really tried anything like that.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I mean is that if there were 200,000 people on Earth, everyone would have a piece of property and nobody would work for other people.
That's the point.

Since returning to pre-technological societies
is impossible, what's the point of proposing
it as an alternative to economic systems?

Absolutely false. If everyone owns land, nobody is exploited by anyone.

Everyone owning land isn't a modern economic system.
Heaven help anyone with a handicap that prevents
them from farming. They'd starve.

And in fact that system is even worse...because in Communism people are exploited by a tyrannical government.

History shows that to be so.
Also for socialism.
What form of government do you imagine for
a small farm non-technological society?

Exactly. A farming business owner.

You can be both. Do you know how the Amish communities work?

I deal with Amish.
Do you?
Their economy involves technology, employing workers,
buying, selling, & all the basics of capitalism. Contrary
to your stereotype, they eschew only technology that
is too "convenient". For example, their saws are powered
by IC engines, not electric motors. They use telephones,
but seldom, & for necessities rather than convenience.

Both.
What's the purpose of being a capitalist?
To maximize profits by exploiting others?

When you have a better system, we can talk.
But returning to an agrarian economy even
less sophisticated than the Amish won't happen.



What I gather from this exchange is that you
really don't want to discuss limiting economic
growth. You've derailed your own thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you have to oppose capitalism.

Why?
There is nothing inherent in any definition
of capitalism that requires eternal expansion.
Nor is there any alternative to it that prevents
it...other than socialism's periodic die offs due
to starvation.

Growth is a necessary ingredient for capitalism.

Why?
My business isn't growing.
I like the size it is.

I smell a straw man argument, ie, arguing
against something not essential to capitalism.
If you want to limit economic expansion,
then argue for that....for capitalism, socialism,
communism, etc. Then we'll have common ground.

 

[Heyo]

Why?
There is nothing inherent in any definition
of capitalism that requires eternal expansion.

I tried to explain to you why it does.

I smell a straw man argument, ie, arguing
against something not essential to capitalism.
If you want to limit economic expansion,
then argue for that....for capitalism, socialism,
communism, etc. Then we'll have common ground.

Let's start with the incentive, money. Would capitalism work, if lending money for interest was forbidden? That would include stock dividends.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tried to explain to you why it does.

You didn't.
It's just an empty claim.

Let's start with the incentive, money. Would capitalism work, if lending money for interest was forbidden?

Muslims manage to do it.
But capitalism doesn't fundamentally require
lending & borrowing. Those things simply
enable starting, expanding, renovating, &
surviving setbacks.

That would include stock dividends.

Stock dividends aren't interest on a loan.
They're profit sharing. But if you eliminate
the corporate form of ownership, capitalism
would still happen....just with more difficulty.

Come on man.....give me some real arguments.
Not these lame hypotheticals.

 

[Heyo]

Stock dividends aren't interest on a loan.
They're profit sharing. But if you eliminate
the corporate form of ownership, capitalism
would still happen....just with more difficulty.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4][5] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.[6][7][8][9]

"[...] operation for profit".
To get that profit, something or someone has to be exploited, usually both. And for "capital accumulation" you need the surplus for re-investment.
What we need is some kind of resource based economy, which at least socializes the resources, in hope that that will reduce exploitation of those.

 

[Revoltingest]

"[...] operation for profit".
To get that profit, something or someone has to be exploited, usually both.

You make "exploitation" sound like a bad thing.
Yet all economies since hunter-gatherer have used
used it....even your vaunted dream of socialism,
ie, some work for others.
How do you define it?

As for "profit" is simply seeking to get benefit that
exceeds the cost incurred. Without this, why would
anyone invest time & money to take a business risk?
This shows that even under your socialism, profit
must happen (even if called something else) in order
to benefit society.
For example, your collective makes shoes.
It makes extra shoes to trade for bread.

And for "capital accumulation" you need the surplus for re-investment.

This is true for all but hunter-gatherer economies.
So how is it a criticism of capitalism, but not others?

What we need is some kind of resource based economy, which at least socializes the resources, in hope that that will reduce exploitation of those.

You still gotta define exploitation, & show that it's
inherent in capitalism, but not in alternatives.

So far, you've given me....
- Undefined terms.
- Presumed that problems are unique to capitalism.
- Failed to consider flaws of alternatives.
- Criticized things not inherent to capitalism.
- Offered nothing better from the real world.

A reasoned argument should compare capitalism
vs alternatives as they play out in the real world.
Proffering only theory, hypotheticals, & demonization
is merely preaching to the choir. They'll lap it up.
But I want more.

 

[PureX]

Imagine if every person on Earth had their own piece of land.

That would be incredibly wasteful and inefficient. And would keep a lot of people unhappy and unfulfilled.

But humans exploiting other humans for their own gain is not good, either. That also is very inefficient and unfulfilling.

Task specialization and trading goods and services are good for us all, but they do open the door for abuse and exploitation that must then be stopped and constantly guarded against. But for some reason, we humans just can't seem to get this into our heads.

 

[Heyo]

You make "exploitation" sound like a bad thing.
Yet all economies since hunter-gatherer have used
used it....even your vaunted dream of socialism,

You must be mistaking me for someone else.

ie, some work for others.
How do you define it?

As an unequal exchange, taking more than giving,
e.g. clear-cutting without re-forestation.

As for "profit" is simply seeking to get benefit that
exceeds the cost incurred. Without this, why would
anyone invest time & money to take a business risk?

Exactly. You want to gain more than you put in.

This shows that even under your socialism, profit
must happen (even if called something else) in order
to benefit society.
For example, your collective makes shoes.
It makes extra shoes to trade for bread.

This is true for all but hunter-gatherer economies.
So how is it a criticism of capitalism, but not others?

It is a critique of others, but capitalism is the most successful in exploitation.

You still gotta define exploitation, & show that it's
inherent in capitalism, but not in alternatives.

So far, you've given me....
- Undefined terms.
- Presumed that problems are unique to capitalism.

Nope, see post #27 where I refer to "state capitalism", a.k.a. socialism.

- Failed to consider flaws of alternatives.

see above

- Criticized things not inherent to capitalism.

Growth is inherent to capitalism, as I have tried to explain.

- Offered nothing better from the real world.

Because there is nothing in the real world. That's why we have to think about alternatives we haven't tried, yet.

A reasoned argument should compare capitalism
vs alternatives as they play out in the real world.
Proffering only theory, hypotheticals, & demonization
is merely preaching to the choir. They'll lap it up.
But I want more.

I want even more. I'm not satisfied with the alternatives from the past, they all suffer from the same flaws, more or less, capitalism the most. I want new alternatives, alternatives that are sustainable.

 

[rocala]

During the twenties and the thirties there was a form of bridled Capitalism, in my country

Was not the idea of distributism started in your country too? I may be mistaken. I have always found it interesting but it does not seem to have inspired many people.

Distributism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Was not the idea of distributism started in your country too? I may be mistaken. I have always found it interesting but it does not seem to have inspired many people.

Distributism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes... unfortunately we were overwhelmed by neo-liberisism too...

 

[Revoltingest]

You must be mistaking me for someone else.

Aren't you the guy who always smells like cheese?

As an unequal exchange, taking more than giving,

I covered this in a prior post.
So if exploitation is wrong, then this would make every
system other than hunter-gatherer wrong. What use
is such a term so broad as to lack any utility?

e.g. clear-cutting without re-forestation.

That was Mao's policy for communism.
So wasting resources isn't a problem limited to capitalism.
Have you ever heard of a thing called "regulation"?
It's a system of laws that (ideally) limit behavior
to avoid ill consequences, eg, fraud, pollution.

Exactly. You want to gain more than you put in.

Covered before, eg, your socialist shoe factory.

It is a critique of others, but capitalism is the most successful in exploitation.

Agreed.
Other systems create more misery than
does capitalism, eg, socialism, communism.

Nope, see post #27 where I refer to "state capitalism", a.k.a. socialism.

see above

Growth is inherent to capitalism, as I have tried to explain.

Because there is nothing in the real world. That's why we have to think about alternatives we haven't tried, yet.

I want even more. I'm not satisfied with the alternatives from the past, they all suffer from the same flaws, more or less, capitalism the most. I want new alternatives, alternatives that are sustainable.

To be blunt, it seems that your arguments are naught
but....
- Demonization by labeling, eg, workers under capitalism
are "exploited", but workers under socialism are.....not
really addressed, even though they too must work to
live.
- Decrying problems that happen under capitalism, but
not when the same problems happen under other systems.
- Ignoring the utility of regulation.
- Falsely making unending economic expansion a condition
necessary for capitalism.

You're just not holding up your end of this discussion.
I expect more from you, unlike some others here.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Revoltingest]