Well where in your view does capitalism work well? There are many more capitalist states than "Marxist" states unless you use an absurdly elastic definition of "Marxism". Many of these capitalist states are very, very poor. Even in the richest of these states (the US) there are millions of impoverished children, people who die preventabl…
Well where in your view does capitalism work well? There are many more capitalist states than "Marxist" states unless you use an absurdly elastic definition of "Marxism". Many of these capitalist states are very, very poor. Even in the richest of these states (the US) there are millions of impoverished children, people who die preventable deaths because they couldn't afford the doctor, etc, etc. Why are you so sure things couldn't be better?
Living standards have improved in places like the former USSR and China, too, though, so it is not necessarily the case that progress is impossible in the absence of capitalism.
It's a question of if things are as good as they could be. I think we can avoid having millions of children grow up in poverty. Others think it is a necessary evil.
And what about the rest of the USSRs accomplishments? Was winning WWII and putting a man in space also possible only because of latent, tacit capitalism, whereas everything objectionable there happened because of Marx?
You NEED "leftism bad" to be true. It's blinkering you
I'm not opposed to 'leftism' in the slightest...would even say it's necessary, etc. Neither am I some capitalist zealot. Capitalism is in many regards Leftism personified if we view its rise as an antidote to Monarchy and Feudalism, etc. Economic systems and the outcomes produced from them are nothing if not dynamic, and MUST be, let's say, 'tweaked' to adapt to various things. So, like many, I'm not 'anti-left' any more than I'm 'pro-right'. Cuz that's just silly.
As to the whole 'there's good stuff about Marxism' angle, that's just pure ideology, and, as such, more pretzel logic.
The Soviets would have gotten stomped flat without the U.S. shoveling food, resources, and war materiel at them. Without American food the U.S.S.R. would have had to ground its air force due to lack of fuel, would have starved in 1942 and 1943, and would not have been able to clothe, arm, or transport its military to the front. Soviet military production was of a horrifically-bad quality, which got huge numbers of their own people killed (and Soviet heavy industry had largely been funded and built by American capitalists in the 20's and 30's anyway). Soviet military tactics - especially in the early war - were hobbled by paranoid political concerns, leading to a complete lack of concern for logistics and the avoidable death and maiming of hundreds of thousands.
At the very least, the Marxism didn't lead to the industrial utopia or worker's state that it promised.
lmao you really threw the kitchen sink here. This reads like the cliff notes of a Thomas Sowell book
The "Soviets didn't really win the war" thing has been done to death. If you really can't see why it's wrong, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I will say that the things you're pointing out, like that capitalism created soviet heavy industry but that same heavy industry performed poorly, or that the USSR rather than the nazis are responsible for their soldiers deaths because of lack of "concern for logistics", are not persuasive to unbiased people.
Yes, capitalism set up huge factories for the Soviets to run, and then the Soviets horribly mismanaged the operation of those plants (e.g. by messing up the case-hardening process for tank armor such that T-34 plates frequently catastrophically failed when struck by ordinance that would otherwise not have penetrated, or by setting quotas of "finished" tanks and completely ignoring quality control, leading to frequent lack of waterproofing, functional electronics, or reliable gearboxes). Of course, the Soviets blamed these problems on "sabotage" instead of thinking for a moment that their system could have problems, or permitting some creative destruction of underperforming operations.
Yeah I think the country that killed and lost a hundred times as many men could fairly be said to have "won the war", but I'm not as accomplished a paraphraser as you are sir so by all means disregard
For a long time 1st-world wealth depended a LOT on resource extraction from 2nd- and especially 3rd-world states. It's not quite as egregious as colonial times now, but it is still very much a thing.
Regardless, have you ever tried to ask yourself what the difference in relative standard of living gains have been between rich and poor over the last two centuries? I don't have the data for this, but I'd be willing to wager that despite both obviously increasing, the former gains vastly outpace the latter.
And that 'resource extraction' as you deem it is DIRECTLY why industrialization occurred, which in turn has lifted most of the global population out of abject privation! What's ur point here? Has there been exploitation, corruption, unequal outcomes, and unforgivable immorality? Most assuredly. Welcome to human history and civilization. The modern West, Enlightennent, Liberalism, and Captalism has done more to foster the growth and well being of ALL Humanity than anything that has come prior. It's not even debatable...(but folks still try!)
That's of little reprieve to the masses who had to undergo that rapid modernization for the sake of 'progress', as opposed to us who could more or less do it at our own pace because we were the first to do so. The amount of social and economic upheaval that cost the local population is tremendous, in a negative way. Or does that not matter?
Capitalism is not some permanent bedfellow of those ideas you list. And although it has been a predominant feature of modern Western economies, that doesn't mean it goes hand in hand with liberal or Enlightenment values - they aren't mutually inclusive. It's an economic model, not a system of values or a premise for basic human rights.
Except they do go hand in hand. I mean, ffs, let's be real here! Maybe at some point aliens will show up (or angels!) and show us 'The Way', but until then I'll bank on the flawed way it's gone up til now. I want to be clear here!!: I am acutely aware of the pitfalls, incongruities, etc that are, for the most part, inherent in modern 'progress' of the last several centuries. I also am of the firm belief that we, meaning everyone on the planet, will continue to innovate and improve on what we have so far.
No, they don't go hand in hand. Are you actually trying to say that Liberal and Enlightenment values could not have flourished without capitalism? How on earth can you make that assumption, because it happened to happen in the Western world? Correlation is not causation, and it isn't interdependence either.
We really didn't "do it at our own pace." The "first world" had just as much of a technology shock as it industrialized as the third world does now. Remember that the very word "Luddite" comes from violent riots by artisanal weavers smashing up newly-proliferating power looms putting them out of business.
I would not say it's "just as much" as a shock as, say, 19th century colonies in Africa and Asia. Come on man, are you really saying that the European craft industry went through just as much hardship as, say, the Bengali famine of '43?
I'm confused what the '43 Bengali famine has to do with industrialization shocks on craft industry. Wasn't that caused by WWII increasing food needs because of war refugees, diverting local food to military use, and damaging the transportation infrastructure that otherwise could have been used to bring in emergency relief?
But yes, things like the Enclosures resulted in massive immiseration of displaced English workers, including widespread starvation, later only barely averted through the introduction of government poor relief (at the request of the capitalists, who didn't want to have to artificially increase wages above subsistence).
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”
As for the gains aspect, it's no surprise that those on the 'upper' end have gained exponentially more than those not in that class. Again, welcome to history. Is it intended? Maybe, at least indirectly? I dunno. It's likely an indirect function of the increase of modern civilization. Again, I'm wondering what ur getting at by articulating these things? Should the 1st world feel guilty? Dunno. Should we at least be aware that inequalities are a serious problem among humans and work diligently, and INTELLIGENTLY, to mitigate the issues that arise as a product of these inequalities? We do. To the point where currently we are stuck navel gazing, somewhere btwn guilt and shame, and are in danger of losing the whole thing.
If you don't have a problem with progress going hand in hand with a widening wealth gap, then you've lost the plot. Because the whole point is to try and provide everyone with a roughly equal change at a meaningful and enjoyable life. If it doesn't matter to you that some people will just always have an easier go at it, then there's no point in arguing for anything here because basic fairness doesn't seem to hold any water for you.
Did I ever say I didn't have a problem w/incongruities concerning wealth, etc? No. I didn't. Again, what is the fucking point you are trying to make, ffs? Is it that ppl have suffered immeasurably in the arc of progress that has gotten us to the present moment? Cuz they have, and literally NO ONE discounts that. And? Do you honestly think that w/o the advance of industrialization, etc that ANYTHING would have been 'better'? That's not a fucking shrug, pal....it's acknowledgment of reality. Again, can things get better? Ofc...and they are. The Magna Carta and the US Constitution/Bill of Rights are pretty fucking important documents in achieving this 'better'. Finally, your sanctimonious 'good lord' etc betrays your lack of seriousness on this subject. It's just simply adolescent to think, or even dream, that some day all ppl will have 'equal' access to EVERYTHING, including benefits that arise as a result of progress. I'm not even sure they would want to? Again, I dunno. I'd suggest that whole angle is just a tad 'priestly', in a zealous sort of way. I suppose if you need to die on the hill of insisting that 'inequality and unfairness is inherent in the system', or even more absurdly that 'the system' is doing exactly what it's supposed to do (dun, dun, dun!) then so be it. That's one way of looking at it, I guess. Notice how you didn't pay much attention to the next sentence in that response:
What do industrialization, the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights have to do with Capitalism? You seem to think that Capitalism is this vital thread that runs through liberalism, human rights, and progress in general. And that trying to excise that thread would unravel everything else. Where do you get that idea? Do you really think the world can't have progress without adherence to capitalist doctrine? Or that liberal values would have died on the vine without it?
The entire concept of capitalism is based on a single overarching motivation - greed. Not innovation, nor progress, nor even basic supply and demand...unless it also happens turns a profit. It's not even a governing concept, much less a moral value, yet you seem to think it's this necessary part of human flourishing. Even despite its many flaws, "warts and all" as Loury likes to opine. I mean the stock market is basically just a codified and legalized form of gambling on a massive scale, throwing around people's labor and lives like cheap poker chips at a table most of us never get to see. And you're trying to hold all that up like it's some fucking virtue for christs sake.
No amount of little quality of life tic tacs, like nifty iphone upgrades or 10cents off per gallon, makes up for the fact that all capitalism is really interested in doing is putting more money in the hands of those who either already have it, or are clever and lucky enough to gamble their way into it. It's avarice plain and simple.
Well where in your view does capitalism work well? There are many more capitalist states than "Marxist" states unless you use an absurdly elastic definition of "Marxism". Many of these capitalist states are very, very poor. Even in the richest of these states (the US) there are millions of impoverished children, people who die preventable deaths because they couldn't afford the doctor, etc, etc. Why are you so sure things couldn't be better?
Oh come on. This is just a tad 'perfect is the enemy of the good' is it not?
And exactly HOW have things NOT gotten 'better' over the last ~2 centuries?
Living standards have improved in places like the former USSR and China, too, though, so it is not necessarily the case that progress is impossible in the absence of capitalism.
It's a question of if things are as good as they could be. I think we can avoid having millions of children grow up in poverty. Others think it is a necessary evil.
If you think improvements in Russia and China, etc have occurred due to an ABSCENCE of Capitalism, then you are just simply delusional.
And what about the rest of the USSRs accomplishments? Was winning WWII and putting a man in space also possible only because of latent, tacit capitalism, whereas everything objectionable there happened because of Marx?
You NEED "leftism bad" to be true. It's blinkering you
What about them?
I think you have urself wrapped in knots, tbh.
I'm not opposed to 'leftism' in the slightest...would even say it's necessary, etc. Neither am I some capitalist zealot. Capitalism is in many regards Leftism personified if we view its rise as an antidote to Monarchy and Feudalism, etc. Economic systems and the outcomes produced from them are nothing if not dynamic, and MUST be, let's say, 'tweaked' to adapt to various things. So, like many, I'm not 'anti-left' any more than I'm 'pro-right'. Cuz that's just silly.
As to the whole 'there's good stuff about Marxism' angle, that's just pure ideology, and, as such, more pretzel logic.
The Soviets would have gotten stomped flat without the U.S. shoveling food, resources, and war materiel at them. Without American food the U.S.S.R. would have had to ground its air force due to lack of fuel, would have starved in 1942 and 1943, and would not have been able to clothe, arm, or transport its military to the front. Soviet military production was of a horrifically-bad quality, which got huge numbers of their own people killed (and Soviet heavy industry had largely been funded and built by American capitalists in the 20's and 30's anyway). Soviet military tactics - especially in the early war - were hobbled by paranoid political concerns, leading to a complete lack of concern for logistics and the avoidable death and maiming of hundreds of thousands.
At the very least, the Marxism didn't lead to the industrial utopia or worker's state that it promised.
lmao you really threw the kitchen sink here. This reads like the cliff notes of a Thomas Sowell book
The "Soviets didn't really win the war" thing has been done to death. If you really can't see why it's wrong, I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. I will say that the things you're pointing out, like that capitalism created soviet heavy industry but that same heavy industry performed poorly, or that the USSR rather than the nazis are responsible for their soldiers deaths because of lack of "concern for logistics", are not persuasive to unbiased people.
Or Sean McMeekin's book.
Yes, capitalism set up huge factories for the Soviets to run, and then the Soviets horribly mismanaged the operation of those plants (e.g. by messing up the case-hardening process for tank armor such that T-34 plates frequently catastrophically failed when struck by ordinance that would otherwise not have penetrated, or by setting quotas of "finished" tanks and completely ignoring quality control, leading to frequent lack of waterproofing, functional electronics, or reliable gearboxes). Of course, the Soviets blamed these problems on "sabotage" instead of thinking for a moment that their system could have problems, or permitting some creative destruction of underperforming operations.
Yeah I think the country that killed and lost a hundred times as many men could fairly be said to have "won the war", but I'm not as accomplished a paraphraser as you are sir so by all means disregard
This is nothing but more knots, plain & simple.
You NEED "Marxism bad" to be true
It's blinkered you
Pretty clear that US production and Soviet manpower were the winning combination.
For a long time 1st-world wealth depended a LOT on resource extraction from 2nd- and especially 3rd-world states. It's not quite as egregious as colonial times now, but it is still very much a thing.
Regardless, have you ever tried to ask yourself what the difference in relative standard of living gains have been between rich and poor over the last two centuries? I don't have the data for this, but I'd be willing to wager that despite both obviously increasing, the former gains vastly outpace the latter.
Or is that working as intended?
And that 'resource extraction' as you deem it is DIRECTLY why industrialization occurred, which in turn has lifted most of the global population out of abject privation! What's ur point here? Has there been exploitation, corruption, unequal outcomes, and unforgivable immorality? Most assuredly. Welcome to human history and civilization. The modern West, Enlightennent, Liberalism, and Captalism has done more to foster the growth and well being of ALL Humanity than anything that has come prior. It's not even debatable...(but folks still try!)
That's of little reprieve to the masses who had to undergo that rapid modernization for the sake of 'progress', as opposed to us who could more or less do it at our own pace because we were the first to do so. The amount of social and economic upheaval that cost the local population is tremendous, in a negative way. Or does that not matter?
Capitalism is not some permanent bedfellow of those ideas you list. And although it has been a predominant feature of modern Western economies, that doesn't mean it goes hand in hand with liberal or Enlightenment values - they aren't mutually inclusive. It's an economic model, not a system of values or a premise for basic human rights.
Except they do go hand in hand. I mean, ffs, let's be real here! Maybe at some point aliens will show up (or angels!) and show us 'The Way', but until then I'll bank on the flawed way it's gone up til now. I want to be clear here!!: I am acutely aware of the pitfalls, incongruities, etc that are, for the most part, inherent in modern 'progress' of the last several centuries. I also am of the firm belief that we, meaning everyone on the planet, will continue to innovate and improve on what we have so far.
No, they don't go hand in hand. Are you actually trying to say that Liberal and Enlightenment values could not have flourished without capitalism? How on earth can you make that assumption, because it happened to happen in the Western world? Correlation is not causation, and it isn't interdependence either.
We really didn't "do it at our own pace." The "first world" had just as much of a technology shock as it industrialized as the third world does now. Remember that the very word "Luddite" comes from violent riots by artisanal weavers smashing up newly-proliferating power looms putting them out of business.
I would not say it's "just as much" as a shock as, say, 19th century colonies in Africa and Asia. Come on man, are you really saying that the European craft industry went through just as much hardship as, say, the Bengali famine of '43?
I'm confused what the '43 Bengali famine has to do with industrialization shocks on craft industry. Wasn't that caused by WWII increasing food needs because of war refugees, diverting local food to military use, and damaging the transportation infrastructure that otherwise could have been used to bring in emergency relief?
But yes, things like the Enclosures resulted in massive immiseration of displaced English workers, including widespread starvation, later only barely averted through the introduction of government poor relief (at the request of the capitalists, who didn't want to have to artificially increase wages above subsistence).
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”
As for the gains aspect, it's no surprise that those on the 'upper' end have gained exponentially more than those not in that class. Again, welcome to history. Is it intended? Maybe, at least indirectly? I dunno. It's likely an indirect function of the increase of modern civilization. Again, I'm wondering what ur getting at by articulating these things? Should the 1st world feel guilty? Dunno. Should we at least be aware that inequalities are a serious problem among humans and work diligently, and INTELLIGENTLY, to mitigate the issues that arise as a product of these inequalities? We do. To the point where currently we are stuck navel gazing, somewhere btwn guilt and shame, and are in danger of losing the whole thing.
If you don't have a problem with progress going hand in hand with a widening wealth gap, then you've lost the plot. Because the whole point is to try and provide everyone with a roughly equal change at a meaningful and enjoyable life. If it doesn't matter to you that some people will just always have an easier go at it, then there's no point in arguing for anything here because basic fairness doesn't seem to hold any water for you.
"Is it intended?"
"Maybe?" /shrug
Good lord man.
Did I ever say I didn't have a problem w/incongruities concerning wealth, etc? No. I didn't. Again, what is the fucking point you are trying to make, ffs? Is it that ppl have suffered immeasurably in the arc of progress that has gotten us to the present moment? Cuz they have, and literally NO ONE discounts that. And? Do you honestly think that w/o the advance of industrialization, etc that ANYTHING would have been 'better'? That's not a fucking shrug, pal....it's acknowledgment of reality. Again, can things get better? Ofc...and they are. The Magna Carta and the US Constitution/Bill of Rights are pretty fucking important documents in achieving this 'better'. Finally, your sanctimonious 'good lord' etc betrays your lack of seriousness on this subject. It's just simply adolescent to think, or even dream, that some day all ppl will have 'equal' access to EVERYTHING, including benefits that arise as a result of progress. I'm not even sure they would want to? Again, I dunno. I'd suggest that whole angle is just a tad 'priestly', in a zealous sort of way. I suppose if you need to die on the hill of insisting that 'inequality and unfairness is inherent in the system', or even more absurdly that 'the system' is doing exactly what it's supposed to do (dun, dun, dun!) then so be it. That's one way of looking at it, I guess. Notice how you didn't pay much attention to the next sentence in that response:
What do industrialization, the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights have to do with Capitalism? You seem to think that Capitalism is this vital thread that runs through liberalism, human rights, and progress in general. And that trying to excise that thread would unravel everything else. Where do you get that idea? Do you really think the world can't have progress without adherence to capitalist doctrine? Or that liberal values would have died on the vine without it?
The entire concept of capitalism is based on a single overarching motivation - greed. Not innovation, nor progress, nor even basic supply and demand...unless it also happens turns a profit. It's not even a governing concept, much less a moral value, yet you seem to think it's this necessary part of human flourishing. Even despite its many flaws, "warts and all" as Loury likes to opine. I mean the stock market is basically just a codified and legalized form of gambling on a massive scale, throwing around people's labor and lives like cheap poker chips at a table most of us never get to see. And you're trying to hold all that up like it's some fucking virtue for christs sake.
No amount of little quality of life tic tacs, like nifty iphone upgrades or 10cents off per gallon, makes up for the fact that all capitalism is really interested in doing is putting more money in the hands of those who either already have it, or are clever and lucky enough to gamble their way into it. It's avarice plain and simple.
You have this all exactly backwards. Unsurprising.