It's ok to be angry about capitalism

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,850
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
I mean more specifically the paranoia and punishing people for imagined transgressions. When a central authority holds supreme executive power with little to no accountability, it gives a perverse incentive to act on your worst impulses.
Except they DO have accountability, like I said. They actually can't just do whatever they want because if they do then they'd be killed by the people around them, as the Persians liked to do so often for their kings. It's not that you won't continue having bad rulers but that you lessen how often it leads to complete upheavals in society. It provides a measure of stability.

Keep in mind though, I don't think right by birth is a great system, just that, by the standards of the times when it was most popular, it was better than the alternatives. Governmental systems seem to be more about finding the less bad option than one that's "good". It's like how Darwin was wrong, it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,116
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Capitalism is a fine system, its great at efficient resource distribution and driving technology and consumer goods. But like everything it needs to be regulated and the main problem with capitalism is unrestrained capitalism and human greed combining to yield bullshit.
Pretty much this. /end thread

Those acting like capitalism (the system) is the problem and wanting a different system to fix everything don't understand humans at all. Any other system implemented will have the same (or exact opposite) issues unless fail-safes are put in to protect us from ourselves.


The cruel, greedy, and selfish among us have a vested interest in convincing us that being cruel, greedy, and selfish is the nature of humanity. I think it says a lot that kids don't have these "natural" tendencies until it gets metaphorically beaten into them. It takes a lot for a society to turn cruel and people resist it every step of the way.
Have you never been around a kid in your whole life?


Not inherently, I don't think; we've just been convinced that an economic system that's less than 300 years old is the natural state of a ~2 million year old species. Somehow.

I'm not sure that the ownership of the means of production being in a few managerial hands could be fixed by a few regulations. Seems like that needs a bit more of a root-and-stem solution.
So the before 99.99999% of human existence was better than the last 300 years?

What actual WORKING SYSTEM is gonna have the means of production not run by a few managerial hands? In theory it sounds great having everyone have equal say and ownership in things but that doesn't work. How well does 2 people or a few friends/family owning a house work out most of the time let alone a full-on big business or industry? Not to mention the average person doesn't care about the bigger picture stuff so it will end up where society is gonna appoint a few people (whether the state or worker representatives) to run things anyway who will end up becoming corrupt because human nature.

Even in fucking video games, developers have to protect the player from themselves. You need to build in fail-safes in anything to protect us from ruining shit, no system inherently has those characteristics built-in.

No, how we got where the US is right now is by being mindlessly angry at meaningless things we have no good reason to be angry at, all to distract us from being angry at the important things we should be angry at and aren't. It's pointless, destructive both to others and oneself, and doesn't accomplish anything.

Yeah, a person is being an asshole if they're angry at something or someone they have no good reason to be angry at. If there was one single universally accepted definition of what an asshole is, that would easily cover it.

As for Love, Despair, Joy? Quit strawmanning already. I never said any feelings shouldn't exist, but that they should have a good reason to exist. Not having a good reason to feel those things is the source of a lot of problems as well. Feelings are only helpful and constructive if they have an actual reason to exist. A big part of the purpose of our intelligence is to curtail such baseless feelings before we do something foolish due to feeling those things, that goes for both the positive and negative ones.
Pretty much agreed with everything you've said in the thread. Also, that is literally the problem with the US, "they" get the public to get up in arms about rather pointless shit to keep your eye off the actual important stuff. Now people on Facebook are outraged about drag shows... vs say healthcare or wealth inequality or far more important shit. They want you mad about some minor social issue because it's something that you can fight and actually win that they don't give 2 shits about because it doesn't change anything major and just keeps the status quo going.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,739
3,612
118
Except they DO have accountability, like I said. They actually can't just do whatever they want because if they do then they'd be killed by the people around them, as the Persians liked to do so often for their kings. It's not that you won't continue having bad rulers but that you lessen how often it leads to complete upheavals in society. It provides a measure of stability.
Well, every system of government can be overthrown if (people think) is it bad.

I might mention the idea of divine right meaning you were supposed to put up with stuff from a monarchy you didn't have to for other systems. It's said that made Greek tyrants (as the Greeks used the word) less secure in their power and more eager to listen to the people, for fear of revolutions, but not sure how much that was a thing outside high school textbooks. Might have happened, but whether it happened enough for a trend to be declared is another issue.

Keep in mind though, I don't think right by birth is a great system, just that, by the standards of the times when it was most popular, it was better than the alternatives. Governmental systems seem to be more about finding the less bad option than one that's "good". It's like how Darwin was wrong, it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough.
That a system was able to survive does not mean it was better than the alternatives, though.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,275
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
So the before 99.99999% of human existence was better than the last 300 years?
Not sure where you're pulling this from, although I have my suspicions.

What actual WORKING SYSTEM is gonna have the means of production not run by a few managerial hands? In theory it sounds great having everyone have equal say and ownership in things but that doesn't work. How well does 2 people or a few friends/family owning a house work out most of the time let alone a full-on big business or industry? Not to mention the average person doesn't care about the bigger picture stuff so it will end up where society is gonna appoint a few people (whether the state or worker representatives) to run things anyway who will end up becoming corrupt because human nature.
State-run or publically-owned companies exist in hundreds of countries.

Even in fucking video games, developers have to protect the player from themselves. You need to build in fail-safes in anything to protect us from ruining shit, no system inherently has those characteristics built-in.
Indeed, and I'm glad you recognise the need for stringent regulation.

No systems have them inherently built in. Yet not all systems require the same regulations, and not all systems incentivise their destruction or circumvention.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
developers have to protect the player from themselves. You need to build in fail-safes in anything to protect us from ruining shit, no system inherently has those characteristics built-in.
This is completely irrelevant, out of place and way WAY more interesting than the whole rest of the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenixmgs

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,850
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Not sure where you're pulling this from, although I have my suspicions.



State-run or publically-owned companies exist in hundreds of countries.



Indeed, and I'm glad you recognise the need for stringent regulation.

No systems have them inherently built in. Yet not all systems require the same regulations, and not all systems incentivise their destruction or circumvention.
I'm curious. What is your preferred form of government again?
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,582
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
Slavery survived for a long fucking time. Like a really long time. That doesn't make it better than alternatives. If a system benefits a select few with power and wealth while funneling that power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands then that system is obviously going to be able to survive a long time.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,913
1,780
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ironically, if we look at history "right by birth" is a more moral system than we give it credit for because it gives the singular leader an amount of security in their position so that they less likely to become paranoid and start cutting the heads off of all the competent people around them that could possibly usurp their power.
That was a indeed a common historical argument against representative government, but I don't think we have to take it at face value, because the reality is that even the people making that argument would have been arrested and tortured if they'd advocated for representative government or constraints on royal power, and that's probably a big part of the reason why they weren't.

In fact, a major feature of the ideology of absolutism was the idea that monarchs (and to a lesser extent aristocrats) couldn't be held to any kind of moral standard. Even before absolutism, it's very rare that kings or aristocrats were expected to live by any strict or stringent moral code. In fact, flouting the moral conventions which bind the rest of society was often seen as desirable behavior. Cruelty, domination and excess was part of how a person with power was expected to behave.

When Rome expanded larger and larger, it outgrew what it's system could handle with their ability to communicate.
This is a good example because we kind of have to qualify what we mean by Roman expansion. Rome was a city-state. It never really stopped being a city state. Eventually what was now Italy came to be more-or-less under the direct rule of the Rome itself, but the vast majority of what we call the Roman Empire was administered by semi-independent provincial governments and Roman client states.

And actually despite the modern mythology of the Empire bringing order to the chaos of the Republic, the reality is that the political system was pretty much continuous and that things got worse, not better, during the Imperial period. The Roman Empire was profoundly unstable, so much so that it ended up being split into four parts ruled by separate Emperors, which saved it in the short term but also created the political division between east and west that would ultimately break the whole thing apart. Even so, it's worth noting that the "decline" of the Roman Empire lasted longer than the USA has existed.

In fact, the Roman Empire is kind of an example of why a consent-based monarchy doesn't really work, because without a clear line of succession, if any popular or successful person can theoretically claim the throne and if the mechanisms that ensure an ordered transfer of power are too weak, the entire thing collapses into massive civil wars every couple of generations.
 
Last edited:

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,850
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Slavery survived for a long fucking time. Like a really long time. That doesn't make it better than alternatives. If a system benefits a select few with power and wealth while funneling that power and wealth into fewer and fewer hands then that system is obviously going to be able to survive a long time.
I specifically said, "it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough". We were also talking about governments specifically. If you want to talk about slavery, then make a thread for it.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,739
3,612
118
A system being able to survive does not mean that other systems would not have been better.

Again, looking at Ancient Greece, there were a number of different systems of government in a relatively small area within a relatively homogeneous culture. Now, you can argue that, say, Sparta's system of government was the only one suitable for Sparta, and it was not suitable in any of the other city-states (that'd be quite an argument), but other city states could be ruled by a monarchy, tyranny (again, as the greeks used that term) or a democracy, and there were variations upon those. All of those proved themselves to be viable forms of government, it wasn't the case of merely one, superior, system being used and everywhere else falling to anarchy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,275
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm curious. What is your preferred form of government again?
(Democratic) socialism.

I don't believe private enterprise needs to be ended, or that all industry must be run communally. But I believe utilities should all be state-run-- transport, energy, water, rail, post, Internet, phone, healthcare, dentistry, banking, veterinary care, insurance, etc. I also believe that all vital industries (farming, supermarkets, housing) should have prominent state-run options, even if they're not the only options.

Private enterprise can exist alongside-- but heavily regulated, with compulsory worker involvement in decision-making (either through mandatory board positions for delegates or something else), and with payscales for the highest earners tied to those of the lowest earners.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,582
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
I specifically said, "it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough". We were also talking about governments specifically. If you want to talk about slavery, then make a thread for it.
I'm not talking about slavery i'm using it as an example because you see confused by the notion that just because a system survives that doesn't mean it is better than other systems. And capitalism isn't a system of government it's an economic system. The government might be ideologically capitalist but a country is more than just it's economy.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Except they DO have accountability, like I said. They actually can't just do whatever they want because if they do then they'd be killed by the people around them, as the Persians liked to do so often for their kings. It's not that you won't continue having bad rulers but that you lessen how often it leads to complete upheavals in society. It provides a measure of stability.
Assassinations and coups seldom turn out well, often replacing one shithead leader with another.

Keep in mind though, I don't think right by birth is a great system, just that, by the standards of the times when it was most popular, it was better than the alternatives. Governmental systems seem to be more about finding the less bad option than one that's "good". It's like how Darwin was wrong, it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough.
Darwin never said "survival of the fittest." That was a conclusion drawn by one of his contemporaries. And fascism as we understand it has been around since time meant shit. Doesn't make it "good enough."
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,850
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
A system being able to survive does not mean that other systems would not have been better.

Again, looking at Ancient Greece, there were a number of different systems of government in a relatively small area within a relatively homogeneous culture. Now, you can argue that, say, Sparta's system of government was the only one suitable for Sparta, and it was not suitable in any of the other city-states (that'd be quite an argument), but other city states could be ruled by a monarchy, tyranny (again, as the greeks used that term) or a democracy, and there were variations upon those. All of those proved themselves to be viable forms of government, it wasn't the case of merely one, superior, system being used and everywhere else falling to anarchy.
Again. "Darwin got it wrong, it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough." Systems change when they are no longer good enough to deal with whatever problem is presented to them, where it then either changes or "dies" and is replaced. The constant throughout history is that for every problem a government solves, two more take it's place.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,850
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Assassinations and coups seldom turn out well, often replacing one shithead leader with another.



Darwin never said "survival of the fittest." That was a conclusion drawn by one of his contemporaries. And fascism as we understand it has been around since time meant shit. Doesn't make it "good enough."
I... Didn't say anything about fascism.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,739
3,612
118
Again. "Darwin got it wrong, it's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough." Systems change when they are no longer good enough to deal with whatever problem is presented to them, where it then either changes or "dies" and is replaced. The constant throughout history is that for every problem a government solves, two more take it's place.
Previously you said:

Keep in mind though, I don't think right by birth is a great system, just that, by the standards of the times when it was most popular, it was better than the alternatives.
I agree that it's existence proves it was good enough (more or less by definition), but it does not mean it was better than the alternatives.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,275
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's a system of government that has been around for thousands of years.
Well, no; systems of government that bear resemblance to fascism, or which you may consider analogous, have existed for thousands of years. Fascism as we tend to speak of it dates to the 1910s.