Is it wrong to say that a lot of the root cause of this is from capitalism? Is socialism a better solution for more complicated societies like the ones we have today?
At it's heart, capitalism is about 1) private ownership of the factors of production through limited liability and tradeable claims; and 2) a separation of management of the firm from ownership of the firm.
I don't see that being replaced anytime soon. The idea that a top-down technocratic solution (of which I would consider socialism an enlightened example) would result in greater human thriving has not been borne out empirically, and in theory has problems that the information and feedback processes driving decision making are less efficient.
Also, what is “human thriving”? I find that capitalists use vague terms like this to mean “good”, and when you push them for a definition, they give you a contrived one which makes capitalism look good, but no satisfying justification or explanation for why this is should be what the structure of society should be optimised for.
In terms of organising a society the extreme forms of socialism imply very strong central planning. Which run into significant problems because the central planners are never going to know the needs of the people as well as the people themselves, nor are they going to have the information available on all the industries that they're trying to oversee.
http://econweb.umd.edu/~murrell/Articles/Can%20Neoclassical%...
> One doubt about the evidence might lie in the comparability of estimates obtained from separate studies, although Table 1 addresses this issue by matching studies with similar methodologies. One study, Koopman (1989b), employs observations on both centrally planned and market economies, thus providing direct comparability. He uses observations for 1960-79 for Soviet republics and a matched sample of Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and Finland, and employs a translog functional form that allows for differences in technology between Soviet and non-Soviet regions. The average level of technical efficiency in Soviet agriculture is estimated at 93 percent, while it is 92 percent for agriculture in the market economies.
I agree with you, I think capitalism is a transitional phase and the end-game will be something that can be sustained in perpetuity and with more humanity than capitalism.
Edit: spelling
If you really equate socialism with communism you have some political history books to hit.
The increase in wealth over the past few centuries can be put mainly down to the discovery of natural resources, although some wealth is generated by human labour. Both of these are finite, so it's impossible to have infinite growth forever. Which brings us to the point that, for the wealth of an individual to grow in an economy with a finite amount of wealth, either more wealth must be created by increased human labour, or some people will lose wealth.
My view is that while Capitalism does improve our lifestyles, it functions by taking loans from the earth, and passing the debt to our descendants. They have improved lifestyles in some areas, but certainly not all (Increased consumption doesn't increase happiness, overuse of antibiotics does not solve the problem of bacteria, and more pollution does not improve health, etc).
It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation".
Perhaps we need to redefine what wealth really is. IMO, it's not "I own more than you", but is something internal - real happiness and physical health. We'll only be truly wealthy when all of us (and our descendants) are.
Capitalism is not the root cause, because it's just an idea created by humans. The problem is us, and the solution is to change ourselves. Here's a recent keynote given by Alan Kay on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0R0tAOf7KI
The same is true of the universe and evolution. Especially evolution has the exact same problem. In practice though :
1) 4.1 billion years and counting
2) it has overcome every obstacle either humanity or anything else has thrown at it (same can be said for capitalism, and the same cannot be said for any form of collectivism, unless you want to call organisations like Christianity collectivist, which they sort-of are. Christianity is a lot younger than capitalism though)
3) it is always using exponential growth and competition everywhere
> (And it will require a huge increase in energy use to recycle, which will probably come from more nuclear power as it is more Capitalist - renewable solutions can't be monopolized.)
Aside from being "more capitalist" (?) nuclear power is also just plain "more". Furthermore, I'd argue that nuclear power plants are much more communist. They're the sort of thing where everything will be hammered down by regulation, including monopolies for the companies.
And the argument about which is more sustainable renewable or nuclear, is not settled. Due to oil-based production of renewable generators, for which renewable power provides no alternative at all, consumption of non-renewable resources is going up, not down.
> It's hard to say whether socialism would work, because it hasn't been properly tried yet. Whatever system we come up with to organize people, it needs to be based around sustainability rather than "wealth creation".
No offence, but the last few attempts at socialism weren't exactly environmentally friendly, or sustainable. Nor were they anywhere near equal. Why would this time be different ?
I think another sibling comment is right, there needs to be a mix of both and is all down to trade offs.
> There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists.
Yes. Terrorism gave us the 40 hour workweek, and in my country of Canada, single payer healthcare...
And more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
I don't think calling bombings in public spaces "terrorism" is really straining the definition of the word. In fact it seems pretty on-the-nose.
And far from driving any sort of positive change, these bombings derived zero concessions from the government. Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence. This is a legacy that is still here in the US today, where words like "socialist" are still being used as obvious pejoratives.
It's interesting that you bring up single payer health care in Canada. The first real implementation of public health care in Canada was in Saskatchewan, under premier Tommy Douglas, who was IIRC voted a few years ago as the Greatest Canada Who Ever Lived. Public health care was achieved in Saskatchewan not by hostage-taking, bombing, or shooting anyone, but by persistent demonstration and political participation. Not a shot was fired to win single payer health care in Canada.
Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting). It is in spite of violent extremists that these causes have succeeded, it should get zero credit.
The State engaged in plenty of mass indiscriminate violence against nonviolent people in the same period. The incidents you mention killed two people (one of whom, as a historical irony, was a working class security officer, and the other was an anarchist himself.)
But when the government comes in and kills dozens if not hundreds of people in various labor incidents (or turned a blind eye to corporations doing the same), it's just establishing "law and order" (read: used violent force to ensure the continued functioning of and economic profits of capital).
There's also the elephant in the room, since we're talking about the 1910s, of some unspecified but very widespread government violence and big explosions in public squares. Though that was more a competition among elites, it was still borne disproportionately by the non-elite.
Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists. Without the movement, you don't have May Day in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919
Also, without context, you're argument seems reasonable, however WITH context, it does not. During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection. After years of struggles with police and politicians, I find it insulting to claim that any engagements are terrorism, and that all of it is under the pretense of war. Just look at the locations of these events...
> Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence.
Actually the labour movements had gotten the most concessions out of government between 1918 and 1940. If you disagree, again, feel free to explain how labour laws inhibit society from being truly free/prosperous.
> Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting).
OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed. http://www.iww.org/
"It may well be the most nonviolent movement of its size in American history, and this despite the absence of peace codes, marshals, or official peace police. In the fall, there were at least five hundred occupations, with participants representing remarkably diverse philosophies, from evangelical Christians to revolutionary anarchists, and thousands of marches and actions—and yet the most "violent" acts attributed to protesters were four of five acts of window-breaking, basically less than one might expect in the wake of one not particularly rowdy Canadian hockey game. [...] there was virtually no discussion of the first OWS-associated window-breaking in New York itself, which occurred on March 17 [...] broken by an NYPD officer, using an activist's head."
If you don't feel like reading the book, you can read this article, where Occupy anarchists were more criticized for "all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers..." (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128728...)
(I mean, one must be honest about violence within anarchist history; there exist hawkish people who call themselves anarchists, as no one owns the term. But the image of anarchist bombers is propaganda, made by hyper-violent countries which bomb all the time.)
I am very partial to late 19th century anarchists, but 'propaganda by the deed' included both assassinations (which could be ethically justified as part of a larger war) and a small number of random acts of violence against the general public (which I see no serious ethical justification for (x)). While such acts were a fairly small part of 'Propaganda of the Deed', they are an early example of what would be later labeled terrorism (that is, NGOs using indiscriminate violence against civil populations for political ends).
For example: "February 12, 1894 – Émile Henry, intending to avenge Auguste Vaillant, sets off a bomb in Café Terminus (a café near the Gare Saint-Lazare train station in Paris), killing one and injuring twenty. During his trial, when asked why he wanted to harm so many innocent people, he declared, "There is no innocent bourgeois." This act is one of the rare exceptions to the rule that propaganda of the deed targets only specific powerful individuals. Henry is convicted and executed by guillotine on May 21." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
The small number of acts of terror carried out by anarchists likely didn't give us the 40 year work week (xx), anarchists and other radicals organizing did.
x - The fact that these acts of terror were carried out in reprisal for far worse state terror is no excuse. The ends do not justify the means.
xx - The value of assassination is debatable but clearly terrorism was both counter-productive and unethically unjustifiable.
Semantically, terrorism is violence against the state/privileged public, and "the legitimate use of force" is violence by the state, to the individual/disenfranchised public.
Are poor mostly black neighborhoods not under the duress of terror from the "Stop and Frisk" police in NY? What about Operation Northwood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Also, just because you find certain actions morally reprehensible, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure we're all missing TONS of context. Also, to quote Nietzsche:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
If you can come up with a method for countering oppression that doesn't use force, but DOESN'T involve begging your oppressors, please let me in on the tactic.
Also, revolutionary anarchism is but a branch. You have many forms of anarchism. Most of which advocate peaceful coexistence without the use of force over individuals or communities.
I'd argue that dividing force into subsets of classifications is futile. You have force, you have coercion, and you have power. Anarchists inately believe that force/coercion is corrupting, which gives you a point, but many would agree that, "The war to end all wars is worth it."
So while the end may not justify the mean, The end that justifies all meaning - is something else entirely to look into.
Terrorism is what we call punching up.
Law & order what we call punching down. Stuff like locking workers inside burning buildings, using thugs, cops, and soldiers to crack labor heads, forcibly deporting undesirables.
I'm finally starting to get the hang of this. Now I am learning.
The article makes one great point thought: Many people die, INCLUDING rich people in collapses. They're either extremely confident about this time, or extremely ignorant with how revolutions and power structures usually mix.
A small observation,a little off-topic: The author need to study a little bit more about what anarchism really are, to not get confused with terrorism; or equalizing it with the destruction of the current rule order.. this is chaos, not anarchism
Anarchism has to do with individual freedom.. the natural one we all born with, and no force can take that freedom from you.. its the ultimate freedom..
The anarchism is the most advanced form of politics(by not imposing any particular policy by the use of force), but it need a very sophisticated type of human being.. (we can find nowadays but are very few proportionally speaking).. So its not feasible in the current social reality.. (so i dont think is a good idea to try to put it to work right now :))
To get a real taste of anarchism, its imperative the know the works of Bakunin, Proudhon, Thoureau, Nietzsche, Freud and Foucault (I can even dare to say Jesus Christ was one too)
Anyone that says that anarchism is the same as blow up things and mess with "the established order" (as sampled in the Fight Club movie), dont know what they are talking about
Edit: Also the people that do awful things, and call themselves as anarchists (i guess unabomber had this image of himself) are also wrong.. and are making a diservice to the real concept, the same way people misuse the concept of "hacker"..
I just fell the need to also make justice to the concept of anarchism, the same way i would do with the concept of hacker
In general I dislike the concept, as it's usually used to decry education that the author sees as pointless, rather than the recipient of the education.
Might the system as a whole benefit from some selection of those with law degrees (minimum criterion) for best fit to available jobs?
And if anyone challenges the notion of whether or not Mitt took part in IRA stuffing, just look at the annual returns of his IRA versus the annual returns of any investment product offered by Bain.
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/07/25/romney...
Most people pay a lot more taxes because they don't have entire tax firms to leverage against their yearly tax return. Most people make a lot less money than politicians. Politicians often say that we need to pay for our public services in taxes. Politicians are often to take advantage of the social services of a society without contributing back with taxes, and people see that as taking advantage of the good will of people. Then when such people run for public office, people are disinterested to vote for someone who demonstrates no care for the social system that allowed them to employ workers and build a business.
This isn't a question of what people should do to garner public support. That's a red herring. Asking such a question is pointless. It's pretty much saying "well if I fed a poor person while I was ripping off hard working everyday people, would you vote for me then?"
Well.. no most people wouldn't, but it does tell us a lot about you when you ask that question.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2013/11/world-inequality-is-do...
It's actually a pretty interesting article, you should read it, rather than dismissing it because of your political bias.
This article was about the US. Things aren't going in the same direction globally as in first world countries.
The reduction in global inequality actually relates to the rise in American inequality, as industries that previously drove the growth of the American middle class have off-shored and are now contributing to the growth of the middle class elsewhere.
Stagnant industries that used to be the bread and butter across the US are now major growth factors in China and India.
The roots of the current American predicament go back
to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping
pace with their productivity.
So this has been going on for the past 40 years and we have stopped questioning it?
What if you were Black or a woman in the 70's? Did wages ever keep up with productivity in the first place?
This graph tells all: http://i.imgur.com/ZxBWh.png
And yes, we've simply learned to ignore it.
The gap of productivity and wealth that is no longer being earned by the working/middle class is being systematically extracted from the market by the powerful corporate class.
The craziest part of this I've heard is that one of the main methods of this market extraction is via the broad use of credit by the working/middle class, who, now that they aren't making enough money to afford basic life, need to borrow to afford it. They borrow from the upper class/bankers and pay interest, thereby funneling even more money into the top echelon of society, even though we're already being systematically squeezed out. All just because they can. Because it is possible to take the money, so they do, each individual entity at each point of decision chooses this lopsided power-extreme optimum, and it causes this extreme imbalance in turn.
And we act like this is all a normal part of society. Because we've been told so.
Why there is not extreme uproar about this is beyond me, but I think it has to do with the fact that the media is also owned by the powerful corporate class, as is the government.
It is sickening if you think about it hard enough. But we don't, because we're told we're powerless to change the society we're in. Which makes it even worse.
And people saw New Orleans after Katrina, and Boston after the marathon bombing. They didn't yell. They just went out and bought their first gun. Or they bought a camera or smartphone live-streaming app and started randomly recording police encounters.
So now "prepping" by such means as stockpiling food and ammunition is a normal part of society. This, despite blog and television portrayals of such people as wingnuts. People are quietly preparing for surviving a civil war, under the guise of disaster preparedness.
Once the watershed event occurs, whatever it may be, it will not be pretty. If even 0.1% of the population are just waiting for the camel's back to break before firing one shot, that's still a lot of bullets in the air.
But regardless, when you look at graphs of wealth inequality, business regulation, the militarization of police, and incarceration rates, they all start going rapidly in the wrong direction starting at about 1970.
So, a larger percentage of wealthy people in society is a product of _more_ inequality? My brain has a bit of trouble with that statement.
Let's define the elite as people who have, say, 10 times the income/wealth/power as the median person. As inequality increases, the cutoff point for people who have 10x what the median person has decreases from 99th percentile to 98th percentile (or whatever).
This is workable numerically if you think of income as falling along a Pareto distribution. I'm not sure it's workable as a definition of the elite, though: why would the 98th percentile have more access to power with more inequality? Although they outstrip the median fine, they'd be even further away from the 99th or 99.9th percentile.
Distribution of wealth and the purchase of politics are serious problems, but this article doesn't seem very on the mark.
After all, a core tenet of The American Dream™ states one must do better - in terms of social status - than one's forebears.
And when was the last time you heard a college professor brag about having a mechanic for a son? Not that there's anything wrong with either profession when they act honestly.
I kind of dig the analysis, as it resembles Asimov's psychohistory, but it's still a bit haphazard because the analyst assumes some kind of periodicity to the phenomenon.
This kind of work lends itself to other questions, such as whether one can increase its' predictive power by analyzing social artifacts such as music, books or visual arts.
"The writers who invented and elaborated the post-Kantian theory of the state belonged to a caste which was relatively low on the social scale. They were, most of them, the sons of pastors, artisans, or small farmers. They somehow managed to become university students, most often in the faculty of theology, and last out the duration of their course on minute grants, private lessons, and similar makeshifts. When they graduated they found that their knowledge opened no doors, that they were still in the same social class, looked down upon by a nobility which was stupid, unlettered, and which engrossed the public employments they felt themselves so capable of filling. These students and ex-students felt in them the power to do great things, they had culture, knowledge, ability, they yearned for the life of action, its excitements and rewards, and yet there they were, doomed to spend heartbreaking years as indigent curates waiting to be appointed pastors, or as tutors in some noble household, where they were little better than superior domestics, or as famished writers dependent on the goodwill of an editor or a publisher."
This group produced colourful people like Karl Sand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ludwig_Sand , and of course an ideology which was eventually to burn Europe down at least a couple of times. Substitute engineering for theology and you have a pretty accurate description of many of the angry young men of the present-day Middle East too.
Just sayin'
