Who says capitalism depends on infinite growth? I often hear that criticism, but I don’t see where it’s coming from? I’ve not heard a capitalist say this, only anti-capitalists. What is it about capitalism that requires this growth?
Can you name anything, anywhere, which exists without growing? Doesn’t even have to be alive, just asking for any phenomenon that just exists without growing.
So I guess it’s one point expressed two ways: “Requiring constant growth” is not a valid criticism of our current economic system.
The modern take on stock investment is to not give dividends, so the only way for shareholders to make money is to have the company grow indefinitely.
Obviously a capitalist won’t tell you that. My economy professor kept insisting that efficiency is always positive because it only concerns making a bigger cake, so there is more cake to be divided among the people involved, which he called surplus. In reality greater efficiency has a cost, and the cost is paid by people, while other people pockets the surplus. Fuck capitalists.
So making money in the stock market only works if the pie keeps on expanding? I think that’s a way to take advantage of the fact that our economy is expanding, but I don’t think that’s the definition of capitalism.
Your original point was that the pie doesn’t need to keep expanding, so you have been disproved I would say. Saying that the economy need to keep expanding is the same as saying the economy is based on infinite growth. If it stops expanding the stocks are not profitable anymore and the shareholders are going to vote to replace CEOs, so the CEOs have an incentive to make he companies grow at any cost.
You explained how one business relies on growth, in order to enrich its stockholders.
That is not the same as saying how the entire economy needs to expand.
Also it doesn’t differentiate it from anything else, since literally everything (I’m using the word phenomenon in its most literal form here — feel free to challenge me on any phenomenon) must grow or cease existing.
Have you taken a critical look at why you feel so compelled to defend capitalism? I’m honestly curious, because unless you’re trolling for lols (which would also be sad), it’s similar to excuses from a victim in an abusive relationship; you are a victim of capitalism and are apologizing for it.
Primarily because when other people are given authority over me, they tend to find ways to shut me down.
Generally speaking I’m ridiculously good at things when I do them my own way, but I’ve often not been permitted to, instead offered “this great option the government has authorized for people”.
It’s just like I need the leeway to innovate and prove my worth based on outcomes, in order to survive in this world. I am autistic, and I draw a lot of hostility from people. The problem is, people won’t acknowledge (hence own and then turn off) this hostility. Everyone believes they’re a great person and so the mechanism by which they can actually improve is missing.
What am I trying to say here?
I guess I’m saying I don’t trust people to be consistent with their compassion. I trust people’s self interest more than I trust their compassion, and in my experience the compassion comes with rules abojt what you can’t do, and when I stay inside the same lanes as everyone else I fail hard and I generally get kicked out of things despite following every rule and performing every duty.
So because all of humanity treats me essentially as a frenemy, and doesn’t even seem to be aware of it or interested in cultivating that awareness, I try to avoid being under the power of others as much as I can, even (especially?) people who think they’re helping me.
Free markets allow the marginalized to succeed without having to cut off 80% of themselves to play the role of a correctly-shaped cookie.
Now, can you articulate some kind of “you’re abused” model of me defending capitalism
that goes deeper than “you’re defending X and sometimes abuse victims defend their abusers, therefore your X is abusive”? Or is that as far as the analogy goes?
I have been abused, incidentally. Twice. Both times by people who said and believed that they loved me.
I simply do not trust people’s good intentions for me to produce good outcomes. This is why I think free market mechanisms, where everyone is only entering into deals that both parties want, aside from being morally correct at a fundamental level, is also a great mechanism for cutting through people’s self delusion.
If you aren’t buying what I’m selling, then under a free market that forces me to adapt. Requiring your consent keeps me in line and vice versa.
Non-consensual economic systems, ie the ones not based on free markets, aren’t just morally wrong. They’re also consistent in producing bad outcomes.
If you’ve got more on this “you sound like an abuse victim” angle I’m all ears but so far all I’ve seen is this “people defend abusers therefore defended things are abusive” component to the theory and that’s weak.
I could easily say that people who want someone else to take away their economic consent, for their own good of course, has been addled by abuse. I just don’t, because it’s cheap and uninformative.
If you are not familiar, I highly recommend checking out “egoism,” and Max Stirner.
Your perspective sounds like a place of self and economic -awareness I was in, where I then was able to recognize that the “free market” is actually predicated on “might makes right,” and that the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” has been, and continues to be, artificially forced as the salient concept of human evolution, and used to perpetuate domination of the “weak” by the “strong” as a natural, even moral, eventuality.
I believe that you are wary of abuse by people claiming to operate in your best interest. I am, too. I also believe there are people and forces who do not have our best interests in mind, and it is in their best interest to make us think that working together is bad for us, individually, and that competing with one another is natural and good.
The truth, as I see it, is that working together is natural, and that when there are forces of domination - hierarchy, oppression - fundamentally opposed to our individually thriving, working together is safer, too. I would really appreciate it if you would look into anarchism (not anarchy), with the level head you brought to this discussion.
I am firmly anti-capitalism, but I don’t believe in any of the conceptual alternatives of “taking away economic consent” etc. that you mentioned. Capitalism, including “free-market,” is a system of control regardless of nomenclature. I encourage broadly looking into “anticapitalism” while trying to leave biases about “failed states” that occurred in history (crushed by capitalism) at the door; again, the identity politics is a wedge keeping us from sharing perspectives.
Two things:
Who says capitalism depends on infinite growth? I often hear that criticism, but I don’t see where it’s coming from? I’ve not heard a capitalist say this, only anti-capitalists. What is it about capitalism that requires this growth?
Can you name anything, anywhere, which exists without growing? Doesn’t even have to be alive, just asking for any phenomenon that just exists without growing.
So I guess it’s one point expressed two ways: “Requiring constant growth” is not a valid criticism of our current economic system.
The modern take on stock investment is to not give dividends, so the only way for shareholders to make money is to have the company grow indefinitely.
Obviously a capitalist won’t tell you that. My economy professor kept insisting that efficiency is always positive because it only concerns making a bigger cake, so there is more cake to be divided among the people involved, which he called surplus. In reality greater efficiency has a cost, and the cost is paid by people, while other people pockets the surplus. Fuck capitalists.
So making money in the stock market only works if the pie keeps on expanding? I think that’s a way to take advantage of the fact that our economy is expanding, but I don’t think that’s the definition of capitalism.
Your original point was that the pie doesn’t need to keep expanding, so you have been disproved I would say. Saying that the economy need to keep expanding is the same as saying the economy is based on infinite growth. If it stops expanding the stocks are not profitable anymore and the shareholders are going to vote to replace CEOs, so the CEOs have an incentive to make he companies grow at any cost.
You explained how one business relies on growth, in order to enrich its stockholders.
That is not the same as saying how the entire economy needs to expand.
Also it doesn’t differentiate it from anything else, since literally everything (I’m using the word phenomenon in its most literal form here — feel free to challenge me on any phenomenon) must grow or cease existing.
Have you taken a critical look at why you feel so compelled to defend capitalism? I’m honestly curious, because unless you’re trolling for lols (which would also be sad), it’s similar to excuses from a victim in an abusive relationship; you are a victim of capitalism and are apologizing for it.
Economists and politicians generally believe that we need to keep the global economy growing by around 3 percent annually
Why capitalism is obsessed with growth
Primarily because when other people are given authority over me, they tend to find ways to shut me down.
Generally speaking I’m ridiculously good at things when I do them my own way, but I’ve often not been permitted to, instead offered “this great option the government has authorized for people”.
It’s just like I need the leeway to innovate and prove my worth based on outcomes, in order to survive in this world. I am autistic, and I draw a lot of hostility from people. The problem is, people won’t acknowledge (hence own and then turn off) this hostility. Everyone believes they’re a great person and so the mechanism by which they can actually improve is missing.
What am I trying to say here?
I guess I’m saying I don’t trust people to be consistent with their compassion. I trust people’s self interest more than I trust their compassion, and in my experience the compassion comes with rules abojt what you can’t do, and when I stay inside the same lanes as everyone else I fail hard and I generally get kicked out of things despite following every rule and performing every duty.
So because all of humanity treats me essentially as a frenemy, and doesn’t even seem to be aware of it or interested in cultivating that awareness, I try to avoid being under the power of others as much as I can, even (especially?) people who think they’re helping me.
Free markets allow the marginalized to succeed without having to cut off 80% of themselves to play the role of a correctly-shaped cookie.
Now, can you articulate some kind of “you’re abused” model of me defending capitalism that goes deeper than “you’re defending X and sometimes abuse victims defend their abusers, therefore your X is abusive”? Or is that as far as the analogy goes?
I have been abused, incidentally. Twice. Both times by people who said and believed that they loved me.
I simply do not trust people’s good intentions for me to produce good outcomes. This is why I think free market mechanisms, where everyone is only entering into deals that both parties want, aside from being morally correct at a fundamental level, is also a great mechanism for cutting through people’s self delusion.
If you aren’t buying what I’m selling, then under a free market that forces me to adapt. Requiring your consent keeps me in line and vice versa.
Non-consensual economic systems, ie the ones not based on free markets, aren’t just morally wrong. They’re also consistent in producing bad outcomes.
If you’ve got more on this “you sound like an abuse victim” angle I’m all ears but so far all I’ve seen is this “people defend abusers therefore defended things are abusive” component to the theory and that’s weak.
I could easily say that people who want someone else to take away their economic consent, for their own good of course, has been addled by abuse. I just don’t, because it’s cheap and uninformative.
Well firstly, I appreciate your earnest reply.
If you are not familiar, I highly recommend checking out “egoism,” and Max Stirner.
Your perspective sounds like a place of self and economic -awareness I was in, where I then was able to recognize that the “free market” is actually predicated on “might makes right,” and that the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” has been, and continues to be, artificially forced as the salient concept of human evolution, and used to perpetuate domination of the “weak” by the “strong” as a natural, even moral, eventuality.
If you are not familiar with “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,” I highly suggest it, and Kropotkin.
I believe that you are wary of abuse by people claiming to operate in your best interest. I am, too. I also believe there are people and forces who do not have our best interests in mind, and it is in their best interest to make us think that working together is bad for us, individually, and that competing with one another is natural and good.
The truth, as I see it, is that working together is natural, and that when there are forces of domination - hierarchy, oppression - fundamentally opposed to our individually thriving, working together is safer, too. I would really appreciate it if you would look into anarchism (not anarchy), with the level head you brought to this discussion.
I am firmly anti-capitalism, but I don’t believe in any of the conceptual alternatives of “taking away economic consent” etc. that you mentioned. Capitalism, including “free-market,” is a system of control regardless of nomenclature. I encourage broadly looking into “anticapitalism” while trying to leave biases about “failed states” that occurred in history (crushed by capitalism) at the door; again, the identity politics is a wedge keeping us from sharing perspectives.
Can’t write more now, feel free to message me.