There are some EU agencies among the sponsors? I would guess that their stance on privacy is quite different from Meta's? Meta just got a 1 200 000 000 € fine for collecting data on EU citizens...

(in danish)
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/firmaet-bag-facebook-og-instagram-faar-milliardboede-af-eu

Any capital found to have resulted in lies or deception due to climate change in any way must be clawed back from the inheritors

These are the billionaires funding corrupt politicians to fry the planet & a global financial crash.

https://www.salon.com/2023/05/20/mccarthy-pushes-us-to-brink-of-default-to-appease-energy-donors--but-biden-has-an-ace-up-his-sleeve/

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/18/greg-abbott-texas-fundraising-governor-donors/

S. Javaid Anwar $6.3M
Kenny Troutt $4.6M
James Pitcock $4.3M
Michael Porter $3.5M
Ed Roski $3.3M
Kelcy Warren $3.1M
Ray & Nancy Hunt $2.5M
H. Ross Perot Jr. $2.3M
Drayton McLane Jr. $2.3M
Bobby Cox $2.2M
Robert Rowling $2.2M
Paul Foster $2.1M
John Nau III $2.1M
Jeffery & Mindy Hildebrand $2M
T. Dan Friedkin$1.9M

1/2

Some folks say that, this time, it'll end by fire.

Thank you!

And yes. In my desperation I actually tried sending handwritten letters to Chancellor back when she was still in office.

That was 5 years ago and having witnessed our collective idiocy in January 2021 when a thousand Germans died every day of Covid while politicians talked about re-opening, and knowing that the Maya civilization crumbled due to far smaller self-inflicted vulnerabilities to droughts, I am terrified of the future my kids will have to live in.

At six, I realised the severity of the situation. That was 1972.

I’ve since gone beyond denial (hey, it’s not just that former One Direction guy or that river in Egypt), bargaining, past anger, and am now crossing over from depression into acceptance. We had our time. Earth will recover, on a geographic time scale. I mourn for my children, and their peers.

The Fossil Plot. Through the mists of a hundred million years, the ghosts of long extinct creatures laugh at us, as they harness their dead carcasses to snare our greed and cowardice and corruption, propelling the human race to its doom. Well, whaddya know... carbon capture actually works! For them, anyway.

How is your home heated? Do you have a heat pump or do you have a fuel burning furnace?

If not a heat pump, why not?

Also, when voters keep voting people in who don’t prioritize climate change, we shouldn’t be surprised to see governments that don’t prioritize climate change.

“People prefer a problem they can’t solve above a solution they don’t like.” - Lee Thayer

And also this golden oldie, ascribed to Abba Ebban: “Nations behave wisely only until all other alternatives have been exhausted.”

As an addendum, we will start dramatically losing population due to the lack of food long before the end of the century. The big three culprits will be desertification due global warming, sea level rise / soil ‘saltification’ and food wars.

With the severity of the condition, and the gross indifference to it by some elements, I just might take up smoking again.

key words = the world keeps ignoring them.
Even if everybody stopped doing everything today, it's too late. It's literally time to adapt or die. The planet doesn't care if "life as we know it" remains or disappears. The planet will keep spinning, and life, albeit different, will move on to the next stage(s).
Warm bloodeds have had their run.

At the wheel for the past 5,000 years, violent men who value competition over cooperation have steered us into this climate catastrophe. Should these profiteering monsters save us now?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha 🥵🥵🥵🥵

everything is fine #climatechange

All civilizations come to an end at some point. This one is on its final stretch. Mos people don't even realize just how radical the changes would need to be to fix this mess - on a global scale.

What would be necessary across the whole world is massive De-Growth and De-Industrialization, abolition of capitalistic systems (be it democratic or authoritarian), switch to a closed-loop economy, massive renaturation/reforestation where possible, complete change in diet away from any sort of meat, etc.

Yet, what many people believe is some sort of "Green Growth and Technology will solve it all, so we don't have to change anything," resulting in the climate crisis passing like so many other crisis did

And since so many people hope that this dream will miraculously come true, the tragedy will take its course.

I just feel sad for the children being born into this world these days. They haven't deserved any of this.

Every time I drive into any parking lot, anywhere, it's overrun by giant vehicles. In my small car I can't see to back out of my space. What happened to compact cars?

We feel so fortunate to have such good lives, but the auto industry began burning it all down 100 yrs ago.

the corporations and billionaire oligarchs who enabled all of this must be reined in. If governments refuse to act or even remain in cahoots with them, the people are going to start rebelling.

I really hope things don’t get to that point but at this stage that scenario seems inevitable.

This. Above all, this.

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi I don't know if anyone is "convinced" that Capitalism is a failed experiment - what I'm leaning toward is that Capitalism is shitty, for so many other reasons, that it can't possibly be useful, now that we've doomed ourselves, in ways that we could have managed, before the almighty dollar became the thing that was worshiped, above our species.

In trying to save Capitalism, you sound dramatic and deluded, not us.

@MarkRNay

Will try to be concise here, but I'll fail, I know. But let's sort out the issue with capitalism first.

Many people don't realize it since they never experienced anything other than capitalism, but capitalistic systems NEED growth. That's very simple to explain, too.

If a bank borrows you money, so that you can build your company, they want the money back + an extra, right? So your company needs to earn that money. That's the driving force. And you can't remove that part from the system either.

Now then, this leads to another essential part of capitalistic growth: energy and technological advancement. Economical growth is being fueled by these two alone. Energy to manufacture and technology to constantly come up with new stuff to beat out your competitors and sell your stuff to make a win (grow), which also needs energy.

So the great idea people came up with is to make the energy part renewable. Because if we got millions of solar panels, windmills, and a huge infrastructure of megatons of batteries to store the energy for times when there's no sun or wind, then we can do green growth, right? All great?
NO, first off all these windmills, solar panels, batteries need resources. These resources can't be extracted nature-friendly. And since the energy needs have been constantly growing for decades now and would continue to do so in our capitalistic system, we'd need to build more and more of these (and no fusion won't be available reliably on a cheap scale for the next 100 years), not to even mention that creating natural gas has a ridiculously bad efficiency. And you need gas for many industrial processes. So renewable energy will be scarcer than the future energy consumption estimates in all Western countries.

Nuclear energy? No, no, forget that. The material is limited and currently nuclear power plays no real role in the grand scheme of energy production. Globally it covers ~10%. You wouldn't be able to build as many reactors as needed in a short time. And asking people to store the waste of ~5 times as many reactors will be fun, I'm sure. The loudest shouters pro-nuclear power over here usually are the quietest when it comes to taking the waste.

Anyway, scarce energy means less industry, less industry means decline, and decline means de-growth. And this is where the part I told you above kicks in. Capitalism doesn't run without growth for an extended period of time. And if de-growth continues for too long, then the whole thing comes down crashing.

You mentioned regulation, right? Sorry, but that doesn't work. We've seen it for the last 80 years. Capitalistic systems will always lead to money congregating into the hands of a selected few. That's the curse of competition and the need of eternal growth for you. Companies will always vie to grow more than their competitors, which will lead to the winner crushing the losers.

Of course governments can regulate it, but how far do you want to regulate it? And can you guarantee that it'll be regulated on a global scale for hundreds of years until the overheated Earth gets back into a more normal state? And if you're going to put such a heavy control on everything via the state anyway, how is that still capitalism?

In summary: capitalism has brought us into this situation, and you usually don't fix a problem with the problem's cause. You simply cannot grow without limit on a finite planet. And it'll still take some time until we can get rid of Musk and Bezos on Mars.

Now as for solutions, there exists a very simple one. Just, no one likes to mention it, because of the capitalist-sponsored indoctrination by media and economy -> Less is more. Share and care. A closed loop economy with everyone being equalized in what they get. That's all it takes. A system that would be actually socially fair too. You extract as much from nature as it can regenerate while putting more emphasis on longevity, quality, and durability of products instead of profit as it nowadays.

Is it idealistic? Maybe. Do we have a choice? I don't think so. 😉

@putnamca @breadandcircuses

@TobiWanKenobi @MarkRNay @putnamca
Small correction: energy and technological efficiency aren’t the only drivers of economic growth. In places like Australia, politicians (and economists working for Treasury departments) are desperate to keep population growth going because increasing population is a major driver of economic growth here.

I don't get why they continue to pollute thr planet, for what, short term profit?

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi You are so incredibly wrong, lol.

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi humans have been around 200,000 to 2 million years, it's naive to think those humans weren't as sophisticated, curious, and perceptive as we modern folk are. Thousands of cultures have experimented with different ways of organizing their societies, and lifeways other than capitalism have been tried and found to be successful. Capitalism has been around for about 500 years more or less. Wanna guess how long some Indigenous folks in North America were organizing their economies, before colonization came?

Don't make the mistake of "might makes right", that just because one culture can violently supplant another culture, that this is "human nature" and "survival of the fittest". Species and cultures disappear, and we are in the middle of one heck of a big disappearance that we won't survive without drastic change.

And keep in mind, right now capitalism is only "working" for the rich. Billions of humans and trillions of animals, plants, life, etc, are not finding "success" under capitalism.

if you use the xkcd method (https://xkcd.com/2701) to find an inflection point, you even notice it's accelerating!

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi A recent book I read that deals with some of these ideas is The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow that assembles discoveries made in archaeology, sociology, history to argue that early human societies were far more sophisticated than we give them credit for, they were self-aware of their social organization, and the book suggests we ask the wrong question when we say "why did capitalism/the west succeed" and instead we should be asking "why did we get *stuck* on this failing system, when our shared history is one of repeated experimentation and diversity.

@TobiWanKenobi I see minimal pockets of effort here and there, none of which will make the slightest bit of difference to the runaway climatic crisis we're already in...all it does is make those pockets of people feel good about themselves and their tiny little corner of the world. If they aren't teaching their children/grandchildren how to do serious out there basic essential actual survival stuff, then they're ALL doomed.

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi The claim that capitalism is just “human nature” is so funny. Human nature is as complex as it is malleable, and its expression under capitalism is not more authentic or complete than anything else. Besides, markets and competition can exist without capital. We actively make the world around us, and we can make it differently if we choose to.

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi Yes, individual people are selfish. But capitalism isn't "human nature", it's the specific failure mode of allowing ownership of resources to be leveraged into power over others and the extraction of their labour to obtain more resources in a destructive feedback loop. It can only exist because we construct society to encourage it.

We could do otherwise, even just limiting the leverage of wealth and damping the feedback with taxation.

Could it be because we have already crossed 6 of the 9 boundaries that make the earth habitable?

@petealexharris

I answered it in another part of this thread, but capitalism has its in-built deficiencies you can't simply remove through a few tweaks here and there, unless you change the entire system. Social inequality like the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few is a big, known issue that has been increasingly happening for decades now.

Of course I'm all in for taxation and limiting the leverage of wealth, but if so many people (I assume we aren't the only ones) know about this issue, and if it affects so many people (1-10% holding majority of wealth in each country with the rest scraping by in various degrees), why hasn't it been changed by now? The answers to that will also tell you why this sort of soft state regulation will sadly be no solution.

@MarkRNay @breadandcircuses

@MarkRNay

Capitalism as a principle exists for ~200 years while humans (homo sapiens) as a species exist for ~300k years. So why would you say something as insignificant on the time scale as capitalism is grounded in human nature? If you want to claim that political/economic systems can be part "of human nature," which I would counterargue, shouldn't we all live under dictatorships since for the last several dozens of thousands years that has been the prevalent system?

@yma @breadandcircuses

@MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi
You might be calling something else capitalism, but I'm not here to bicker over terminology.

If anyone has to work in abusive conditions to make a living because someone else owns all the places they can work, the space they can live in, or the opportunities open to their children, that's not a benign system that needs regulation to work well, it's a disease that at minimum needs regulation to treat or prevent.

@TobiWanKenobi

Maybe you all should define the words you use a bit more to avoid irritation?

I could understand @MarkRNay as such that "capitalism" involves the "human nature" of working for their own perceived benefit (whatever that maybe) - and trough exchange practically for the benefit of others. Where you part ways is maybe, that one of you thinks we need to destroy the world to have that principle, while the other one thinks regulation can fix what's wrong.

@yma @breadandcircuses

@MarkRNay @axre @TobiWanKenobi @yma
#capitalism is not inevitable, it was forced upon us.

Please explore this thread I compiled to help folks see this and to understand the lies we've been told:

https://kolektiva.social/@RD4Anarchy/110357255122736031

@TobiWanKenobi Even @MarkRNay - I would say - acknowledge that behavior might be mostly for the own benefit (whatever that might be), he doesn't vouch for egoism or the status quo. But indeed believes in reform, maybe a a quite big one but in line with what he understands as "capitalism principle(s)".

@yma @breadandcircuses

@axre

Let me set one thing straight first: I do not wish to belittle or irritate any of you with anything I say. Personally I believe we on the progressive, social-oriented side of things, who are willing to think outside of the box, are already few to begin with, so we should stick together where possible.

Now as for the core matter as to why I could have sounded so insistent is grounded in me strongly refusing the notion that capitalism, or any system for that matter, is a "God-given" nature of how things work. A compelling force or even instinct, we have no choice but accept. Neither do I believe that ""human nature" of working for their own perceived benefit" inevitably leads to capitalism.

Of course you can make such a point on a purely academical discussion, but the problem lies with the majority of people actually having had ingrained the idea of capitalism as absolutistic religion into their heads over decades.

Capitalism is a creation by humans, and as any human creation it's temporary and imperfect. I'm not an idiot to state that capitalism only brought about evil. It did have its benefits alongside its flaws. And of course I would always vote for regulating it and clamping down on it to make it work better, if it was a viable option.

But, based on my personal views, understanding of things and knowledge, I have simply concluded that this system has served its purpose because its premises have mostly turned detrimental for the future existence of mankind.

Maybe I'm wrong, and everything will experience a sudden turnaround, leading to a great revival of capitalism with newfound rules etc. I just don't see anything speaking for such a development at the moment. Heh.

@MarkRNay @yma @breadandcircuses

@MarkRNay @axre @TobiWanKenobi @yma I wonder what the word "capitalism" means to you that you think this statement is so clearly true that it doesn't need a supporting argument. Here's what I mean:

Capitalism is an economic system in which people need cash to meet vital needs, the only ultimately reliable source of cash is to work for others, and it is illegal to fail to participate.

Probably you mean something different. What?

@AdrianRiskin @MarkRNay @axre @TobiWanKenobi @yma
Yes - what is understood by 'capitalism' here is difficult to understand, isn't it?

The argument seems to be based on 2 propositions:
1. That an economic system that developed in Europe over a few hundred years, and was violently imposed on most of the rest of the world over even fewer years, arises inevitably out of 'human nature' - whereas other much more stable and long-lived systems (thousands of years) were mere aberrations... and
2. That this is because 'capitalism' is based on an idea about 'human nature' (that people are bad), whereas at least one other system is based on the idea that people are good.

The first proposition is obviously going to be indefensible. The second is more interesting, and on this I recommend Rutger Bregman's book 'Humankind' - which convincingly argues - and thoroughly evidences - that people are basically good, but are convinced by those that would control and exploit them that they are bad - so need to be controlled.

But I think you can easily make people see the idea that people are bad is false by asking a simple question: 'so are your family and friends bad? your child? your Mum?'
Generally they answer 'no'. Everybody answers no.

I think it’s human nature to think people are being mean to us when they tell us truths we don’t want to hear.

@scottmatter

Sorry for getting back only now. The thread is full of so much wonderful input, and the day only has so little time hehe.

Anyway, you touched on a very important point here.

You're right. One of the funny side effects of the capitalistic system is the population decline among the winners of it. That may sound contradictory at first, but it's very logical. As living standard rises, education becomes more available, and health engineering improves, people live longer but at the same time they don't need children to secure their old age anymore.
As such you've been seeing a decline in population across all Western countries, and even rising capitalist states like China are already in decline (although in this particular case it's also self-inflicted). On the other hand, the "poorer" countries, who are only now starting to reap the benefits of the modern era like India for example, are still in their birth-heavy period. But they'll eventually proceed through the same stages as the industrial nations. Inevitably so.

Therefore, I doubt that the population will keep growing to 16 billions or some such as some people claim. I think we'll hit the cap where birth-heavy countries offset declining populations in due time. And with climate change that will come around much faster than initially projected.

Now, as you've stated, this puts many of the advanced economies in a bind, like Australia. They need workers to keep their economy running. At least, they perceive they do.

In reality, this was already covered by my "technological advancement" point (not efficiency [very important]). Japan is already taking a lead in the capitalistic solution to the dwindling worker issue. Basically, it's replace everything you can with machines.

Labor used to be a crucial player and limiter on capitalist neoliberalism in the last century. And unions etc. used to have a lot clout in the time between 1950-2000 in many countries. But with the accelerated automation, unions kept losing ground and clout. This trend will continue. Even if capitalism comes apart. Technological advancement was never purely private-driven, but mostly state-driven, see the Internet as prominent example.

So, in short, labor shortage might cause some friction within the system because it's in a transition phase right now, but ultimately all automatable jobs will disappear, only leaving behind service job and some highly specialized tasks for people to work on. This will eventually lead to massive unemployment.

@MarkRNay @putnamca @breadandcircuses

Excellent summary

@MarkRNay @AdrianRiskin @axre @TobiWanKenobi @yma
Perhaps, as @AdrianRiskin suggested, you are not talking about 'capitalism', but broader phenomena like markets or trading (exchange)?

Markets and trading of various kinds have indeed, as far as I know, existed in many different economic systems - they in fact existed in the former Soviet Union - and in the ancient world, in tribal societies, etc. They are not limited to nor a defining feature of capitalism. Markets always however take place within cultural and legal frameworks - and these differ in different socio-economic systems. Markets are not possible without these frameworks (there is no such thing as a 'free market' - indeed most law in modern capitalist economies is simply about regulating markets in one way or another - the largest single piece of legislation in the UK, for example, is not about what one real human being can do to another - it is the Companies Act).

Capitalism is much, much more specific than phenomena like markets - it is one possible type of framework within which markets etc can work. The only reason it appears to be very widespread in our time is that it's thirst for economic growth leads to slavery and colonialism - it was imposed on other societies around the world by force - hence the world as we know it, with the rich white bits and poor black bits (I simplify - but you know what I mean).

Note I said capitalism is one TYPE of economic framework - in reality there are many different capitalisms - in my country, France, 57% of the economy is in the public sector, and more than 10% more in other forms of social ownership - co-ops, etc - it is less than a third 'capitalist'. When one of my British friends first visited he memorably said 'it's communism really, isn't it?'! Norway (a contender for the most successful society in the world right now) has higher levels of public ownership than China.

What I think IS the defining feature of capitalism as a type of economic system, by the way, is that it legitimises (legally and ideologically) the 'enclosure' or privatisation of previously commonly used land and resources in order to reduce most people to selling their labour for a wage, and allow a small minority to accumulate and privately control social capital. One interesting aspect of this relation, if you trace its development through history, is that although its imposition became primarily contested around the obvious conflict of interest over wage levels, the early struggles were generally more focused on retaining common ownership - the English 'Levellers' in the 17th century were so called not because they believed in equality, but because they tore up fencing, walls and hedges that were being used to 'enclose' or privatise land that had traditionally been used by all - a struggle that reached such a ridiculous pitch in 19th and early 20th century England that landowners prevented farm labourers even having their own gardens or allotments (because if you can grow your own food you are no longer forced to work for a wage - or can bargain harder for a higher wage).

And of course this struggle continues - right here on Mastodon, for example, between those like Tim Berners-Lee that see the internet as a 'common treasury' (the Levellers' term) and those like Elon Musk that seek to privatise it.

@ViolaB Die Naturwissenschaftler sind in Panik. das sollte zu denken geben. Das sind nicht Menschen die emotional handeln, im Gegenteil. Panik bedeutet in dem Fall PANIK.
@RichStein

I suspect that the people who see capitalism as inevitable are suffering from the same delusion that previous societies did - that the system that existed for them, which they lived in and was reinforced by a combination of individual and collective interests, social sanctions, and some authority, was the natural order of things. It could be improved but it couldn't be replaced by anything better. The difference between modern capitalism, which has only existed for a few hundred years, and earlier societies is that as the dominant modern economic system, it is so pervasive and powerful that it has the potential to completely alter the earth across the whole globe, not just locally. The insistence on endless growth and use of resources at a rate faster than their replacement, while destroying the natural ecosystems all living creatures (including humans) rely on for our survival, aren't flaws in capitalism - they are inherent in it. Technology, modern food production systems and population growth go hand-in-hand to increase the pressure on the earth's carrying capacity. However, they have the potential to disrupt the true natural order of things in ways humans have never experienced before.

I see capitalism as a temporary system and we have two stark choices: (1) keep going the way we are until we hit the earth's natural limits, and then crash and burn, taking some of the non-human world with us, or (2) take steps now to avoid ecological, economic and social collapse and hope it's not too late. The problem is that modern economies based on capitalism have convinced people that we can have it all with minimal sacrifice, and most of us don't want to give away the lives we have. Politicians don't challenge this notion because they won't get elected if they do. Business is also motivated to keep going the way they are because that is their purpose in life. So, neither of them is any hope for our future.

@GeofCox @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre

If capitalism is an inevitable byproduct of humanity, why has capitalism only existed for, at most, the last few centuries and even then not in the entire world?

@HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre Maybe capitalism is just corporate tribalism, with CEO replacing Chief. Perhaps 200,000 year old system...

@AdrianRiskin @TobiWanKenobi @axre @GeofCox @yma @MarkRNay @jCarttarBrooke

This is a gross mischaracterization of the socio-economic behaviors of people who live in actual tribal societies.

@jCarttarBrooke @HeavenlyPossum @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre

But at a high enough level of abstraction everything looks the same as everything else - and we lose the ability to distinguish between feudalism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc...

Yet looking a little closer we find that each of these types of social organisation has it's own way of looking at the world and doing things - it's own specific institutions, legal systems, beliefs, cultures...

If we lose this detailed insight, we lose understanding of what has really happened, and the lessons we can and should learn from it.

@GeofCox @TobiWanKenobi @MarkRNay @axre @jCarttarBrooke @AdrianRiskin @yma

In reality, most (maybe all?) tribal societies I’m aware of are vastly more egalitarian than capitalist societies and employ an array of strategies to deter or prevent the sort of hierarchical dominance that marks ours.

“Chiefs,” very broadly, tend to hold authority that is both very tenuous and only at the (constantly renegotiated) consent of everyone involved.

@GeofCox @HeavenlyPossum @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre
Bullies and autocrats come at every scale of society, I suppose. Corporate capitalism creates a stucture particularly aminable to testing "leadership". Fairly Darwinian, actually with laws, regs and covention as guardrails.

@jCarttarBrooke @HeavenlyPossum @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre

One interesting aspect of the development of capitalism is that in order to overcome the medieval, feudal world-view of the 'divine right, blood-lines, etc, of royalty and aristocracy, the rising middle class championed 'democracy' - when it suited them. Inside their business organisations, of course, they retained the old hierarchical, authoritarian structures - so we have the odd anomaly of multinational corporations - some as big as states, and much more powerful - run on entirely medieval lines.

@GeofCox @jCarttarBrooke @HeavenlyPossum @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre
Now, now. It's not like modern countries are able to raise their own armies, declare wars, and impose laws... Wait Chiquita did what in South America?

@GeofCox @jCarttarBrooke @HeavenlyPossum @yma @MarkRNay @TobiWanKenobi @AdrianRiskin @axre

Clearly can see this developing through reading about the Enlightenment.
It has also been interesting to me how education has been done to keep the working class in line...

Notice how things were not too bad before Reagan, who was the first Republican president who owed his ascendency to Sunbelt oil and aerospace donors (as opposed to Wall Street) got in?

@MarkRNay @HeavenlyPossum @TobiWanKenobi @GeofCox @axre @yma @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin
This argument on the limitations of the more laissez-faire capitalism seems really useful. So many capitalism vs socialism arguments are fairly useless because they're so dependent on which compromised version a country or region implements.

@TobiWanKenobi @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

There is no such thing as “laissez-faire capitalism.” All capitalism is planned and (re)produced by constant, massive, pervasive state violence.

@HeavenlyPossum @TobiWanKenobi @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

Indeed - it makes no sense at all to think of capitalism as coming 'naturally' to people when its history is dominated by long struggles to impose it violently.

But anyone can think this through from their own behaviour. Have you set up a capitalist system in your own home - or does freely sharing things come more naturally? If a neighbour asks to borrow your lawnmower, do you respond with 'I'll rent it out to you at 10€ an hour'? Far from such a response coming naturally, it would make most people feel decidedly awkward.

@HeavenlyPossum @TobiWanKenobi @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma Whether one is for a free market or against it, it is a separate argument from whether or not one is for capitalism. So many disputes within the left would be resolved if people remembered this.

@HeavenlyPossum @TobiWanKenobi @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma I don't think it should even be possible to hire labor, since everyone would be working for themselves. Between all the competitive pressures and the inability to engage in wage labor, no one would make enough money for a progressive income tax to be necessary. And prices wouldn't be set, they would always be negotiated at point of sale. If you can bargain the price down lower, do so.

All production directly related to the livelihood of a state's population should be state-run. Those need to run reliably, not be super efficient. This includes food, water, medicine, energy, housing, social services, education, communication, transportation, and military.

Everything beyond that can operate on a free market. But the market has to have quite a few regulations. And I do agree with some of what you said like not being able to buy competitors or do any other malicious practices to hinder your competitors. Forbidding bigger conglomerates and so on.

Moreover, companies on the free market should always be owned by all their employees. In other words, it shouldn't be allowed for single people or family to "rule" over many employees. Instead, all employees should have the same rights within a company, like co-owners.

The state would have to impose strong regulations on quality of products etc. as the longevity of products should be the main focus.

Taxation should be based on the products and services itself, not the labor. And the taxonomy should give preference to nature-friendly cradle to cradle production methods by levying heavy taxes on wasteful, nature-destroying production cycles and material use.

Just to name a few things.

@FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

Indeed. 😅

It'd already be great if one or two aspects of our ideas were to be adopted sometime in the future.

But then again, mankind will have to find some form of coexistence with nature that isn't based on mindless, one-sided destruction. So it's either all the smart people of the world come up with something good, or back to the bronze age we go. The planet won't mind either way.

I know I'm generally a pessimistic guy, but I do want to have some hope that reason will eventually win out after we get through these turbulent times of restoration attempts right now. 🙂

@FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

@AdrianRiskin @FinalOverdrive @Dialectician @TobiWanKenobi @axre @MarkRNay @jCarttarBrooke @yma @GeofCox

We’ve been trained to think of the firm as some kind of natural expression of human social organization, but realistically the organization of people into “owners” and “employees” is really only possible through state violence.

@HeavenlyPossum @AdrianRiskin @FinalOverdrive @Dialectician @TobiWanKenobi @axre @MarkRNay @jCarttarBrooke @yma

The economic rationale for firms generally relies on transactional costs analysis - there was some interesting work a few years ago exploring the impact of near-zero-cost information sharing and co-operation (ie. the internet) on this, and predicting that this would reverse the transactional costs calculation - freelancers, co-operating as required, would out-compete firms. Probably somebody here has references for this work - or I can look it up if folks are interested.

In the event what seems to be happening (in developed economies) is a forked capitalism: an increasing number of very small businesses and a decreasing number of very, very large businesses. My figures are a bit out of date but I imagine the pandemic has actually reinforced this - but in the UK for example 95% of all businesses by the 2010s had less than 10 employees – and 74% (3.5 million businesses) had no employees at all - and in contrast, the number of businesses with more than 250 employees fell from 7,200 at the start of 2000 to 6,000 by 2013.

So @breadandcircuses ' vision of a sustainable market economy with small businesses but without mega-corporations might have history, and technology on its side. For what its worth, I also think combining the creativity and energy of free enterprise with a socially and environmentally responsible - broadly 'socialist' - framework might be ideal, and indeed achievable given time.

But as others have pointed out, time is what we may not have enough of...

@FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @TobiWanKenobi @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

In your version, who gets to own private property and why?

@RD4Anarchy

Okay, let me give you two very simple examples:

1.) 99% of scientist on the world say that if we proceed destroying Mother Earth like this, then this civilization will be no more in the not-so-far future. Now, the rational action would be to do everything to avoid this scenario, since we're all part of this civilization.

2.) In most Western, rich countries, poverty rates range between 20-40% (actual numbers are available online). Rich capitalistic countries like the US or Germany base a lot of their wealth on the work of people and the consumption of those very people. So, the rational argumentation within the system would be to pull those 20-40% out of poverty so that they can consume products and work for the sake of capitalist economies.

Both are very rational arguments based on systemic principles, logic and science, yet neither of both are being implemented. Correct?

Why?

If the rational reasoning doesn't apply, I assume something else must be at play here. Because rationalism in its purest form doesn't allow for so much leeway, unless, of course, you twist the conclusions or the premises to suit your convenience in some way, which then again would have to be grounded on some other factor playing into this.

Personally I identify this factor to be emotions. Humans, for the most part, are very emotional creatures. We are swayed by other people, we fear, we love, we hate, etc. And all these emotions play into our own reasoning to justify our actions, e.g. a smoker will tell you that the cigarette calms their nerves, although the rational argumentation would tell them to throw away the cigarette because it's harmful to their health.

This very emotional aspect of us humans has been used against us over the course of history, be it to rile people into action, be it to oppress people with fear, or be it to induce people to hate others for being different.

Propaganda, for example, is the art of manipulating people's emotions to guide them into a certain train of thoughts.

"I also think being embedded in this system forces people to behave in certain ways without having to involve emotion."

Going along with what a "system" tells you to do is a purely emotional decision. Of course it can be a mix of various, conflicting and intermingling emotions such as wanting to preserve your current status quo because it's comfortable, fearing the social backlash if you become a rebel, liking the benefits a system brings you, etc. We all have our own faults, which are nonsense if you look at them rationally, but make sense if you include emotions.
The knowledge of having to change the system always conflicts with the feeling of not wanting to leave your well-known environment. Embarking into new, unchartered land is scary. For everyone.

"And I wonder: when you say "people starting to act rationally", are we talking about "the 99%" or are we talking about actual capitalists (and their henchmen), or both?"

I'm talking about mankind as a whole.

"But then again, mankind will have to find some form of coexistence with nature that isn't based on mindless, one-sided destruction."

This isn't a negotiable wish. It's hard reality. Rationalism would tell you that setting your own home on fire makes no sense whatsoever, if you don't have any place to run to.

Personally I just identify that some people within mankind act based on their emotions, following lowly, ulterior motives, and use their unrightfully exploited powers, granted by the system they created, to manipulate many others into believing what they want them to believe.
Do they use rational reasoning? Sure, after they twist the premise or conclusion to their liking.
What's the vehicle they use to nudge people into believing their words? Emotions such as fear, greed, desire, lust or whatever else. You name it.

Emotional reactions are very powerful and dominate a lot of our behavioral patterns. That is also why it's necessary for the progressive forces to not only argue rationally, but to appeal to the emotions of people to grab their support.

@breadandcircuses @FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

@TobiWanKenobi @FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

I'll have to think about this but have to go do errands now. My immediate reaction though is that while emotional reactions certainly play some part, I don't think our predicament is about people not behaving "rationally", I think it's about the premises they've accepted and are acting "rationally" on. I also think being embedded in this system forces people to behave in certain ways without having to involve emotion.

And I wonder: when you say "people starting to act rationally", are we talking about "the 99%" or are we talking about actual capitalists (and their henchmen), or both?

@RD4Anarchy

I didn't say reasoning, as in scientific knowledge and understanding of the current situation, but reason as in people starting to act rationally, and not only driven by emotions, which are, as you said, mostly agitated by harmful elements in this global society aka capitalists. 🤝

@breadandcircuses @FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

@TobiWanKenobi
@breadandcircuses @FinalOverdrive @HeavenlyPossum @GeofCox @axre @MarkRNay @Dialectician @AdrianRiskin @jCarttarBrooke @yma

The predicament we're in is not a failure of reasoning, it's a violent occupation that must be overthrown.