Is Capitalism the Best Economic System?

jesiclone

i'm not a strong advocate of capitalism because i dislike the consequence of inequality, yet i believe it is the practical system for a nation that wants to progress and advance. Socialist nations would not have the profit motive to produce like capitalist and progress will move slower.

Hestiasmissives

So does that make you an Epicurean like Philocrates?

Tiarella

*wonders if they'll discuss the fruits of passion*

Timothy Schoonover

Quote:
Rewarding effort provides an appropriate incentive to work hard. It gives us more if we exert more. And the morality is right as well. We are rewarded for what we endure, for what we do, not for luck or circumstance. And so we have a third value, equity meaning remuneration for effort and hardship.

But how the hell do you measure something so subjective as effort? If you actually could make such a precise measurement then this would be ideal, no doubt. But can you?

Dissident Heart

Quote:
how the hell do you measure something so subjective as effort

If you embrace the other elements of Albert's Parecon, especially Workplace Councils where participatory self-management is key, and balanced job complexes direct the course of production, then the measuring of such effort is part and parcel of the democratic process. Co-workers sharing sacrifice and reward hold each other accountable for effort and the compensation thereof. There is no select population, managerial or otherwise, to determine who gets what and why...the process is debated publically, openly and with complete transparency. Workers will see who does what, and reward accordingly, and each will have a case to make for what their reward should be- but, fundamentally, there is no distinct, elite, dominating force directing the process...who, by the way are always the best compensated in market capitalism and state socialism.

Quote:
If you actually could make such a precise measurement then this would be ideal, no doubt

First, there is nothing that says market capitalism or state socialism is able to accurately measure this process with any precision either...and I think you have made a very good case througout this thread for why just remuneration does not happen in market capitalism. If remuneration for effort and sacrifice is ideal, is moral, is just, then we have no choice to pursue its implementation...at least if we are serious about constructing an economic system that will encourage and protect morality and justice. Of course it will be difficult, and messy, and full of mistakes...but if we can agree in principle that people should be rewarded for things they have control over, ie remuneration for effort and sacrifice, then we must construct policies and practices that reflect that principle.

The only way to prove the validity of the principle is to test it, try it out, and see if it can work.

Tiarella

Have you ever worked in a place where co-workers rate each other's efforts and determine remuneration?

I have.

Note, please, that I did very well under both management-only rating systems and employee-input rating systems. I have no grudges.

But oh, my, the employee-input system got nasty in some units.

And you know what? The same employees walked off with the same awards and rewards. Lots of production time was lost in debating who deserved what, a number of workers made long-lasting enemies, and there was no real difference in the monetary outcome. Even though I was on one of the decision-making panels that got along very well, I cannot recommend this method of determining remuneration.

Sure was interesting, though.

Dissident Heart

I have worked in multiple situations where peer evaluation was an essential component to workplace tasks and project completion. It is hard work, no doubt, and it wasnt done perfectly. And interpersonal quirks, idiosyncracies, and outright neuroses were never completely absent. It demanded we pay attention, share information, adjust and adapt, and hold each other accountable. It also encouraged multiple styles of leadership and teamwork...and, in the short and long run, worked towards greater diversity, solidarity, participation and self-management.

What it did not do was influence remuneration in any significant way, which was always left in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable body of people with which we had very little input and no control. Thus, it reinforced a class system where a tiny few maintain the most amount of power, with the greatest amount of remuneration; and, since this creates scarcity, instilled a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality as we all struggled for a few bones and scraps.

Remuneration does not operate alone within a Parecon...it is dependent upon a Balanced Workplace where the odious and empowering tasks are evenly shared...as well as a commitment to Participatory Planning where persons have a meaningful say towards decisions in relative proportion to the impact on their lives...as well as a practice of Self-Management where workers are trusted, trained and empowered to make their own decisions at least as far as it does not intrude on others.

As far as 'lots of production time was lost'...try to calculate the amount of labor time lost on nonsensical projects determined 'on high', from mandates and decisions completely detatched from actual production necessities, tied to immoral profit-driven schemes that further alienate the worker from a project they neither believe in, nor care to finish- but must, because their only option is to quit...imagine all the time lost to hierarchic structures of decision making demanding sacrifice, while reaping the profits, further eroding any hope for a democratic base.

And, if you consider the collossal amount of wasted production stored, stacked, piled, locked away each quarter, business cycle and financial year....sanity demands we slow down, take some time and ask ourselves..."What do we really need here, and how are we going to do it, and who gets to decide?"

Furthermore, the Workplace Council context will deepen interpersonal skills, sharpen critical thinking, improve communication, and better enhance political acumen to manage community and social needs...all of this beneficial for time and sanity.

Tiarella

ROFL - yes, we lost a lot of time with faddish workplace experiments that were called successes, regardless of their actual effect, because 'upper management's' prestige was on the line.

Looks like we agree on the matter of peer review and remuneration. My workplace's peer-review reward system determined raises and bonuses, but the basic salaries were set in stone. It was the fairest pay-scale I have ever seen, incidentally, determined entirely by job type, years of service, and evaluation level. No negotiating, so no difference in pay between any two people with the same job, years of service, and evaluations. Women and minorities typically have gotten short-shrift in negotiated-salary situations.

I no longer share your apparent faith in people's collective sense of justice and fairness. My own observations of groups lead me to believe that divisions of labor and reward determined by workers would quickly become as unjust as divisions of labor and reward determined by business owners. Social pressures lead people to reward their friends and punish their enemies, regardless of what is fair. Yes, there are some of us who resist such pressures, and if I were a betting woman I'd bet that most of the people here fall into that category. Unfortunately, we're greatly in the minority.

Laying aside my experiences and speculations, wasn't this worker-based planning and management exactly what was tried in the Soviet Union? I have to confess that I remember Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears much better than any texts I read long ago - so I shall enjoy reading any discussion you and the others have on this aspect.

Timothy Schoonover

As far as I know, the Soviet Union economy was administrated by a central planning agency for the benefit of the workers, allegedly, but not by the workers themselves. And of course, the iron rule of oligarchy dictates that whenever a minority, however benevolent its intent, is granted power it inexorably will use that power for its own advantage. This is the reason why many socialists feel the command-economy models, like Soviet Russia, are flawed. Democracy is essential in economics as well as government.

Timothy Schoonover

Quote:
You see...capitalism actually makes nut cases like me smile. Capitalism maximizes human productivity. [...] The United States is the most productive nation on this planet because we don't prop up inefficient industries or businesses. Why would we want to be inefficient?

This is one of the biggest objections to capitalism, but this article of ideological faith is far from self-evident.

Quote:
As Christopher Eaton Gunn notes, there is "a growing body of empirical literature that is generally supportive of claims for the economic efficiency of the labour-managed firm. Much of this literature focuses on productivity, frequently finding it to be positively correlated with increasing levels of participation. . . Studies that encompass a range of issues broader than the purely economic also tend to support claims for the efficiency of labour managed and worker-controlled firms. . . In addition, studies that compare the economic preference of groups of traditionally and worker-controlled forms point to the stronger performance of the latter." [Workers' Self-Management in the United States, pp. 42-3]

The reason for this is because, in capitalism, production is tethered to profit. But the relationship is not reciprocal. Production follows profit and is dependent upon it. Profit, aside from all the exploitive social relationships that it implies, serves its own end. It redirects production and development away from true social need when it is not profitable to pursue it. In this sense it is a source of inefficiency. Think of the senseless production of frivolous baubles and trinkets that saturate our market and our consumption habits. Think of the whole advertising industry, which is essentially the business of persuading people to buy what they don't need or want. Think of multi-million dollar fashion gowns and jewelry. Think of spoon collections and beanie babies. Think of the thousand varieties of dildos and sex toys. Think of the billions spent on warfare and millitary technology? Think of sinking $40k into your car for 24' Giovanni spinners! Think of the nauseating proliferation of meaningless status symbols and fleeting fads; at once, the very trappings of wealth and the standards by which success, personal value and even at times self-worth are evaluated. Capitalism grinds the individual's self-worth and identity into dust, and then sells it back as an eternally insufficient cheap imitation--and it is remarkably good at manufacturing such imitation and artificiallity. When I think about this kind of 'productivity', I am not smiling. Is it any wonder that psychologists have observed that the prevailing characteristics of our culture are traits such as isolation, accute feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness, and fearfulness? We live in an age of moral schizophrenia where the delicate thread uniting behavior and ideology has been severed, and such is the state of our denial, that we are unable to even formulate the need for reconciliation let muster the courage to confront this duplicity.

ZachSylvanus

Think about medication driven to low cost by competition, and safety devices proliferating because public demand wants a car that could keep a dozen eggs safe in an impact. Look at the results of the X Prize, which is revolutionizing the way humanity will reach space, or the various chemical firms improving sanitary techniques without necessitating antibiotics, and the development of alternative fuel sources to eke profit by edging out Oil.

We could also look at the Soviet system of managed labor, where in some cases putting actual effort in was just as fruitful as doing the bare minimum. Eventually this catches on, and you get products of dubious workmanship. Why work for money when not working gives you the same amount?

Tiarella

I thought Jeremy was saying that competition is part of human nature, but I gather you believe he was saying that 'in the natural order of things the nobility (blue bloods) own capital and the peasants provide labor.' ? Of course I may be misunderstanding what you think Jeremy meant.

Let's ask him! We've already got two very different interpretations of his post.

Hey, Jeremy, what did you mean when you said "The fundamentals of capitalism are not an economic system at all, but an integral part of human nature"? What fundamentals of capitalism are an integral part of human nature?

Jeremy1952

It is human nature to strive for what betters yourself, and your children, and your siblings, and your blood relatives in proportion to their relatedness to you. Maybe some people some of the time are willing to strive for the general good of mankind. Maybe. But not enough to build a system on.

What motivates most people, most of the time, is biological self interest. We've seen it writ large and small in our lives and in our history... what did the communists do? Why, they wrote special rules for themselves, built dachas for the party officials, etc. What did the church do? Confiscated the best food and luxurys for the bishops and popes. And what do individuals around you do? What do YOU do? It isn't a moral judgement - it's simply an obvious part of our lives. We strive harder when the fruits are to be our own. We mow our own lawn, and litter in the park.

I object to the "capitalism is evil" crowd not because I think a preponderance of Rich White Men in our society is good, or even inevitable. I object because denial is not a good way to fix a problem. Acknowledge that self-interest is in our nature; acknowledge that the law of supply and demand is in our nature, and THEN deal with the consequences. The alternative, the empty railing, leads to faild collectives, starving communists, extinct shakers.

If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

Timothy Schoonover

Tiarella

Jeremy is wrong about how we ought to proceed with economics no matter how you choose to interpret his statements. The fact that self-interest is 'built into' human nature has nothing to do with how we ought to evaluate capitalism regardless of how true that statement is as a universal assertion. To say that we are all born capitalists is no different than saying that we are all born totalitarians or that all behavior is motivated by self-interest. According to that logic, those who proclaim the evils of totalitarianism and champion democracy are are in 'denial' of human nature. What Jeremy fails to realize is that self-interest and economic equality are not at odds. The fundamental premise behind democracy is that self-interest is better represented through the whole than through the privileged few. The same is true of Socialism. Jeremy's insights on human nature have little to do with the validity of that fundamental premise. It is a tactic used to obsure the relavent questions and incapacitate the minds of those who ought most to ask them.

Jeremy1952

Where exactly did I say how we should proceed?

If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT