NationStates Jolt Archive

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?
Get a dictionary out and take a fucking look. Or here, have a wiki article on the matter : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It's pretty fucking long, so enjoy for a while instead of SPAMMING THE FORUMS UP WITH CRAP THREADS.

Cheers.

Get a dictionary out and take a fucking look. Or here, have a wiki article on the matter : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Are you seriously going to pretend that this is something a dictionary can settle--that there's no way to have serious discussion about it?

Are you seriously going to pretend that this is something a dictionary can settle--that there's no way to have serious discussion about it?
Hey, there's a wiki article there, too, with a "talk" section that will doubtless be full of the same kind of mix of selfish libertarians, clueless communists and angsty teenagers as will doubtless reply to this thread.

Seriously, it's a long enough article as to cover just about every aspect of capitalism, and it has pretty excellent definitions of various subgroups of capitalism, such as laissez-faire capitalism and quite a bit on mixed economies, which is inevitably what will be discussed, in the context of 'which is better for us, also the plebs?'.

Get a dictionary out and take a fucking look. Or here, have a wiki article on the matter : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It's pretty fucking long, so enjoy for a while instead of SPAMMING THE FORUMS UP WITH CRAP THREADS.

Cheers.

Thats pretty harsh, you should at least acknowledge that the question of whether capitalism truly exists in the world is a widely debated topic, I don't see why it wouldn't be suitable for NSG.

Read (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=93618&pageno=2), and thou shalt learn.

Thats pretty harsh, you should at least acknowledge that the question of whether capitalism truly exists in the world is a widely debated topic, I don't see why it wouldn't be suitable for NSG.
Sorry, it's just that the amount of copycat threads and oh-so-debated topics has become utterly tragic in the last couple of days.

We've had, what, 5 or 6 sex threads, a few "define this" threads, and a few more of those godforsaken "God / Science" is responsible for everything type affairs.

*sighs*

Hey, there's a wiki article there, too, with a "talk" section that will doubtless be full of the same kind of mix of selfish libertarians, clueless communists and angsty teenagers as will doubtless reply to this thread.

:rolleyes:

If you don't want to read the thread, don't click on it.

There is a wiki article on pretty much every topic debated in NSG, are you saying that everything debated on NSG is merely spam?
Not really, I'm just extremely bored with NSG at the moment and am really quite tired and cranky in general, and this is one of those "can you define?" threads which Wikipedia can kick in the head in about 0 seconds flat.

So aye, sorry for being rude, Tech-gnosis. Don't take it overly personally or anything, and at least your thread is Hitler-free.

Hey, there's a wiki article there, too, with a "talk" section that will doubtless be full of the same kind of mix of selfish libertarians, clueless communists and angsty teenagers as will doubtless reply to this thread.

Seriously, it's a long enough article as to cover just about every aspect of capitalism, and it has pretty excellent definitions of various subgroups of capitalism, such as laissez-faire capitalism and quite a bit on mixed economies, which is inevitably what will be discussed, in the context of 'which is better for us, also the plebs?'.

There is a wiki article on pretty much every topic debated in NSG, are you saying that everything debated on NSG is merely spam?

Sorry, it's just that the amount of copycat threads and oh-so-debated topics has become utterly tragic in the last couple of days.

We've had, what, 5 or 6 sex threads, a few "define this" threads, and a few more of those godforsaken "God / Science" is responsible for everything type affairs.

*sighs*

Well this is how NSG has always been for me, but yeah I'm getting a bit bored of it lately.

definiont? sounds like some sort of fine wine to me

the fine wine of capitalism is alcohol or to be more specific fine wine :)

Hey, there's a wiki article there, too, with a "talk" section that will doubtless be full of the same kind of mix of selfish libertarians, clueless communists and angsty teenagers as will doubtless reply to this thread.

I applaud your honesty

This about sums it up

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

Thank you Soheran and Hydesland for defending my post, and Yootopia, apology accepted, though I did feel like clocking you for about three seconds. :D

This is a copycat thread, mostly to as definiton of socialism thread of several months ago, I wanted to know what people thought capitalism means, whether it exists(Ayn Rand called it the Unknown Ideal), if its compatible with the welfare state, ect and I wanted to see the debates that would follow.

Private property does not define capitalism, bourgeois property defines capitalism.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?

Capitalism is the private claiming and defending of the scarce goods and resources necessary to survive. It is not compatible with the state, but it is compatible with what many of those who consider themselves to be anti-capitalist accept.

Capitalism is the private claiming and defending of the scarce goods and resources necessary to survive. It is not compatible with the state, but it is compatible with what many of those who consider themselves to be anti-capitalist accept.
Capitalism does not defend private property as you envision it, which I imagine is something close to personal possessions, something which neither Communists nor bourgeois even care about. I think it's important instead of blanket generalizations of 'private property' to think of the means of productive capacity, and who owns them, in reality that's what matters, that's what decides who controls the state. Everyone whining about 'commies wanna nationalize my pots and pans' are clearly delusional.

Socialist (proletarian) property relations replacing bourgeois property is as natural and as inevitable as feudal property replacing ancient property, and bourgeois property that itself replaced feudal relations of production. This is inevitable because in order to industrialize and develop the bourgeois has created the workers, and thus has given them the power (political and economic) that will be their undoing.

Those who criticize Communism on a 'private property' basis are simply defending the rights of a tiny few who control the means of production in society. So in most cases the criticism is they are protecting not everyone else property, but their own, selfishness lies at the heart of criticism of the workers.

Criticism of the coming socialism by the bourgeois is as ludicrous as feudals criticizing the bourgeois themselves, it fails in the remotest to comprehend the march of modernity.

Again, I refer back to my original quote.

...bourgeois..bourgeois...bourgeois...bourgeois...bourgeois...

Andy,

During your days doing the manual labour of a proletariat, and undoubtedly organising for better working conditions, you must speak to a lot of manual workers.

Do you find that many of the working class share your views?

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?
You're conflating capitalism with the free market. But one does not require the other.

Capitalism does not defend private property as you envision it, which I imagine is something close to personal possessions, something which neither Communists nor bourgeois even care about. I think it's important instead of blanket generalizations of 'private property' to think of the means of productive capacity, and who owns them, in reality that's what matters, that's what decides who controls the state. Everyone whining about 'commies wanna nationalize my pots and pans' are clearly delusional.

Socialist (proletarian) property relations replacing bourgeois property is as natural and as inevitable as feudal property replacing ancient property, and bourgeois property that itself replaced feudal relations of production. This is inevitable because in order to industrialize and develop the bourgeois has created the workers, and thus has given them the power (political and economic) that will be their undoing.

Those who criticize Communism on a 'private property' basis are simply defending the rights of a tiny few who control the means of production in society. So in most cases the criticism is they are protecting not everyone else property, but their own, selfishness lies at the heart of criticism of the workers.

Criticism of the coming socialism by the bourgeois is as ludicrous as feudals criticizing the bourgeois themselves, it fails in the remotest to comprehend the march of modernity.

Again, I refer back to my original quote.

I envision all economic goods as property, from timber to toothpaste. I also recognize that there cannot be economic control over the factors of production without controlling both the product and the producer.

The Marxist dialectic that you are spouting has not only been shown to be wrong on both the rational economic side and the empirical side. Surplus value doesn't exist and the "bourgeoisie" is not exploiting itself out of commission.

Lastly, the critic of the communist is not the critic of the worker. It is generally the academic communist who consistently denigrates the worker.

Capitalism is the private claiming and defending of the scarce goods and resources necessary to survive. It is not compatible with the state, but it is compatible with what many of those who consider themselves to be anti-capitalist accept.

Is feudalism compatible with capitalism? Would it be compatible with what we now call crime syndicates, in competition with each other, in a stateless world? Both are private claiming and defending of scarce resources necessary to survive.

You're conflating capitalism with the free market. But one does not require the other.

So what is capitalism and how does it differ from the free market?

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?

It really depends upon your definition of Capitalism. I personally know of three:


Laissez-Faire Capitalism - No rules, except ownership is respected.


Capital-Based Capitalism - Economy is run by banks and the availability of Capital, all as spokes from the wheel of a Central Bank, like the Federal Reserve.


Corporate-Based Capitalism - A market with Corporations. I personally don't like this definition as it implies that systems such as Mercantilism, Protectivism/Peronism, and Fascist states are Capitalist when they really deserve a third category all their own.


I have my own definiton of Capitalism:

Official Plotadonian Definition of Capitalism - Free-market economic policy where the rights of ownership and trade are respected. Cannot include slavery, as a slaves rights of ownership and trade must be respected.


I would also divide all economies in to a spectrum of the following four aspects, with most nations having at least some of each:


Capitalist - I just described it. Not slanted - rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon achievement, for better or worse, fair or not.


Socalist - System based on public ownership and distribution on an egalitarian (as supposed to Meritocratic) level. Slanted towards protecting the meek, although terrible tendency to destroy the wealth they attempt to distribute.

Protectivist - Command economy (but not necessarily public ownership) with strict government measures dictating what can and can't be sold and what can and can't be done to produce. Slanted towards protecting the nation or individuals in government as supposed to protecting the meek (like in Socialism.) Also includes, and often disintegrates to, kleptocracy, or apartheid, which is a form of kleptocracy involving a much larger crowd of guilty gluttoned faces.

Charitable - Resources willingly given away through private donations and organizations to help the meek outside of government. Key distinction being that you are not slanting the field for egalitarian distribution, but rather making a key decision about how to use the wealth you have. Very few nations are primarily charitable, if any.


And as for the question as to whether perfect Captialism would ever exist, the answer is no. The reason I say this is because no large population would ever be that responsible for their own actions for any extended period of time. And no, the United States before 1930 was NOT purely Capitalist. It contained virtually no socialism, but Protectivism, both in the form of heavy overburdening tariffs and kleptocracy in favor of a racial majority, was rampant. On the plus side, the charitable base was quite strong, so the idea that there was no "safety net" is a myth. It just wasn't a government owned safety net. If you remember, it was handing out soup in 1932, and helping people work on poor farms well before that. It was more a lack of fiscal regulation that caused the depression, coupled with this trade Protectivism I describe and the economic collapse of other nations that we had some trade with.

I define capitalism as the private ownership of capital, which would mean any institution of expropriation of the rights of those objects inherently uncapitalistic. At best, when they fall short of socialism, such a system can be considered interventionism when some of the rights to capital remain nominally in private hands (though de facto owned by the lawmakers who can change the terms at any time.)

Edit: I also consider only scarce, i.e. tangible, objects to be property. So a spectrum on which radio waves can interfere with each other can be property, but an idea is not, and any attempt to regulate what people may do concerning with ideas with their own property is uncapitalistic (such as patents.)

It's very simple.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one, and buy a bull.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. He never learned how to manage his cows, so it dies.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? There are plenty of cows.

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. Unless it's more politically expedient to export milk to the Revolutionaries in other lands. Then you starve. But the village the government builds to fool the visiting Foreign journalists is pretty.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? There are plenty of cows.

I think it's actually "You have two cows. Your neighbor says he will take fewer cows than your other neighbor. But then he takes the same amount in order to feed his army that will stop the scary men from hurting you."

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one, and buy a bull.

Capitalism: Someone else owns the two cows you have raised, cared for, and milked for their entire lives. He sells the milk and keeps most of the money.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

Socialism: You and the other cow milkers gain control of the cows and the distribution of the product.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what? There are plenty of cows.

American Republican: You have no cows. You read chain emails about blacks and illegal immigrants having cows. You blame welfare, affirmative action, and bleeding-heart liberals, then vote for people who will ensure that you never get any cows.

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful.

American Democrat: You have no cows. You vote for Barack Obama. You still have no cows.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. Unless it's more politically expedient to export milk to the Revolutionaries in other lands. Then you starve. But the village the government builds to fool the visiting Foreign journalists is pretty.

A communist: Everyone owns the cows, and everyone receives milk based on need. You control your own labor, individually and collectively.

(An animal rights anarchist-communist: You free the cows from their slavery.)

At best, when they fall short of socialism, such a system can be considered interventionism when some of the rights to capital remain nominally in private hands (though de facto owned by the lawmakers who can change the terms at any time.)

Just because ownership is a legal relationship--one established and regulated by the state--doesn't mean it isn't real. The people who actually make most of the decisions and receive the profits are still the private owners.

Capitalism: Someone else owns the two cows you have raised, cared for, and milked for their entire lives. He sells the milk and keeps most of the money.
Someone's notions of the way economics works is seriously outdated. Like two generations, minimum. Possibly a whole century.

Marx is dead, and I'm a worker with capital. BOOYAH! :sniper:

Socialism: You and the other cow milkers gain control of the cows and the distribution of the product.


Being a cow milker, you know nothing about the distribution of milk. The milk goes sour and you starve.


A communist: Everyone owns the cows, and everyone receives milk based on need. You control your own labor, individually and collectively.


Hitchhiker's Guide Addendum: This never actually happens.

(An animal rights anarchist-communist: You free the cows from their slavery.) Unfortunately, you released cows with anthrax. They infect the surounding countryside's cows, precipitating an environmental catastrophe.

Hitchhiker's Guide Addendum: This actually HAS happened, but with a mink farm. All the released minks starved.

Capitalism is the private claiming and defending of the scarce goods and resources necessary to survive.

On what basis do you define it in that way?

Even theoretical capitalism doesn't work like that, and your conception of the property rights at stake is too narrow: nobody (well, virtually nobody) calls for the abolition of personal property.

So what is capitalism and how does it differ from the free market?

I'm not sure what Llewdor was thinking of, but I tend to define capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production (particularly when such ownership results in a class distinction between owner and worker) and the free market as leaving decisions regarding pricing, purchase, and production to individual owners.

You can have capitalism without free markets: a system with private ownership that is monopolistic or heavily price-controlled.

You can have free markets without capitalism: worker- or community-owned businesses that compete with one another and individually set prices.

Someone's notions of the way economics works is seriously outdated.

I was replying to propagandistic depictions with propagandistic depictions... only ones I liked better.

Marx is dead, and I'm a worker with capital. BOOYAH! :sniper:

Yay!

Of course, the vast, overwhelming proportion of capital ownership is still held by those at the top... but why should that stop us from cheering the abolition of class distinctions? ;)

Being a cow milker, you know nothing about the distribution of milk.

Doubtful. Actually, in all probability we know a lot more about it than the present absentee owners. But regardless, it doesn't matter: our control can be delegated in some respects if need be, just as ignorant shareholders routinely delegate theirs.

Hitchhiker's Guide Addendum: This never actually happens.

We're dealing with definitions.

It might be reasonable to say "Any attempt to achieve communism will end as such." It is quite a different thing to say that that end actually is communism.

Hitchhiker's Guide Addendum: This actually HAS happened, but with a mink farm. All the released minks starved.

I'm not particularly interested in an animal rights debate right now--my addition was tongue-in-cheek--but it's worth noting that after the Revolution, we won't have to do it with vigilantes. Makes things a lot easier.

Capitalist - I just described it. Not slanted - rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon achievement, for better or worse, fair or not.

It's an achievement to have come out of a wealthy vagina?

It's an achievement to have come out of a wealthy vagina?

Sigged for truth!

Capitalist - I just described it. Not slanted - rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon achievement, for better or worse, fair or not.



It's an achievement to have come out of a wealthy vagina?



Sigged for truth!


"Achievement."

An example of Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) of absolutely cosmic proportions.

Well, capitalism is a way of organising an economy so that private and sovereign individuals can own and decide about the scarce resources within that economy, particularly productive capacity.

So the question about whether or not a welfare state is capitalist is a question about what the government's redistribution efforts imply for the notion of ownership.

A free market is a result of a capitalist system, because self-interested individuals who own things will at some point start to exchange some of them for the property of others.

But in order to do that properly, there may at times be a need for setting up the framework through coordinating regulations. Again, this has implication for what exactly ownership means.

"Achievement."

An example of Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) of absolutely cosmic proportions.

Indeed. Begging the question is one of those fallacies that isn't used too often, but when it is, the implications are earth shaking.

Indeed. Begging the question is one of those fallacies that isn't used too often, but when it is, the implications are earth shaking.
Are we all done patting each other on the back? What I'd really like is for any of you to actually produce some figures that tell me that we should be ignoring achievement when talking about wealth.

Are we all done patting each other on the back? What I'd really like is for any of you to actually produce some figures that tell me that we should be ignoring achievement when talking about wealth.

I've never said we should ignore actual achievement when talking about wealth.

What I'd really like is for any of you to actually produce some figures that tell me that we should be ignoring achievement when talking about wealth.

TLO is right: the reference to "achievement" is purely circular.

How is it possible to define "achievement" in a way that makes "capitalism rewards achievement" both true and non-tautological?

Are we all done patting each other on the back? What I'd really like is for any of you to actually produce some figures that tell me that we should be ignoring achievement when talking about wealth.

That's not what we're saying. G'head and be cranky about it, but the fact remains that capitalism is only meritocratic if we consider getting good parents and good genes "achievements"

I've never said we should ignore actual achievement when talking about wealth.
The implication of what you said is clear: if someone is wealthy, that's because they "popped out of a rich vagina". I'm not sure how long you expect to keep getting away with it until someone asks you to back it up.

How is it possible to define "achievement" in a way that makes "capitalism rewards achievement" both true and non-tautological?
Achievement = overcoming obstacles. More meaningfully in the context: overcoming obstacles to an improvement of the living standard of oneself or others.

Capitalism rewards that, plus a thusly defined notion of achievement has positive value regardless of the environment. Now, you could argue that other systems also reward achievement, and that's fine. But what annoys me is if people deny that capitalism does it, because that's plainly what the idea of a market is based on.

That's not what we're saying. G'head and be cranky about it, but the fact remains that capitalism is only meritocratic if we consider getting good parents and good genes "achievements"
Then there is no such thing as merit. If me getting good grades and then getting a good job (went to a Merryl Lynch info session today - apparently they took 7 of 500-odd applicants in Australia last year) is due to who my parents are or what my genes look like, then any action is due to some biological or social prerequisite and you must diminish or eliminate any association of myself with those grades or that job. You can't pick up a rock if you don't have arms, so therefore it is unfair and undeserving of any positive consequence that you picked it up simply because you happened to have been born with arms. Perhaps now that you did something as unfair as committing an action not everyone is capable of, you must repent by serving those who were unable to do it. And if we all close our eyes and pretend really hard, we can even say that it was really the person with no arms who picked up the rock (he might as well have, if it wasn't for the basically irrelevant lack of arms) - and in the future we'll be able to run a society based on the idea that the impossible is possible simply because otherwise reality would be unfair.

Achievement = overcoming obstacles. More meaningfully in the context: overcoming obstacles to an improvement of the living standard of oneself or others.

Any economic system definitionally rewards that.

But what annoys me is if people deny that capitalism does it, because that's plainly what the idea of a market is based on.

The problem is that people want to conflate value on the capitalist market with notions of "merit": thus they can talk about how capitalism is a meritocracy and socialism puts equality ahead of desert.

But the meanings of "achievement" and "merit" here are either relative to the economic system and thus tautological, or "objective" and clearly not fundamental to capitalism's reward system (like some idea of "hard work" or "personal accomplishment.")

The problem is that people want to conflate value on the capitalist market with notions of "merit": thus they can talk about how capitalism is a meritocracy and socialism puts equality ahead of desert.
Value is by definition a good thing, and the merit is brought about by the causal relationship between one's actions and the creation of this value. The question is why you want to make a difference between value in a capitalist market and value in another situation.

But the meanings of "achievement" and "merit" here are either relative to the economic system and thus tautological, or "objective" and clearly not fundamental to capitalism's reward system (like some idea of "hard work" or "personal accomplishment.")
What is rewarded in capitalism? The creation of economic value.

So what is economic value? It's a notion we use to allow us to compare different sources and magnitudes of happiness. So economic value as a notion is objective at least in the sense that it doesn't depend on what economic system we're in. Economic value also exists in libertarian socialism or fascism.

So the best you can do is argue that people judge economic value incorrectly in capitalism. But realistically any attempt to change this is an imposition of your judgement, which differs but is hardly guaranteed to be correct. Nor would some sort of socialism necessarily be the result - it would simply be capitalism but with people's preferences manipulated. In other words, different people or actions would end up getting rewarded, but the resulting material inequality or the criticism about rich vaginas wouldn't change.

Alternatively, you can argue that rewarding the creation of economic value is wrong, but that just seems silly. If economic value is a measurement of the happiness something gives us, then creating economic value is overcoming obstacles to the improvement of our living standards, which we said we can call "achievement". So in that case you are refusing to reward achievement, which would make him perfectly correct in what he was originally trying to say.

The implication of what you said is clear: if someone is wealthy, that's because they "popped out of a rich vagina". I'm not sure how long you expect to keep getting away with it until someone asks you to back it up.


Achievement = overcoming obstacles. More meaningfully in the context: overcoming obstacles to an improvement of the living standard of oneself or others.

Capitalism rewards that, plus a thusly defined notion of achievement has positive value regardless of the environment. Now, you could argue that other systems also reward achievement, and that's fine. But what annoys me is if people deny that capitalism does it, because that's plainly what the idea of a market is based on.


That wasn't the implication whatsoever. And it obviously wasn't the implication.

"Rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon achievement" means that wealth = reward for achievement. I simply pointed out that often wealth doesn't accumulate because of achievement but because of other factors.

Capitalism, to a degree, does reward certain kinds of achievement in certain kinds of situation but I don't see how you could make the case that capitalism is a true meritocracy.

Value is by definition a good thing, and the merit is brought about by the causal relationship between one's actions and the creation of this value.

That's not the definition of "merit."

Merit is intrinsic to a person. Value is extrinsic. Merit cares nothing for external circumstances beyond one's control. For the creation of economic value, they are everything.

The question is why you want to make a difference between value in a capitalist market and value in another situation.

I don't even need to go there. The question is not whether capitalist value is objective--the question is whether capitalist value is synonymous with personal achievement or merit.

What is rewarded in capitalism? The creation of economic value.

Right (sort of). Not merit or personal achievement.

So what is economic value? It's a notion we use to allow us to compare different sources and magnitudes of happiness.

No, it isn't. It's a notion we use to describe people's behavior. Otherwise it's ultimately unsustainable as a concept.

But realistically any attempt to change this is an imposition of your judgement

Not at all. That's only true if there's some board somewhere that says "that purchasing decision was irrational" and invalidates it. We can, with more ease and more justice, instead regulate the sources of our irrational decision-making.

then creating economic value is overcoming obstacles to the improvement of our living standards, which we said we can call "achievement".

Which you said we can call "achievement."

Technically speaking, in market terms a cactus that receives a million dollars from a rich person has created a million dollars worth of value, but I don't think I would call that "achievement."

Alternatively, a person who manages to run a mile at impressive speeds, even if no one hears of it and he doesn't get a cent, has achieved something significant.

The capitalist market rewards all kinds of things that have nothing to do with "achievement" and ignores all kinds of things that are intimately connected with it.

Just because ownership is a legal relationship--one established and regulated by the state--doesn't mean it isn't real. The people who actually make most of the decisions and receive the profits are still the private owners.

I wasn't aware that I denied the reality of legal relationships. The simple fact is that, while nominally the capitalist 'owns' the capital, in reality he only has a leasehold of those rights that the state has decided not to take away. The state, as the monopolist on jurisdiction, is the de facto owner, not the capitalist. Which decisions and what profits the capitalist makes are at the sole discretion of the state. This could be extended to one's rights in one's body- the ultimate means of production- as it is the state's decision whether or not to expropriate one's bodily rights through conscription, imprisonment, execution, etc. The state is our de facto owner, and we merely hold some leaseholds over ourselves.

Is feudalism compatible with capitalism? Would it be compatible with what we now call crime syndicates, in competition with each other, in a stateless world? Both are private claiming and defending of scarce resources necessary to survive.

Feudalism is a difficult political system to tie down, and you will have to be a little more specific with what you mean before I can say yes or no.

And our current understanding of "crime" probably would be different under within a capitalist economy, but we can generally say that crime is hostile to the defense of property and would likely not be tolerated.

On what basis do you define it in that way?

Even theoretical capitalism doesn't work like that, and your conception of the property rights at stake is too narrow: nobody (well, virtually nobody) calls for the abolition of personal property.


All economic systems are the resolution of conflicting claims to economic goods with capitalism settling these through a system of individual rights and private property.

And I consider all rights to be some form of property rights, so I cannot imagine how I am too narrow in my thinking: every single liberty I have can be rightfully conceived of as a property right, and one cannot try to distinguish between these rights and categorize what can be controlled and what shouldn't be. If you control any of them, you limit all of them, and this worthless category "factors of production" is no different.

TLO is right: the reference to "achievement" is purely circular.

How is it possible to define "achievement" in a way that makes "capitalism rewards achievement" both true and non-tautological?

Creating economic value.

"Rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon achievement" means that wealth = reward for achievement. I simply pointed out that often wealth doesn't accumulate because of achievement but because of other factors.
Actually, the wealth even if I happened to be born into a rich family is due to achievement. It would just have been my parents' achievement rather than mine, which they may have worked towards with me in mind.

In a macro sense, all wealth in a capitalist society is due to economic value having been created, so all wealth is due to achievement. I don't know what other factors you could have in mind.

That's not the definition of "merit."

Merit is intrinsic to a person. Value is extrinsic. Merit cares nothing for external circumstances beyond one's control. For the creation of economic value, they are everything.
Once again, we need to pin this down. I like the definition of merit as "demonstrated ability". But that also refers to something external, namely whether or not you actually succeed at demonstrating your ability. If you fail and there is nothing that someone could observe to have changed, then you may have tried really hard, but you wouldn't merit any sort of reward. As they say, you don't get points for trying.

So if you did demonstrate your ability, the question is whether there is some sort of standard of judgement that is independent of any single person's and that is objective. I say that there isn't, and therefore it must be judged by the people who actually observe it, according to whatever criteria they see fit (though personally I judge some criteria better than others). They are still rewarding merit, because if they don't reward it, we have no valid reason to say that either there was a demonstration, or that what was demonstrated was in fact ability.

I don't even need to go there. The question is not whether capitalist value is objective--the question is whether capitalist value is synonymous with personal achievement or merit.
They don't have to be synonymous, one just has to follow the other in a causal relationship.

No, it isn't. It's a notion we use to describe people's behavior. Otherwise it's ultimately unsustainable as a concept.
You're gonna have to elaborate on that.

Not at all. That's only true if there's some board somewhere that says "that purchasing decision was irrational" and invalidates it. We can, with more ease and more justice, instead regulate the sources of our irrational decision-making.
That doesn't change anything. You'd still be judging decisions and forcing people to act differently in order to comply with something you personally happen to find more appropriate, regardless at which stage of the decision process you intervene.

Which you said we can call "achievement."
And you didn't have a problem with. Otherwise you're gonna have to provide an alternative definition.

Technically speaking, in market terms a cactus that receives a million dollars from a rich person has created a million dollars worth of value, but I don't think I would call that "achievement."
That's because a cactus can't do stuff, so it seems a little silly about a cactus achieving something meaningful. The cactus wouldn't receive money either, of course.

But if I grew the cactus, and the rich person finds it so pretty or so useful that apparently it's worth a million dollars, then of course I have created a million dollars worth of value, unless once again you'd be happy to march in there and declare him unfit to judge what things are worth.

Alternatively, a person who manages to run a mile at impressive speeds, even if no one hears of it and he doesn't get a cent, has achieved something significant.
Not really. He hasn't helped anyone or made anyone happier. The only reward he could get is internal, by being happy to have done it or by not being eaten by a lion. But that's not a moral thing, it's more biological or psychological - and it certainly doesn't involve anyone else or their property.

The capitalist market rewards all kinds of things that have nothing to do with "achievement" and ignores all kinds of things that are intimately connected with it.
That's only because you're starting to move the goal posts.

Actually, the wealth even if I happened to be born into a rich family is due to achievement. It would just have been my parents' achievement rather than mine, which they may have worked towards with me in mind.


So you've decided not to interpret it as "Rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon [that person's] achievement"? Okay, seems intellectually dishonest but I'll go with it... if this accumulation is directionless then how is it any more meritocratic than Socialism? Either way someone ends up with wealth they didn't earn.

This is an example that shows that capitalism is based on entitlement and not desert.

It's an achievement to have come out of a wealthy vagina?
Success is not guaranteed based on that. Wealth does not cause success.

Plus, actual wealth transfer through inheritance is an acheivement. It amounts to convincing a rich person to give you money.

Plus, actual wealth transfer through inheritance is an acheivement. It amounts to convincing a rich person to give you money.

Oh please.

So you've decided not to interpret it as "Rewards and failures accumulate naturally based upon [that person's] achievement"?
No, I think if you look at what I'm discussing with Soheran you can see that it's not the case. But as a side point, even if I inherit something that something doesn't just appear out of nowhere, and from an aggregate point of view it may actually be seen as a good thing if stuff is inherited, because it means that someone created something worth inheriting.

Not just that, but being someone's child doesn't exactly guarantee inheritance. In that you give your parents happiness, one could actually say that you are doing something to earn the money you may receive when they die. Not a monetary or physical service, but nonetheless something that could be considered worthwhile (and definitely is by the parents).

Okay, seems intellectually dishonest but I'll go with it... if this accumulation is directionless then how is it any more meritocratic than Socialism? Either way someone ends up with wealth they didn't earn.
Socialist theory skirts around the issue of wealth creation. I am not aware of a single great socialist who would have spent anywhere near the same time on examining where wealth in a socialist world comes from as opposed to what to do with the wealth that already exists. Hence why socialists mention incentives at best as a little line on the side, propose things like "doing a 70 hour week as a lawyer, doctor or investment banker is its own reward" or just plain deny the need for additional wealth creation (like when they say we already are in a post-scarcity world or get all buddy-like with primitivists).

This is an example that shows that capitalism is based on entitlement and not desert.
Every system is based on entitlement, because entitlements are real while desert is a more abstract moral issue. Desert should translate into entitlement, and the only reason you can say that in capitalism it doesn't is if you think that you know better than the individual agents in the system.

Not just that, but being someone's child doesn't exactly guarantee inheritance. In that you give your parents happiness, one could actually say that you are doing something to earn the money you may receive when they die. Not a monetary or physical service, but nonetheless something that could be considered worthwhile (and definitely is by the parents).

Plus, actual wealth transfer through inheritance is an acheivement. It amounts to convincing a rich person to give you money.

First things first, this is total nonsense and I've got to wonder how seriously people who could say something so silly actually want to talk. The reason you are receiving an large amount of money is because you happen to be the son or daughter of a person with a large amount of money, not because you were an exceptionally good son or daughter.

Success is not guaranteed based on that. Wealth does not cause success.

Does that really matter if we've decided to measure success based on wealth?

No, I think if you look at what I'm discussing with Soheran you can see that it's not the case.

But as a side point, even if I inherit something that something doesn't just appear out of nowhere, and from an aggregate point of view it may actually be seen as a good thing if stuff is inherited, because it means that someone created something worth inheriting.


And it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't going to be inherited?


Every system is based on entitlement, because entitlements are real while desert is a more abstract moral issue. Desert should translate into entitlement, and the only reason you can say that in capitalism it doesn't is if you think that you know better than the individual agents in the system.

Or if you feel that getting a head start in life and the nature of capital means that not all achievements are measured equally?

Does that really matter if we've decided to measure success based on wealth?
Let me rephrase. Parental wealth does not guarantee the wealth of the offspring.

Let me rephrase. Parental wealth does not guarantee the wealth of the offspring.

It doesn't guarantee it but it makes a huge difference and the effect would only get bigger in a capitalist system

Socialist theory skirts around the issue of wealth creation. I am not aware of a single great socialist who would have spent anywhere near the same time on examining where wealth in a socialist world comes from as opposed to what to do with the wealth that already exists. Hence why socialists mention incentives at best as a little line on the side, propose things like "doing a 70 hour week as a lawyer, doctor or investment banker is its own reward" or just plain deny the need for additional wealth creation (like when they say we already are in a post-scarcity world or get all buddy-like with primitivists).


I think you have a point here but I don't think that means that the problems with capitalism don't exist.

Feudalism is a difficult political system to tie down, and you will have to be a little more specific with what you mean before I can say yes or no.

Any system that resembles the one used in the middle ages, where the people provided labor and military service to a lord in return for the use of his land. A form of contractual servitude.

And our current understanding of "crime" probably would be different under within a capitalist economy, but we can generally say that crime is hostile to the defense of property and would likely not be tolerated.

I meant what if say the various Mafia, gangsters, and other groups that currently go under the heading of organized crime who under a stateless system keep doing more or less what they try to do now in competive environment. Property is still in private hands and defended through private means.

First things first, this is total nonsense and I've got to wonder how seriously people who could say something so silly actually want to talk. The reason you are receiving an large amount of money is because you happen to be the son or daughter of a person with a large amount of money, not because you were an exceptionally good son or daughter.
There are plenty of people though who don't get great inheritances even though their parents could afford it. People are disowned, or the parents just don't think that leaving a kid with lots or riches is a good thing to do (Warren Buffet comes to mind). So while you're definitely in a good position, it's not a given that you'll inherit your parents' wealth.

And it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't going to be inherited?
That's certainly possible. Modern macroeconomic theories of saving, earning and spending for example could simply end up coming to zero at the expected time you will die, so that you earn and save enough simply to last you until you die. In reality there is an uncertainty factor as to how long you'll live, but more importantly it's been recognised as an important motivator that old people like to leave stuff to their children or grandchildren, and if they want to do that they have to create more wealth than they otherwise would have.

All economic systems are the resolution of conflicting claims to economic goods with capitalism settling these through a system of individual rights and private property.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with private defense as a necessary, intrinsic feature.

And I consider all rights to be some form of property rights, so I cannot imagine how I am too narrow in my thinking:

"Property rights at stake", I said. Not property rights in general.

Creating economic value.

That's a poor definition of achievement. NL has been defending this point of view, so I'll respond to it there.

Actually, the wealth even if I happened to be born into a rich family is due to achievement. It would just have been my parents' achievement rather than mine, which they may have worked towards with me in mind.

Actually, you're right, in a way. Once we've dispensed with any notion that capitalism is about rewarding "merit" or "desert" or "hard work", the arguments for treating inheritance differently from any other monetary transfer lose a lot of their force.

Whether it's inheritance or the purchase of goods and services, monetary transfer is about economic value, not desert or "achievement" in any objective sense.

Once again, we need to pin this down. I like the definition of merit as "demonstrated ability". But that also refers to something external, namely whether or not you actually succeed at demonstrating your ability. If you fail and there is nothing that someone could observe to have changed, then you may have tried really hard, but you wouldn't merit any sort of reward.

Merit is meaningless if it has no connection to responsibility. People aren't merit-worthy for what they're not responsible for. It follows that somebody whose creation of external economic value has been greatly boosted by factors for which she is not responsible is not anymore merit-worthy, all else being equal, than one who was not benefited by those factors.

So if you did demonstrate your ability, the question is whether there is some sort of standard of judgement that is independent of any single person's and that is objective.

It doesn't matter if there is or not. People still don't make purchasing decisions based on the merit of the producer; they make purchasing decisions based on value. If they made purchasing decisions based on the merit of the producer, the distribution of wealth would probably change radically.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that.

If you try to approach economic value from mental state to action, you have what is a very difficult philosophical and psychological problem.

People don't actually do what they do based on some kind of abstract "utility" scale. Sometimes people act to attain utility. Sometimes people act for other reasons. Sometimes people act for no reason at all. And that's assuming that "utility" itself is something about which comparison is possible, which is a questionable assumption at best.

We can only come up with the abstract idea of "economic value" if we work backwards: if we look at people's behavior and define "value" as "whatever it is we have in relation to what we choose."

You'd still be judging decisions and forcing people to act differently

Whose decisions are we judging? What forcing is taking place?

And you didn't have a problem with.

Overcoming obstacles to create something valuable. The relevant sense of "value" is not economic. It's personal. It's something we ourselves value.

There's an objective element to "achievement" in the "obstacles" part, which is worthy of note. It's not much of an "achievement" for my fluent Spanish-speaking friend to carry on a detailed, sophisticated conversation in Spanish, even if he highly values it. For me, however, it might be a very significant one.

But if I grew the cactus, and the rich person finds it so pretty or so useful that apparently it's worth a million dollars, then of course I have created a million dollars worth of value, unless once again you'd be happy to march in there and declare him unfit to judge what things are worth.

I grow a cactus. No rich person gives me anything.

I grow a cactus. A rich person gives me a million dollars.

The second case is only more of an "achievement" if I'm out to make money. But maybe I'm just out to grow a cactus.

Not really. He hasn't helped anyone or made anyone happier.

Why are those our criteria for achievement? That certain doesn't seem to be the straightforward definition. And they still aren't necessarily rewarded by the capitalist market.

The only reward he could get is internal, by being happy to have done it or by not being eaten by a lion. But that's not a moral thing, it's more biological or psychological - and it certainly doesn't involve anyone else or their property.

So?

There are plenty of people though who don't get great inheritances even though their parents could afford it. People are disowned, or the parents just don't think that leaving a kid with lots or riches is a good thing to do (Warren Buffet comes to mind). So while you're definitely in a good position, it's not a given that you'll inherit your parents' wealth.

Do you honestly believe that is an distinction worth making in the context of the discussion?

It's an achievement to have come out of a wealthy vagina?

I wouldn't say that inheritance is a necessary part of Capitalism, although it does tend to be present for the simple basic reason that the people who support Capitalism also support it.

EDIT: If it did fall under Capitalism, it would only fall under Capitalism in the form of allowing people to have the right to spend their money in any way shape or form they wish, including for the sake of making someone else unproductive. Indeed, a Protectivist society would place a far greater emphasis on inherited wealth then a Capitalist society would.

I don't think you read my post well enough to see that I don't define "Capitalism" to equal "Money." If a post is long, that is usually because there is more to read.

Well, simply I consider capitalists to be socially-dangerous maladjusted criminals, and need to be reformed through labor.

So what is it? Has it ever existed in a historical setting? Is it compatible with any degree of state intervention, taxes, tariffs, subsidies, welfare, and whatnot? How much? If not, why? Is there one specific set of property rights that compatible with capitalism, ie can people, information, or the EM spectrum, be propery or have to be?

Capitalism is a materialist (as opposed to idealist) economical/social model. In modern capitalism (differing from ancient merchantilism), the key issue of the production isn't the production of goods as goal, but the mass production of goods as tool in order to accumulate extra-mehrwert (surplus profit), ensuring social dominance to the higher bourgoisie (aka "capitalists").

It is compatible with state intervention, to many degrees: see Keynes, see Sweden, see France, see Germany, see USA (heavy industry gets huge orders from the State). As soon as a social class dominates the State, it will steer somehow the State itself to get statal intervention of some kind in its own favour.

The property right that is the ultimate requirement for capitalism is the right to private property of the structures (and eventually infrastructures) of mass production.

Well, simply I consider capitalists to be socially-dangerous maladjusted criminals, and need to be reformed through labor.

:rolleyes:

You should have realised that "criminals" are defined by the set of laws. In a capitalist society, of course being a capitalist cannot be a crime (see Die Grundrissen).
Take the capitalist in the (very simplified) model depicted in Das Kapital. Marx describes him as "honest". Not a criminal.
As a communist, I think that capitalism is intrinsecally wrong (and in the long run, not working) as social model... not that capitalists are intrinsecally criminal.

I wouldn't say that inheritance is a necessary part of Capitalism, although it does tend to be present for the simple basic reason that the people who support Capitalism also support it.

EDIT: If it did fall under Capitalism, it would only fall under Capitalism in the form of allowing people to have the right to spend their money in any way shape or form they wish, including for the sake of making someone else unproductive. Indeed, a Protectivist society would place a far greater emphasis on inherited wealth then a Capitalist society would.

I don't think you read my post well enough to see that I don't define "Capitalism" to equal "Money." If a post is long, that is usually because there is more to read.

Can you outline to me how a capitalist society would function without allowing inheritence?

Of course, it's your assumption that I just meant inheritence. Those born to wealthy parents normally stay wealthy and I don't think that's just down to inheritence.

Value is by definition a good thing, and the merit is brought about by the causal relationship between one's actions and the creation of this value. The question is why you want to make a difference between value in a capitalist market and value in another situation.

What is rewarded in capitalism? The creation of economic value.If inheritance is a reward for the creation of economic value, and the creation of economic value is a good thing, does this mean the existence of anyone who ever inherited something is a good thing?

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with private defense as a necessary, intrinsic feature.

How are individual property rights held if the individual is dependent on another individual or group to defend them? Of anyone on this forum, you should recognize the subservient position this places one in.

"Property rights at stake", I said. Not property rights in general.

My point was that once one property right is at stake, they are all at stake. They simply cannot be placed in simple, divisible, or objective categories. What is property is completely dependent upon the values placed upon objects by individuals, what is property and what function it serves is necessarily subjective.

Actually, you're right, in a way. Once we've dispensed with any notion that capitalism is about rewarding "merit" or "desert" or "hard work", the arguments for treating inheritance differently from any other monetary transfer lose a lot of their force.

No, because capitalism rewards satisfying the needs of others. What you consider to be merit and desert may not necessarily correlate with mine, but I tend to value capitalism for this.

Whether it's inheritance or the purchase of goods and services, monetary transfer is about economic value, not desert or "achievement" in any objective sense.

There is no objective meaning of "achievement" because people do not value the same ends.

How are individual property rights held if the individual is dependent on another individual or group to defend them?

How are they not? "Ownership" has never been magical absolute sovereignty. It's not about individual power in a strong sense, though as an institution it can sometimes bring that about. It's just a relationship between people and objects.

There's no reason capitalism has to be non-contingent to be capitalism.

My point was that once one property right is at stake, they are all at stake. They simply cannot be placed in simple, divisible, or objective categories.

Sure they can. That's easy. We can't always draw a perfect line when the difference is conceptual (personal v. private), but in legal terms it's not much of a problem at all.

What is property is completely dependent upon the values placed upon objects by individuals, what is property and what function it serves is necessarily subjective.

Property is a legal entity. Even with a system of private defense, it's still a product of people with guns saying this belongs to x and that belongs to y. There's nothing "subjective" about it.

No, because capitalism rewards satisfying the needs of others. What you consider to be merit and desert may not necessarily correlate with mine, but I tend to value capitalism for this.

Fine, go ahead and value capitalism for that. But don't say it's connected to merit and desert. Those terms may have subjective components, but they also have elements of objectivity. "Satisfying the needs of others" is something that's conditioned by innumerable elements that have no reasonable relation to the person in question. It can't tell us--or can only tell us very little--about how meritorious or deserving the person is.

There is no objective meaning of "achievement" because people do not value the same ends.

That doesn't follow. All it means is that any objective meaning of achievement must abstract from particular ends. We can still have objective elements.

Merit is meaningless if it has no connection to responsibility. People aren't merit-worthy for what they're not responsible for. It follows that somebody whose creation of external economic value has been greatly boosted by factors for which she is not responsible is not anymore merit-worthy, all else being equal, than one who was not benefited by those factors.
I note your unwillingness to actually attempt to define it.

Basically, what you're saying is that it's irrelevant whether someone is actually any good. If you're Rembrandt and I'm a 3-year old with fingerpaints, then the fact that you have talent and experience while I don't shouldn't matter, and I merit just as much reward for my painting as you do for yours.

Why does this look to me like you're trying to deny our individuality and uniqueness? Some people have talent, but now you're saying talent shouldn't matter. What seems to come through here is that the only thing you seem to consider is my personal effort, even though effort alone is worth absolutely nothing.

Capitalism on the other hand only values effort if it's put into work that actually produces something people find beneficial. If I'm crap at painting, I can paint all I want but capitalism won't reward me for it, since there is no demonstrated ability to what I do. Instead I take what I have, what I'm good at, and I put that to use - and other people will reward me for it. There are no useless people (except for medical reasons), and therefore there is no one who will actually miss out in a free market.

It doesn't matter if there is or not. People still don't make purchasing decisions based on the merit of the producer; they make purchasing decisions based on value. If they made purchasing decisions based on the merit of the producer, the distribution of wealth would probably change radically.
That depends on how you define merit, if you ever get around to it.

We can only come up with the abstract idea of "economic value" if we work backwards: if we look at people's behavior and define "value" as "whatever it is we have in relation to what we choose."
So basically you're just saying again that people aren't after happiness. If we aren't, if we "act for no reason", you are aware that we're animals and there is no need for moral systems or anything of the sort, right? People have minds, but those only have a purpose if we use them to achieve some sort of goal. If we have no goals, the fact that we have minds is irrelevant and we might as well have none.

Happiness is as general a goal as you can come up with. It's necessarily true precisely because it's basically defined as something we are after. It's an identity, and axiom of human behaviour. If you deny it, not only are you left at the very beginning again, but you have no way to get away from it - any attempt to learn something is as futile as trying to figure out the morally correct action without considering the "is".

Whose decisions are we judging? What forcing is taking place?
You're judging the decision of the man who gives me a million dollars for the cactus, and you're forcing him to give to the crappy painter.

Overcoming obstacles to create something valuable. The relevant sense of "value" is not economic. It's personal. It's something we ourselves value.
The two are one and the same. Necessarily.

There's an objective element to "achievement" in the "obstacles" part, which is worthy of note. It's not much of an "achievement" for my fluent Spanish-speaking friend to carry on a detailed, sophisticated conversation in Spanish, even if he highly values it. For me, however, it might be a very significant one.
Not once you have also learned Spanish. As you get better, the effort required to overcome this particular obstacle becomes smaller and smaller.

The second case is only more of an "achievement" if I'm out to make money. But maybe I'm just out to grow a cactus.
Then don't sell it. You wouldn't have provided value to anyone else, and you wouldn't be eligible for reward from anyone else. The only person rewarding you would be the person your provided value to, namely yourself.

Why are those our criteria for achievement? That certain doesn't seem to be the straightforward definition. And they still aren't necessarily rewarded by the capitalist market.
They are our criteria because we said that the only way of measuring achievement was to have individuals judge it from their perspective. If no one sees it, then no one can or should judge whether he ran quickly and no one can be sure of how or whether to reward him. The only person who was a witness was the runner himself, hence the internal reward. But that will generally be non-monetary, because there's little point in giving you your own money.

If other people witness his run, they may well choose to reward him. Maybe just with a compliment, maybe with a multi-million dollar cereal box contract. Afterwards we can observe the rewards he got and conclude that he provided people with a certain minimum amount of value (=happiness), and that may well influence whether or not we personally consider it an achievement worthy of a reward. But we don't have to see how other people react to make this decision.

The important thing is that nobody can be expected to be able to untangle talent, training, effort and any support networks the runner had accurately. People will most certainly try if they think it plays a role, but you can't count on that or their results to be accurate. And that's regardless whether they are a bystander to a run or the newly appointed creator of a new economic system.

Do you honestly believe that is an distinction worth making in the context of the discussion?
It certainly is. I know I don't plan to leave my kids anything significant when I die, and the denial of my own ability to choose is something I'm not too keen on, as you would have picked up.

If inheritance is a reward for the creation of economic value, and the creation of economic value is a good thing, does this mean the existence of anyone who ever inherited something is a good thing?
I'd say so. Most cases of bad people inheriting things would be cases of hindsight, when people didn't out themselves as bad until well after their parents' death.

In the other few cases you'd obviously have the kids being a good thing from the point of view of the parents, who are the ones who get to decide by virtue of having created the value that is being inherited.

And finally, even if we came to the conclusion that these parents made the wrong decision, we still have to ask ourselves whether this justifies taking the decision away from parents in general or makes the rest of society any more qualified or justified to make it instead.

Can you outline to me how a capitalist society would function without allowing inheritence?

If you had a society where very little value lied in the family, it would not be unconceivable for all capitalists to take a similar approach to Bill Gates and simply enjoy their money while they are alive and leave nothing to their children.

If a society placed great influence on family, however, this would never work politically, but that would be just as true in a Protectivist state such as a mercantilist state, a fascist state or a feudal state, a theoretical charitable state, or even in many Democratic Socialist states, as in a Capitalist one.

Of course, it's your assumption that I just meant inheritence. Those born to wealthy parents normally stay wealthy and I don't think that's just down to inheritence.

You're right in saying that those who are born to wealthy parents have an intrinsic advantages. However, these intrinsic advantages (education, for instance, connections, and possibly better genetics) are largely bent towards enhancing the ability to achieve by acquiring better opportunities to use your mind and labor. In other words, it's still about achievement, but achievement is not always a fair measure because often extenuating circumstances (such as poor parents) will interfere with one's own ability to measure up.

If you had a society where very little value lied in the family, it would not be unconceivable for all capitalists to take a similar approach to Bill Gates and simply enjoy their money while they are alive and leave nothing to their children.


All capitalists? I've not heard of a society where family is valued so little as for something like this to happen. Nevertheless, even if such a society is possible, it isn't the one we live in.


If a society placed great influence on family, however, this would never work politically, but that would be just as true in a Protectivist state such as a mercantilist state, a fascist state or a feudal state, a theoretical charitable state, or even in many Democratic Socialist states, as in a Capitalist one.


I don't see how the fact inheritence can exist under other systems negates the fact that it does in capitalism.


You're right in saying that those who are born to wealthy parents have an intrinsic advantages. However, these intrinsic advantages (education, for instance, connections, and possibly better genetics) are largely bent towards enhancing the ability to achieve by acquiring better opportunities to use your mind and labor. In other words, it's still about achievement, but achievement is not always a fair measure because often extenuating circumstances (such as poor parents) will interfere with one's own ability to measure up.

So circumstances don't play a part in achievement? I don't know a single person who would mantain that if a blind athlete from the special olympics set a world record (across all athletes) that was then equalled by a sighted athlete that the first wouldn't be a much greater achievement.


It certainly is. I know I don't plan to leave my kids anything significant when I die, and the denial of my own ability to choose is something I'm not too keen on, as you would have picked up.


I don't see how you won't leave anything significant (presuming you have anything significant to give away) has any impact on the fact that some - most - do.

That, to me, sums it all up. And since I'm not huge on discussing political/economical systems, I won't.:D
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm

It doesn't guarantee it but it makes a huge difference and the effect would only get bigger in a capitalist system
But is the relationship causal, or just a correlation?

I'm not yet willign to say one way or the other.

But is the relationship causal, or just a correlation?

I'm not yet willign to say one way or the other.

You think it might be a coincidence?

All capitalists? I've not heard of a society where family is valued so little as for something like this to happen. Nevertheless, even if such a society is possible, it isn't the one we live in.

Is America perfectly capitalist? Why do you assume America is perfectly capitalist? And anyways, there are societies where family values have been destroyed. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are not currently Capitalist (North Korea in particular), and may no longer value family that little when they become such, but in North Korea, you don't raise your own children, the government raises them, and if that system were to remain when North Korea privatizes we may well see a society where that occurred.

I don't see how the fact inheritence can exist under other systems negates the fact that it does in capitalism.

It negates your causation. The fact that it is capitalist and they are successful is merely coincidence, and the fact that they have been made successful has less to do with the capitalism and more to do with the value of family.

So circumstances don't play a part in achievement? I don't know a single person who would mantain that if a blind athlete from the special olympics set a world record (across all athletes) that was then equalled by a sighted athlete that the first wouldn't be a much greater achievement.

If you reread my post and stopped assuming things for five minutes you would see that I said the OPPOSITE of that! I agree with you that circumstances play a part in achievement, but that if you're measuring out wealth by achievement, then, excuses aside, they have "achieved" more. It's not a matter of what caused the achievement it's a matter of it happening. That's why I said that this system is not entirely fair. And yes, the blind man setting a world record is an amazing achievement, especially if it's in a field that usually requires sight, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a world record pure and simple and that the record books, to remain objective, can only note down the actual world record and not the fact that the man who set it was blind.

Is America perfectly capitalist? Why do you assume America is perfectly capitalist? And anyways, there are societies where family values have been destroyed. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are not currently Capitalist (North Korea in particular), and may no longer value family that little when they become such, but in North Korea, you don't raise your own children, the government raises them, and if that system were to remain when North Korea privatizes we may well see a society where that occurred.

I didn't say that it is perfectly capitalist, that's a very odd thing to draw from my post. I said that America is a society where people value family.

It negates your causation. The fact that it is capitalist and they are successful is merely coincidence, and the fact that they have been made successful has less to do with the capitalism and more to do with the value of family.

Are you following this discussion?

"Can you outline to me how a capitalist society would function without allowing inheritence?"

"If a society placed great influence on family, however, this would never work politically, but that would be just as true in a Protectivist state such as a mercantilist state, a fascist state or a feudal state, a theoretical charitable state, or even in many Democratic Socialist states, as in a Capitalist one."

"I don't see how the fact inheritence can exist under other systems negates the fact that it does in capitalism."

I don't see how your responses fits in with what we're talking about. That's two very odd responses.


If you reread my post and stopped assuming things for five minutes you would see that I said the OPPOSITE of that! I agree with you that circumstances play a part in achievement, but that if you're measuring out wealth by achievement, then, excuses aside, they have "achieved" more. It's not a matter of what caused the achievement it's a matter of it happening. That's why I said that this system is not entirely fair. And yes, the blind man setting a world record is an amazing achievement, especially if it's in a field that usually requires sight, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a world record pure and simple and that the record books, to remain objective, can only note down the actual world record and not the fact that the man who set it was blind.

That seems contradictory.

I didn't say that it is perfectly capitalist, that's a very odd thing to draw from my post. I said that America is a society where people value family.

Are you following this discussion?

"Can you outline to me how a capitalist society would function without allowing inheritence?"

"If a society placed great influence on family, however, this would never work politically, but that would be just as true in a Protectivist state such as a mercantilist state, a fascist state or a feudal state, a theoretical charitable state, or even in many Democratic Socialist states, as in a Capitalist one."

"I don't see how the fact inheritence can exist under other systems negates the fact that it does in capitalism."

I don't see how your responses fits in with what we're talking about. That's two very odd responses.

Maybe the problem is you're talking about America and I'm talking about a theory.

That seems contradictory.

How so? If you define achievement as effect upon the outside world, the effect of the blind man setting the world record is the same as the normal athlete setting the world record. It's still a world record.

EDIT: Unless you count the effect of the blind man telling his story, of course.

I note your unwillingness to actually attempt to define it.

"Worthiness", roughly speaking. The definition doesn't help us much.

Basically, what you're saying is that it's irrelevant whether someone is actually any good.

Irrelevant to what? Reward? Yes.

But actually I think "merit" is broader than desert, dictionary definitions aside, and we can speak meaningfully of a person's "merit" in a "talent" sense in a way we can't with desert. (At least when we are speaking of someone's merit in a particular context. "Merit" decontextualized--worthiness as such--must be moral, and there natural talent is not a factor.) But even if we bring in talents people aren't responsible for, we are still left with the innumerable external factors that affect the creation of external value, other than free will and natural talent.

And we are still left with a need to justify an equation between "value" in the aesthetic sense of art and "value" in the economic sense that generates wealth. And that's an argument you're quite likely to lose.

Why does this look to me like you're trying to deny our individuality and uniqueness?

I have no idea.

Capitalism on the other hand only values effort if it's put into work that actually produces something people find beneficial.

That is at best a very ambiguous way of approaching merit. Plenty of people find things "beneficial" that aren't merit-worthy.

For instance, it makes perfect sense to say, "I hate this painting, but it's a great piece or art." Or, "I love this book, but it's awful as literature."

If I'm crap at painting, I can paint all I want but capitalism won't reward me for it, since there is no demonstrated ability to what I do.

If I don't have the means, the time, the security, or the access to be successful with my paintings on the market, it's irrelevant how great they are.

So basically you're just saying again that people aren't after happiness.

No, they're not.

If we aren't, if we "act for no reason", you are aware that we're animals and there is no need for moral systems or anything of the sort, right?

Actually, you have it in reverse. If all we seek is happiness, we are nothing more than animals, following every biological inclination that brings psychological satisfaction. We have no free will and no morality.

It is our capacity for rational autonomy that lets us escape this, and recognize that desire does not bind us. We can act for reasons other than happiness--moral duty most prominently among them.

As for acting "for no reason", we can choose to do that too, but generally we don't. There is, however, a vast category of actions that humans do unconsciously or reflexively, without intent and thus without happiness (or anything else) in mind.

Happiness is as general a goal as you can come up with. It's necessarily true precisely because it's basically defined as something we are after.

No, it isn't. Happiness is a mental state. If we seek happiness, we seek that mental state. We can and do seek other things.

Nothing can be defined as "something we are after", because "something we are after" is ambiguous and makes no distinction between a multiplicity of kinds of value. This is the same problem as with "utility." The only place where we can speak of value in the one-dimensional way such ideas suggest is at the behavioral level, because in behavior we must necessarily do some things over others.

If you deny it, not only are you left at the very beginning again, but you have no way to get away from it - any attempt to learn something is as futile as trying to figure out the morally correct action without considering the "is".

Just because you find it convenient to make certain simplifying assumptions about the way humans act doesn't mean they actually reflect reality. And I'm pretty sure that neither of those endeavours are futile.

You're judging the decision of the man who gives me a million dollars for the cactus,

I said it had nothing to do with merit. I didn't say it was wrong.

and you're forcing him to give to the crappy painter.

Where did you get that idea? I have made no such suggestion.

A society that values art for its own sake--that recognizes a notion of aesthetic value beyond market value--might have reason to treat such art as a public good, and subsidize it... but that has not at all been the direction of my point.

Rather, I have been arguing that capitalism does not benefit "merit" or a concept of human achievement any more than other economic systems do... the argument that socialism degrades human dignity by ignoring such factors may or may not hold true, but regardless can be directed equally well against the market.

The two are one and the same. Necessarily.

Something can be quite valuable to me without being sellable for a cent on the market.

Then don't sell it. You wouldn't have provided value to anyone else, and you wouldn't be eligible for reward from anyone else.

Right. That's the point. Capitalism doesn't reward achievement. It rewards finding ways to get people to give you money.

The important thing is that nobody can be expected to be able to untangle talent, training, effort and any support networks the runner had accurately.

That does not mean that there is no answer, or that the answer isn't actually what we should be looking for when we consider matters like "merit."

Socialist theory skirts around the issue of wealth creation.

Um, no, it doesn't.

I am not aware of a single great socialist who would have spent anywhere near the same time on examining where wealth in a socialist world comes from as opposed to what to do with the wealth that already exists.

That's because the socialist critique is, well, critical. It's concerned with presenting an alternative to society as it is. In terms of economic development, capitalism doesn't do so poorly. It's the distribution--among other things--where it has massive flaws.

Socialism need (at most) only equal capitalism in that respect. It need not prove its superiority.

propose things like "doing a 70 hour week as a lawyer, doctor or investment banker is its own reward"

Most of us would question the necessity of seventy-hour weeks in the first place... at least as a general rule.

or just plain deny the need for additional wealth creation

A critique that is not socialist or anti-capitalist, but rather is much broader, and often has little sympathy among more traditional or conventional socialists.

You think it might be a coincidence?
You're convinced it couldn't possibly be?

There may well be a confounding factor, or a common cause. If we can isolate the direct cause, then the poor can work to narrow that gap themselves.

Some children of privilege end up poor. Why? What did they do differently?

Some children of poverty end up wealthy. Why? What did they do differently?

If it matters, measure it.

You're convinced it couldn't possibly be?


I don't really know how to respond. Of course I am.

That is at best a very ambiguous way of approaching merit. Plenty of people find things "beneficial" that aren't merit-worthy.

For instance, it makes perfect sense to say, "I hate this painting, but it's a great piece or art." Or, "I love this book, but it's awful as literature."

If you're willing to pay for something, there's a generally a reason why, and it's generally a fairly good one. Just because something doesn't fit your exact ideal doesn't mean it doesn't leave somebody better off.

If you're willing to pay for something, there's a generally a reason why, and it's generally a fairly good one.

So?

I am not the one advancing the idea that economies should be meritocratic.

Capitalism is where the right of property is protected, and people have economic freedom.

So?

I am not the one advancing the idea that economies should be meritocratic.

And I'm not the one advancing that my opinion on everything equals merit.

Capitalism is a materialist (as opposed to idealist) economical/social model. In modern capitalism (differing from ancient merchantilism), the key issue of the production isn't the production of goods as goal, but the mass production of goods as tool in order to accumulate extra-mehrwert (surplus profit), ensuring social dominance to the higher bourgoisie (aka "capitalists").

It is compatible with state intervention, to many degrees: see Keynes, see Sweden, see France, see Germany, see USA (heavy industry gets huge orders from the State). As soon as a social class dominates the State, it will steer somehow the State itself to get statal intervention of some kind in its own favour.

The property right that is the ultimate requirement for capitalism is the right to private property of the structures (and eventually infrastructures) of mass production.

Yes that is correct, bourgeois capitalism and proletarian socialism are completely materialistic ideologies, and they are for a reason. The difference is that the defense of bourgeois capitalism (and thus condemnation of socialism) always comes from an ideological, philosophic and religious perspective. Bourgeois arguments against socialism ultimately come down to an abstraction of 'rights' and 'liberty' (the rights and liberties of the bourgeois themselves obviously). Ultimately the bourgeois cannot argue against socialism on a materialist basis because that it would accepting the historical inevitably of the proletariat replacing the bourgeois as the ruling class.

Yes that is correct, bourgeois capitalism and proletarian socialism are completely materialistic ideologies, and they are for a reason. The difference is that the defense of bourgeois capitalism (and thus condemnation of socialism) always comes from an ideological, philosophic and religious perspective. Bourgeois arguments against socialism ultimately come down to an abstraction of 'rights' and 'liberty' (the rights and liberties of the bourgeois themselves obviously). Ultimately the bourgeois cannot argue against socialism on a materialist basis because that it would accepting the historical inevitably of the proletariat replacing the bourgeois as the ruling class.

Nope. The best argument against socialism lies in economic growth numbers.

Actually, if you look at where the inevitabillities are heading, Marx was right in saying that one of the classes will be eliminated, but current evidence seems to be pointing towards the proletariat. With worker turnover rates at one job every 3 years, automation replacing factory jobs at a breakneck pace, business ownership and self-employment numbers rising fast and a middle class that increasingly acts like the rich, it seems it is the proletariat who are going away. What's rising to replace them? Partially a larger bourgeois, but also partially a fast growing cult of knowledge workers and knowledge worker flunkies who live off of their own creativity.

Nope. The best argument against socialism lies in economic growth numbers.

Yes, you are correct that the truth lies in economic growth numbers, I'll give you some.

I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. In his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%

Capitalism is where the right of bourgeois property is protected, and the bourgeois have economic freedom.
Corrected.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what the proletariat is in a Marxian sense. A knowledge worker is a member of the proletariat in the Marxian sense. They are people who sell their labor, intellectual in this case, to another for a wage or salary.

Generally a proletarian is someone who must sell their labor for a wage, while a bourgeois is a propertied class and get their profit through capital gains and surplus value extracted from their workers.

Partially a larger bourgeois, but also partially a fast growing cult of knowledge workers and knowledge worker flunkies who live off of their own creativity.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what the proletariat is in a Marxian sense. A knowledge worker is a member of the proletariat in the Marxian sense. They are people who sell their labor, intellectual in this case, to another for a wage or salary.

So...anyone else here a fan of Parecon?

*Ducks from capitalist war machine*

*Runs from socialist massive army*

*politely disagrees with mixed-economy enthusiasts*

So...anyone else here a fan of Parecon?

*Ducks from capitalist war machine*

*Runs from socialist massive army*

*politely disagrees with mixed-economy enthusiasts*

I'm a fan actually, and I'm as a socialist as they come. :)

Woo democracy!!!!!!

sidenote: If the application of economic thought to other disciplines is 'economic imperialism,' would parecon's imposition of democracy onto the discipline of economics be 'democratic imperialism?'

Cause if it is, I think you can rightly call me a democratic imperialist.
Not exactly a new phenomenon, Athens as an example.

I'm a fan actually, and I'm as a socialist as they come. :)

Woo democracy!!!!!!

sidenote: If the application of economic thought to other disciplines is 'economic imperialism,' would parecon's imposition of democracy onto the discipline of economics be 'democratic imperialism?'

Cause if it is, I think you can rightly call me a democratic imperialist.

Woo democracy!!!!!!

sidenote: If the application of economic thought to other disciplines is 'economic imperialism,' would parecon's imposition of democracy onto the discipline of economics be 'democratic imperialism?'

Cause if it is, I think you can rightly call me a democratic imperialist.

I'm not sure that is a proper term, and you'd be running into the fact that imperialism is a wholly negative term, espescially for leftists.

Yes, you are correct that the truth lies in economic growth numbers, I'll give you some.

I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. In his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%

What, you mean the bushels of grain collected from the sand quary?

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what the proletariat is in a Marxian sense. A knowledge worker is a member of the proletariat in the Marxian sense. They are people who sell their labor, intellectual in this case, to another for a wage or salary.

Thank you. However, the point still stands that business ownership rates are going up, and at some point in time, nearly everyone may be a business owner.

Thank you. However, the point still stands that business ownership rates are going up, and at some point in time, nearly everyone may be a business owner.
That will never happen, capitalism requires a permanent underclass of wage-laborers.

That will never happen, capitalism requires a permanent underclass of wage-laborers.

Machines?

I'm not sure that is a proper term, and you'd be running into the fact that imperialism is a wholly negative term, espescially for leftists.

well it doesn't have to be negative. I mean, it means domination at the expense of competition, or something along those lines. I am totally ok with democratic powers dominating over economics, government, the military, private organizations, etc.

And the left shouldn't vilify me or anyone else just because of term-use. We've been claiming to be the logical choice in politics for a few years now. This is no time to become dogmatic about (made up) terminology.

Not exactly a new phenomenon, Athens as an example.

Sort of, but Athens had its mean authoritarian streak. Plus economics for athens was mostly about import/export. The democratic control thing can't really extend to trade between states, only within a state (or if you're talking to the anarchist segment of participatory economics thinkers, only in some sort of, world-wide stateless democratic pact. Yeah, anarchists are weird).

arbitrarilly putting the happiness of little green pieces of paper ahead of the happiness of real people, places and things.

=^^=
.../\...

arbitrarilly putting the happiness of little green pieces of paper ahead of the happiness of real people, places and things.

=^^=
.../\...

No, I'm pretty sure there's not a single person whose goal is to make currency feel happy. Most if not everyone is in fact trying to make themselves happier, so the happiness of real people is very much in mind.

Corrected.

As long as people can work for whom they choose, or not work at all, and are not legally impeded from starting a business or buying and selling things for profit, the poor are no less economically free than the middle class or the rich.

The poor lose their economic freedom when they become serfs to the rich (feudalism) or serfs of the state (communism), and can no longer improve their position by starting a business, buying and selling things, or choosing a better employer.

And I'm not the one advancing that my opinion on everything equals merit.

Surely you think your opinion on what merit is is an accurate opinion? Isn't that the definition of "opinion"?

Are you accusing me of substituting my own likes and dislikes for an honest analysis of merit? I don't think that criticism has much validity... my judgments of merit and my tastes tend to differ quite considerably in most areas.

As long as people can work for whom they choose, or not work at all, and are not legally impeded from starting a business or buying and selling things for profit, the poor are no less economically free than the middle class or the rich.


Depends on what you mean by economically free. If you mean free from government interference in their economic affairs, then you are correct but that strikes me as a much too narrow definition.

I don't really know how to respond. Of course I am.
Then you're the one making the baseless leap, not me.

If something is not demonstrably true, then it is unreasonable to believe that thing is true.

Surely you think your opinion on what merit is is an accurate opinion? Isn't that the definition of "opinion"?

Are you accusing me of substituting my own likes and dislikes for an honest analysis of merit? I don't think that criticism has much validity... my judgments of merit and my tastes tend to differ quite considerably in most areas.

The wonderful thing about capitalism is that every individual effectively judges merit by his own willingness to give a dollar to possess it's good. Therefore, neither my nor your opinion of merit is the opinion off of which capitalism works, but instead the honest, thoughtful, often subconscious analysis of each individual in satisfying his own needs and wants.

Therefore, neither my nor your opinion of merit is the opinion off of which capitalism works, but instead the honest, thoughtful, often subconscious analysis of each individual in satisfying his own needs and wants.

None of which have anything to do with "merit." The choices involved in satisfying one's needs and wants and the choices involved in rewarding merit are not synonymous.

That's why most economic systems, which must after all cope with scarcity, are not meritocratic--capitalism and well as socialism.

That's why it's absurd when critics of socialism criticize it for "lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator" or degrading human dignity by failing to recognize inequality in merit.

None of which have anything to do with "merit." The choices involved in satisfying one's needs and wants and the choices involved in rewarding merit are not synonymous.

That's why most economic systems, which must after all cope with scarcity, are not meritocratic--capitalism and well as socialism.

That's why it's absurd when critics of socialism criticize it for "lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator" or degrading human dignity by failing to recognize inequality in merit.

If people are willing to go out of their way to give you something for what you have to offer, I think that's usually a strong indication that it is good in their eyes. I can only think of a handful of exceptions, and they're generally either outright illegal (prostitution) or socially frowned upon (pornography) to the point where even though you're being paid a considerable sum for it, you can't really be said to be of high status and are effectively being paid for inflicting damage upon yourself.

This said, I can think of far better criticisms of socialism then failing to recognize merit. Namely the fact that it discourages hard work and risk taking, not by reducing people to a mythical LCM but rather by removing a substantial portion of their reward.* I suppose you might also remove some of their risk, but never sufficiently to make it worth while, as the amount removed from the reward will always be greater due to the need to pay for a huge beaureacracy to run the risk averse state, and that same risk averse state will be choked with a chaotic morass of insane regulations to reduce the strain on it's safety net.

On the flip side, external achievement is not, as has already been discussed, a particularly fair way of evaluating people in many respects, as often times a substantial portion of what you accomplish has nothing to do with you, like getting to go to a good suburban school because of who your parents are. The systems still built on achievement, as you will have substantial opportunity to achieve and generally will do so, but that achievement isn't entirely yours as even though you're the one who did it, Skid Row Joe likely would've done it too if he was in your position.



*It should be noted, however, that socialist states have often achieved a great deal scientifically. This probably has to do with the facts that 1) In a socialist state, quality education is often more available then in a capitalist state (one of the major advantages of socialism), and 2) Scientists aren't normal people - the reward for what they do is intrinsic as they have a passion. Most people have no passion, and as such need an external reward to get anything done, and for many jobs you will be hard pressed to find somebody with a passion for them, as not everything that is good and needs to be done has an intrinsic reward. For those things that do, charitable economic activity may be just as effective as capitalist activity, as open-source software makers like Mozilla have demonstrated.

If people are willing to go out of their way to give you something for what you have to offer, I think that's usually a strong indication that it is good in their eyes.

I don't. And, regardless, even if that were true we would still be talking about good products, not good people. Non-meritocratic.

I can only think of a handful of exceptions, and they're generally either outright illegal (prostitution) or socially frowned upon (pornography) to the point where even though you're being paid a considerable sum for it, you can't really be said to be of high status and are effectively being paid for inflicting damage upon yourself.

Oh, come on. With virtually every consumer good I can think of, we don't (generally) wonder about the human creativity or effort embodied in it; instead we consider its benefit to ourselves.

This said, I can think of far better criticisms of socialism then failing to recognize merit.

Me too.

Namely the fact that it discourages hard work and risk taking, not by reducing people to a mythical LCM but rather by removing a substantial portion of their reward.*

I am not, as it happens, particularly fond of monetary incentives for labor, but socialism can easily incorporate them--and not just, as NL suggested, as a side-element but as a core principle of a socialist labor market.

The key is public ownership and control: society owns major economic institutions and runs them for its collective benefit. If compensation levels for labor determined by market mechanisms serve society's ends, there's no reason they're incompatible with socialism.

2) Scientists aren't normal people - the reward for what they do is intrinsic as they have a passion.

I don't think scientists are particularly exceptional in their natures.

Scientific endeavor does have certain strong non-monetary incentives attached to it, but at least some of them--like the notion of working for the public good and intense non-monetary competition--can be replicated elsewhere.

Most people have no passion,

Maybe, but that seems more of a product of an unfree society where most people dislike their jobs than a necessary consequence of human nature.

and for many jobs you will be hard pressed to find somebody with a passion for them,

That is true. Such tasks should be shared, or given to some people temporarily, with similarly temporary high levels of compensation.

What is a "definiont"?

What is the definition of capitalism?

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money

What is a "definiont"?

It's a property of capitalism DUH

Its a misspelling of the word definition. I wince whenever I see it.

It sucks when you misspell something in the title doesn't it?
:(

What is a "definiont"?

Its a misspelling of the word definition. I wince whenever I see it.

I don't. And, regardless, even if that were true we would still be talking about good products, not good people. Non-meritocratic.

Good products are a result of good production. You can be a serial killer and still be good at what you do.

Oh, come on. With virtually every consumer good I can think of, we don't (generally) wonder about the human creativity or effort embodied in it; instead we consider its benefit to ourselves.

I agree with you, but creativity does not neccessarily equal merit, as anyone who has seen a modern art piece can tell you.

Me too.

Good.

I am not, as it happens, particularly fond of monetary incentives for labor, but socialism can easily incorporate them--and not just, as NL suggested, as a side-element but as a core principle of a socialist labor market.

How? Who decides them?

The key is public ownership and control: society owns major economic institutions and runs them for its collective benefit. If compensation levels for labor determined by market mechanisms serve society's ends, there's no reason they're incompatible with socialism.

More often then not they will run them for the governments benefit, as my dad, who actually is a beaureacrat, could tell you. But even if you ran the system you describe successfully, it would still be partially capitalist as I've defined it.

I don't think scientists are particularly exceptional in their natures.

I would like you to immediately fly in to Georgia Tech, pass all your classes, go to grad school, take on ridiculous amounts of student loans so you can take a underpaid job that is half doing the research you want to do and half teaching snot nosed students and dealing with a college beaureacracy.

Scientific endeavor does have certain strong non-monetary incentives attached to it, but at least some of them--like the notion of working for the public good and intense non-monetary competition--can be replicated elsewhere.

Yeah right. Scientists don't think about a "public good." They think about figuring things out. Indeed, much of the time, they do not take the few extra minutes to identify possible applications for their research. (Engineers do that.) But they still love it because of the discovery, beauty, and mastery they see within it.

Maybe, but that seems more of a product of an unfree society where most people dislike their jobs than a necessary consequence of human nature.

If you have a passion, nothing, and I mean nothing, will stop you. You will murder someone before you let them stop you, Soheran. It's all that matters to you. That's why these scientists, who have degrees and educations that would be worth 150, 200, 300 thousand dollars on the open market, often with shorter hours, choose instead to work for 50 thousand a year at a university even though their college debts may equal half of that every single year.

That is true. Such tasks should be shared, or given to some people temporarily, with similarly temporary high levels of compensation.

It'll be hard to force many people to clean out sewers. Many of them will simply leave or bribe their way out of it, and should they be forced down their, do a subpar job that endangers others or the public well-being.

Also Soheran, some of these jobs (like dangerous electrical work in Power Plants) require extensive training that cannot practically be given to someone who will be gone in a couple years. Indeed, in many cases, this training would surpass the amount of time they'd be deployed there for. It makes far more sense to have one capable laborer doing it well for a substantial portion of their life.

Good products are a result of good production. You can be a serial killer and still be good at what you do.

So?

How? Who decides them?

Publicly-owned firms.

More often then not they will run them for the governments benefit

Right. In a democratic society, the government is the representative of the people.

Yeah right. Scientists don't think about a "public good."

You honestly don't think that contributing to the technological progress, and thus the welfare, of humanity isn't a motive for many scientists?

They think about figuring things out. Indeed, much of the time, they do not take the few extra minutes to identify possible applications for their research.

Their skills and interests are elsewhere, perhaps. So what?

But they still love it because of the discovery, beauty, and mastery they see within it.

Internal goods. Most human activity has them, and if we structure our economic system in the right way we can almost certainly massively broaden their extent.

If you have a passion, nothing, and I mean nothing, will stop you. You will murder someone before you let them stop you, Soheran. It's all that matters to you.

Thanks for the hyperbolic rhetoric. An actual argument would be appreciated.

That's why these scientists, who have degrees and educations that would be worth 150, 200, 300 thousand dollars on the open market, often with shorter hours, choose instead to work for 50 thousand a year at a university even though their college debts may equal half of that every single year.

I believe I quite explicitly noted already that science has a multitude of non-monetary incentives associated with it. What's your point, exactly?

It'll be hard to force many people to clean out sewers.

Who's forcing anyone?

Many of them will simply leave or bribe their way out of it, and should they be forced down their, do a subpar job that endangers others or the public well-being.

Well, this is a basic problem with work nobody wants to do. Capitalism doesn't solve it. It just ensures that such work will be allocated to the most desperate.

Also Soheran, some of these jobs (like dangerous electrical work in Power Plants) require extensive training that cannot practically be given to someone who will be gone in a couple years.

I am providing general principles. I'm aware that there will need to be exceptions... though investment could and should be made in making such tasks less dangerous and awful.

So?

Merit is not an overall measure of how good you are. It is a measure of how good a job you do.

Publicly-owned firms.

Right. In a democratic society, the government is the representative of the people.

Governments have interests beyond their people, even in democratic societies.

You honestly don't think that contributing to the technological progress, and thus the welfare, of humanity isn't a motive for many scientists?

I think their main motive is discovery, for themselves.

Their skills and interests are elsewhere, perhaps. So what?

The point is that scientists do such a poor job of finding applications for their research that we have to hire an entirely additional profession to advance technology. They're called engineers.

Internal goods. Most human activity has them, and if we structure our economic system in the right way we can almost certainly massively broaden their extent.

Societies work as blanket structures. You are encouraged, from childhood, to be a good person by doing X. The trouble is, there is only one X, and there really only can be, because if you add another X, you weaken the other irreparably.

There are many different internal goods, from desires in serving others to desires in discovery, from desires in achievement to desires in being humble, and they are unrelated, and often contradictory enough, that you could not really structure a society to work all of them at once without some kind of seemingly unrelated third factor, such as money, that could interlink these behaviors with rewards, which would encourage similar feelings and behavior to what money already encourages.

Thanks for the hyperbolic rhetoric. An actual argument would be appreciated.

I'm saying what a passion is.

I believe I quite explicitly noted already that science has a multitude of non-monetary incentives associated with it. What's your point, exactly?

My point is that I don't think you would do it. And if I'm wrong, it's a minority occurrence, because most people will not enter the field of science, even if they are interested in it. They make up a very tiny percentage of the population, and I have serious doubts, due to the constant discussion of science here and pretty much anywhere else, that it has to do with a lack of interets.

Who's forcing anyone?

How else will you get them to do it?

Well, this is a basic problem with work nobody wants to do. Capitalism doesn't solve it. It just ensures that such work will be allocated to the most desperate.

Actually Capitalism does solve it because the work gets done. And it's not neccessarilly the most desperate per se - it can often be those who will simply do anything for a buck, especially in the case of high-paid dangerous professions, like crab fishing and nuclear power plant maintenance. Indeed, in many cases this can be how those who are desperate rise up in ranks.

I am providing general principles. I'm aware that there will need to be exceptions... though investment could and should be made in making such tasks less dangerous and awful.

It is sometimes a matter of danger to the individual but it can also be a matter of danger to those around them. Also, many of this business have already tried exactly what you are describing - it is in their best interest to do so, as greater levels of danger usually mean greater levels of training and selectivity towards the people who are selected, which in turn means higher wage rates. Hence the fact that the meat-packing industry rapidly reduced the danger of their workplaces between the 20's and the 60's, allowing them to hire nearly anyone and spend virtually nothing training them when before they had to hire those who could be committed for a long term of service.

What is the definiont of capitalism?Selling your mother, if the price is right.

Selling your mother, if the price is right.

No, that's amorality. Not that the two don't sometimes go hand and hand, but amorality is not unique to Capitalism, and Capitalism is not unique to amorality. Societies that are capitalist but very religious or otherwise moral have strong charitable and behavioral traditions, and societies that are socialist can be every bit as exploitive as their capitalist counterparts, though how this will manifest itself may change. Perhaps in a society with no money or possessions, it would be about possessing people, finding ways to control them and bend them to your will.

Capitalism is bourgeois society, thus in bourgeois society the only people who own property are the bourgeois, what I mean by property is the productive means and thus power in society, while everyone else has petty personal possessions and thinks they are 'free'.

...everyone else has petty personal possessions and thinks they are 'free'.Sounds like communism to me, but without the "thinking they are free" part for the self-proclaimed modes currently in practice.

Being able to make enough money for spelling lessons.