[ExI] Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Sat Nov 12 20:23:28 UTC 2011


2011/11/12 James Clement <clementlawyer at gmail.com>:
> Stefano Vaj posts:
> IMHO, there are a number of question here, which might be open even
> for the most fervent Randian amongst us:
> ...
> - The *political* issues with capitalism, as opposed to *ethical*
> issues ("greed and oppression", etc.), are IMHO:
> i) Should really power and status in all societies be determined only
> by one's money?

No, it should be only one factor. I would argue that it IS only one
factor. We have fame, reputation, ingenuity, intelligence,
friendships, family ties and so forth. A typical Kennedy, Clinton or
Bush has more influence than they deserve on their own merits, does
that mean that we should be trying to tear down the families of power?
How much money one has, and particularly how much one is willing to
spend on the spread of memes important to that person, is and should
be one factor in power. I don't agree with Soros most of the time, but
I defend his right to do what he's doing.

> ii) Should one's money itself be determined on the exclusive basis of
> features which often have little "natural" or social utility and
> mostly perpetuate themselves through vicious circles and probably
> outdated civilisational paradigms?

I don't think this is the case, at least most of the time. Can you
give more examples of what you're thinking here? The most important
feature of a person who gains riches in our system is the willingness
to take risk. Risk is central to our capitalistic system.

> iii) Should self-referential interests of a globalist financial system
> be allowed to expropriate popular sovereignties and induce stagnation
> and loss of cultural/political pluralism and diversity à la Brave New
> World?

The brilliance of the founding fathers was in realizing the necessity
of a balance of powers in maintaining a working system. The balance of
power between government, corporations and the press (among others) is
just as important to our system as the balance between the judicial,
legislative and executive branches.

It is hard to argue that corporations are currently more powerful than
the government... but I think you can argue that the people have less
power than ever, and this had led to both the Tea Party and the Occupy
Wall street movement (to the extent that each is not astroturfed.) The
people are trying to get their power back from both. The Tea Party
from the government, and the Occupy Wall street from corporations.
Both have a point, to be sure.

The question would seem to be how to give the people their part of power.

> My responses:
> i) Capitalism does not set moral/ethical standards in a society.

Yes, that's correct.

> It's an
> economic system that lets competition determine factors such as what gets
> produced, who owns the means of production, and what price is set for goods,
> services, labor, and resources. It's perfectly acceptable that society
> determines (even in a Capitalist system) that something other than wealth is
> esteemed.

And it does.

> ii) Capitalism rewards producers with resources for supplying products or
> services that are demanded by consumers. If you think the consumers are
> wrong in their choices, then you can try to persuade them to spend their
> capital in other ways, short of coercing them.

Or you could coerce them. The government often does, in fact. When it
goes into Gibson Guitar and takes away all their rare woods, it is
limiting consumer choice. (Whether you agree or not with this specific
case.) When it artificially props up solar companies, it is doing the
same. It does that sort of thing ALL THE TIME. In fact, I would argue
that the government is the prime source of coercion in our society.

> iii) Why do we let politicians sell their votes and provide some groups with
> benefits at the expense of others? We could easily throw them out of power,
> but the fact is that most people are too lazy or insecure to really change
> the status quo.

Or ignorant...

> What I find admirable about #OWS is their contempt for
> corrupt politicians and the lobbyists/Corporatocracy that pays them off for
> such benefits. If we limited the power of politicians (went to a government
> either controlled directly by the Citizens through referendums, or simply
> limited the scope of what government could do to defense, police and courts,
> then the politicians would have no ability to hand out favors, and
> corruption would virtually cease.

If OWS had a cogent alternative to the current system, that would make
them more credible. The tea party is simple, they want lower taxes.
The OWS is more complex, as some of them want communism, some the
return to a hunter-gatherer society... it's very confusing to a casual
observer.

-Kelly




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list