h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What's so wrong with capialism, per se? Is it CAPITALISM that is the problem? Or CONSUMERISM?

The two go hand in hand I think. Capitalism requires markets. Markets are created by advertsing. Advertising appeals to the human delight in novelty.

Re JWF's post 40. Perhaps you are even thinking that a person might get nailed to a cross for proposing peace, harmony and equality?

176645

My apologies, I came into the conversation late, being a new member, and so I'm going to have to wing my response and maybe even say some things that may have been said before.

First, if proposing peace, harmony, and equality means you get strung up, then you'll have to string me up too.

I propose that the difference between capitalism and consumerism is vast. I would prattle on about capitalism, but I am going to turn to qouting (and, you do not know me, but I actually do this rarely), as another has said it much better than I am currently able:

"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control"
-Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

In America, where I live, we have become weak and willing subjects to consumerism, to the media, to the politicians.. to everyone, except our individual selves. We do not represent the best of capitalism. We represent the worst of consumerism.

Isaac.

Hi Isaac, I don't know much about Ayn Rand but I could certainly criticise the libertarian arguments about the desirability of capitalism as exemplified by Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" which I'm reading at the moment. I'm not sure if that's your thing though, so I won't do so unless prompted.

In short it is capitalism that I would say was bad, not consumerism. Consumerism is one manifestation of the undesirability of capitalism, but not the most important one. What are the criticisms of capitalism? Well, they're different depending on what sort of anti-capitalist you're talking to. Some of the criticisms are that it is destructive, exploitative, inegalitarian, unfair, its aims are undesirable, it creates alienation, etc.

I would actually like that. One of the reasons I picked this thread to being my discussions in is because of the fact that I have had little chance to really debate (and, therefore, better understand my own views) capitalist ideals vs others, exaplified by the fact that I used a quote to make my stance, instead of using it to support it. I am always open to listen to ideas, even if I believe they are wrong, for: a)how can I know what I believe without hearing other ideas and b) by debating and discussing, we can better learn and grow.

With that, I also suggest that you read some of Ayn Rand's work. I do not agree with everything she has to say, but it is her works that helped me begin to concrete my views and then set upon my current path.

Isaac.

OK, I'll quickly summarise Nozick's ideas. He develops what he calls the "entitlement theory of justice". Basically, his idea is that if the initial distribution of property and so forth is just, and each transaction that people engage in is just then the entire system is just. Further, any transaction that is freely entered (i.e. without coercion) is just. Hence he argues for free market capitalism with a minimal state, which serves only to have a police force to enforce contracts, protect people against coercion, fraud, violence, and to maintain a standing army to protect national interests.

On to the criticisms. (I'm going to write these up into an essay at some point, I'll let you know when I've finished if you're interested, but I'll outline them here too.) Firstly, a just initial distribution is impossible because of past historical injustices which have ingrained themselves into the fabric of society. The residual aristocracy is one example in England, more importantly the difficulty of upwards social mobility because of unequal access to education, opportunities, etc. Secondly, the entitlement theory is unstable because after a single unjust transaction the justness of the entire system is compromised; the fruits of an unjust transaction can multiply themselves and eventually affect everyone.

So, to relate to my original list: exploitative (because the children of poor parents have no safety net and are then forced into wage labour whereas the children of rich parents get better education, opportunities and can get better paid), inegalitarian (because it leads to enormous, unjustified differentials in wealth), unfair (it's not your fault that you were born to poor or rich parents for example), undesirable aims (e.g. consumerism, because there is no public planning involved), alienating (because wage labour is alienating), destructive (because it is short-termist, little account is paid to the environment or the like).

Sorry about the poor quality of this post, I had to compose it in a hurry. That should give us a few things to discuss though

So this Nozick has come up with an economic/social theory which can work, in theory, but leads to barbarism, inequality, violence and corruption in reality. Hmm, did he ever meet Mr Karl Marx?

Having said that, no western government pays heed to Marx, but they seem to be clammoring for Nozick's ideas. Oh, when will we learn? Does anyone know if someones come up with a new economic/social idea that pays heed to the Real World?

It's important to distinguish between what Marx thought and Marxism, the latter is the real problem. The communist countries (china, old soviet union) have little relation to anything Marx would have suggested. I'd love to write a guide entry on this, but I'm not sure I'm qualified enough to do it justice. Maybe in a year or two

Just as what Marx said bears little resemblance to Marxism as we have seen it, the Ayn Rand quote above bears little resemblance to Capitalism as it operates.

I am in no way a fan of Ayn Rand by the way. However the quote, I believe, reflected how the Objectivists believed that an ideal capitalist system would work.

I do not recall consumerism being discussed at any great length by Ayn Rand. Her main argument was against what she called 'statism' - basically the interfernce by the government in economic activity.

Long time since I read this stuff though so feel free to correct me.

176645

Ayn Rand did not discuss consumerism... it is a particular interest of mine, but again, not well flushed out.

Isaac.