Poll: Capitalism dying?

[muon2]

Capitalism will die sooner or later, but what replaces it depends on how the death of unskilled labor is handled and how we respond to environmental concerns.

The article goes into depth on four rather extreme outcomes, but lacks discussion as to how the current market economies might evolve to those outcomes. Market economies in practice are tied to the political powers, and the pathway for one to evolve requires thought about how the political structure would react. The author partly recognizes this in his discussion that there were ideas that could have addressed the USSR's failure but for the technical and political obstacles. Even though technology evolves, the political structures may not.

To the OP, technology may alter the traditional role of labor, but one's time remains a fixed commodity, so I expect that some sort of market could remain for that aspect of "labor". Similarly technology might alleviate the scarcity of many things, but things like land will be inherently fixed despite technology. If market economies remain for the management of fixed or scarce resources, then at least some elements of capitalism will survive.

[muon2]

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

[muon2]

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.

I think you did not take my meaning clearly. First of all I'm not speaking of my views, but recognizing what I see as a cogent position, even though it need not be shared by others. Second when I speak of a feature I don't mean that it's a goal to maintain a class of poor people, but a recognition that a system that promotes social and economic mobility must perforce have individuals who are better off than others. Hence it's a feature.

Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?

[muon2]

Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?

I used the second person as a rhetorical device, which was pretty unclear of me. I certainly understand that line of reasoning but it's always struck me as a facetious argument. There's no real political opposition to a limited level of inequality in which doctors have higher living standards than the unemployed but many believe that it's desirable for millions of Americans to be reduced to privation so long as the labor market remains flexible and economic growth is increased.

I reject the premise that "nature" plays a major role in the existence of inequality but I understand your point.

That's an unusual premise to reject. It seems hard to reject the idea that nature provides us with a set of strengths and weaknesses including health, intelligence, artistic, and athletic skills that can result in substantial inequality in outcomes without intervention by human means. There are also acute disruptions from natural sources whether to the person in the form of illness or accident or to personal property from disasters like fire or flood. These natural events can by themselves create substantial inequality that would need to to rectified by human intervention. Thus my contention that nature plays a significant and continuous role in creating inequality. It need not be the only one, but it seems to be an irreducible one.

The challenge for any economic system is then to be able to allocate resources to efficiently react to external events. Those reactions can be market-driven or driven by need to address social needs or some hybrid of both. That doesn't change the fundamental role of external events driving the allocation of resources.