TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Capitalism, Alone

89 pointsby ubacover 5 years ago

14 comments

yborisover 5 years ago
Branko Milanovic is one of my favorite researchers.<p>His &quot;Elephant Curve&quot; is well-know. His book &quot;The Haves and the Have-Nots&quot; is excellent.<p>I used his dataset to replicate his results to show inequality in an interactive form here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;income-inequality.info" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;income-inequality.info</a>
评论 #21119426 未加载
评论 #21119448 未加载
评论 #21120392 未加载
ameliusover 5 years ago
One dimension not addressed is how individual people join forces as companies and effectively turn against other groups of people.<p>What would happen to the economy if we&#x27;d only allow companies of 1000 people, of 100 people, or perhaps even of 1 person?
评论 #21119792 未加载
评论 #21120114 未加载
评论 #21119651 未加载
评论 #21120059 未加载
评论 #21121172 未加载
评论 #21120338 未加载
评论 #21119882 未加载
Animatsover 5 years ago
I&#x27;ve made this point before on HN, from a slightly different angle. Part of the problem with capitalism is that it&#x27;s a monopoly. From about 1930 to 1980, communism was a serious ideological competitor. Capitalism had to deliver a better standard of living or risk being overturned by vote or revolution. That kept capitalism honest.<p>This was a mainstream position. It was accepted that companies had to do well by their employees and the larger society, or something would be done to them by governments or unions. This was accompanied by boasting about &quot;the American way&quot;, and that boasting was backed by reality. Things we view as acceptable behavior today, such as huge increases in the price of medicines, were not even considered. Mergers to the point of creating monopolies were rarely attempted and usually rejected.<p>But by the 1980s, it was clear that the USSR&#x27;s system just wasn&#x27;t working out. Capitalism had won. That&#x27;s when it started acting like a monopoly, able to set the rules. This started in a big way with the deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s. This was justified by faith in a &quot;free market&quot;.<p>But businesses didn&#x27;t want a free market with many competitors. That keeps prices down and doesn&#x27;t allow enough control. What resulted was repeated mergers, until most industries were dominated by a very few number of companies. This was promoted as desirable.[1] The US now has three big banks, three big drug-store chains, and three big cellular phone companies. None of those industries used to be that centralized.<p>So we&#x27;ve ended up with not only capitalism as a monopoly, but monopoly capitalism.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;peter-thiel-competition-is-for-...</a>
评论 #21118928 未加载
评论 #21118996 未加载
评论 #21119093 未加载
bryanrasmussenover 5 years ago
&quot;The fall of communism, in a strict Marxist view of the world, is an abomination,...&quot;<p>Ok, but would Marxism understand the societies that have called themselves communist as being such - my understanding is the common argument is that they are not truly communist and that no, Marx would not have considered them as such. As this post doesn&#x27;t seem to even address that argument I find it highly suspect, as well argued as it would otherwise appear.
评论 #21118375 未加载
评论 #21119135 未加载
评论 #21118168 未加载
评论 #21118172 未加载
rohanshahover 5 years ago
&quot;Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20th century history... The reason for this failure lies in the fact that Marxism never made a meaningful distinction between standard Marxist schemes regarding the succession of socio-economic formations (what I call the Western Path of Development, WPD) and the evolution of poorer and colonized countries. Classical Marxism never asked seriously whether the WPD is applicable in their case.&quot;<p>In fact this was&#x2F;is an active area of research, namely Post Colonial Theory and Subaltern Studies, which has been heavily criticized and reified with a more classic Marxist analysis since. Post Colonial Theory and the Specter of Capital [1] is perhaps the most accessible such critique.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Postcolonial_Theory_and_the_Specter_of_Capital" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Postcolonial_Theory_and_the_Sp...</a>
stupidcarover 5 years ago
Interesting piece, but there seems to me to be contradiction in its thesis: If people have become so devoted to monetary success alone, how can all these industries that rely on vice exist? Indulging a vice is inherently wasteful. It costs time that could be spent working, and money that could be better spent on self-improvement, or invested or saved.<p>And while we may have accepted greed to the point that there is nothing distasteful about saying one desires a better car or house, or a better paid job, in practice most people do not work day and night, spurning all other opportunities, to make it happen. In practice, most people make decisions every day that place other desires, both traditionally &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot;, above the simple pursuit of more money. So to say that people have internalised capitalism to the exclusion of all else seems incorrect.<p>I have a different take: The development of capitalism and commodification had a mutually reinforcing relationship with the fluidity of labor and the fungibility of goods. Many &quot;traditional&quot; bonds between individuals and communities were really a consequence of local monopolies: There was only one local doctor, shopkeeper, school, etc., and a small pool of potential employers. As such, relationships were inevitably more personal.<p>As technology, law and institutions allowed civilisation to become more mobile, it allowed the possibility of markets in many areas of life where it was previously impossible. This is unavoidable. Even if you personally choose to stand still, the people around you move, meaning your relationships and interactions are nonetheless more transitory and impersonal. In such a world, commodification emerges not as the consequence of internalised capitalist ideology, but because it is the only way to manage constant interactions with strangers.<p>So it is commodification itself that has become internalised, not capitalism. Indeed, most modern society isn&#x27;t arranged around acquiring capital and leveraging it or maximising its value, it&#x27;s about the consumption of things and experiences—driven by materialist, emotional and spiritual instincts—using money as a points system used to ration them out. Most people approach their work in a simple way: they want to earn enough points to meet their basic needs, and indulge their desires to a point of equilibrium between effort and general satisfaction, after which they don&#x27;t work any harder or longer.
评论 #21119234 未加载
评论 #21120959 未加载
antiutopianover 5 years ago
Interesting article. I don&#x27;t agree with a lot of it, one point I think is straightforward to respond to as a Marxist:<p>&quot;Marxist interpretation of the 20th century is much more convincing in both its explanation of World War I (imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism) and fascism (an attempt by the weakened bourgeoise to thwart left-wing revolutions). But Marxist view is entirely powerless to explain 1989, the fall of communist regimes, and hence unable to provide any explanation for the role of communism in global history. The fall of communism, in a strict Marxist view of the world, is an abomination, as inexplicable as if a feudal society having had experienced a bourgeois revolution of rights were suddenly to “regress” and to reimpose serfdom and the tripartite class division. Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20th century history.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s true that the dogma of the official communist parties has no explanation for this, but their theory degenerated and became distorted by the need to justify all the twists and turns of USSR foreign and domestic policy. A genuine Marxist view of the 20th century is that the world revolution began in 1917 in Russia, the &quot;weakest link&quot; of capitalism, but was not able to be completed in the industrial centers. There were a number of reasons for this, for example the growth of reformism in the German SPD, but the result is in reality a failed revolution that won a few outposts and held on to them for 70 years. As a useful example, the Paris Commune is another example of a failed revolution, although it only held out for a few months. It&#x27;s not a Marxist view that a single country can &quot;go socialist&quot; in a world dominated by capitalism. So there was no &quot;regression&quot; back to capitalism.
评论 #21119507 未加载
rlandover 5 years ago
The term capitalism is meaningless now.<p>For example: the Japanese mode of lifetime employment, low salaries, high intangible benefits to employment, an almost exclusively age based hierarchical system is labeled the same thing as the American model, where every individual is a capitalist and a sole individual&#x27;s brand determines their compensation and worth. The two models are called &quot;capitalist&quot;, but they share almost nothing.<p>If everyone is a capitalist, why aren&#x27;t all of the world&#x27;s markets integrated? Why is it so hard to strike a trade deal? Why is trade still organized into ideological blocs? We have always had global trade, but we&#x27;ve never ever had a shared definition of what &quot;a capitalist society&quot; actually means. And then of course the term is used extensively as an ideological cudgel.<p>Saying things like &quot;Capitalism is the only means of production in the world&quot; or &quot;Capitalism is inevitable&quot; has no meaning at all.<p>Do a find and replace with &quot;Human Nature&quot; and this makes a lot more sense.
评论 #21120160 未加载
评论 #21120557 未加载
评论 #21120840 未加载
jeffdavisover 5 years ago
Historically, free markets and private property protections would give rise to capitalism. But it seems like, in modern times, those two same ingredients give rise to something else. This &quot;something else&quot; is partially capitalistic, but the word seems to fit less and less.<p>Traditionally, a capital investment means something like a tire factory. The right factory in the right place gives the owner an advantage until the market changes or a new supplier makes an even better factory.<p>Putting things like software, a set of customer relations, a brand, or other modern business advantages in the same bucket as a tire factory just seems wrong.
评论 #21119691 未加载
RestlessMindover 5 years ago
&gt; Capitalism, in order to expand, needs greed. Greed has been entirely accepted by us.<p>Any system which does not take into account inherent human traits like greed, envy or laziness are bound to fail. That seems one reasons why Capitalism prevailed over Communism, since the former had fewer &quot;wrong assumptions&quot; about the human nature.
microcolonelover 5 years ago
Communism, aloner.<p>There is a cost to socialism, if it ever becomes established, it is state socialism, and state socialism is inherently violent. You are free to associate with more people, to change your relationship with work and consumption, you are <i>rich</i>. Your problem is that you have chosen to be alone, and you blame society for not forcing you to be at least superficially engaged.
评论 #21119689 未加载
goda90over 5 years ago
&gt;The economic system and the system of values are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Our system of values enables hyper-commercialized capitalism to function and expand. It then follows that no change in the economic system can be imagined without a change in the system of values that underpins it, which the system promotes, and with which we are, in our everyday activities, fully comfortable. But to produce such a change in values seems, at present, to be an impossible task. It has been tried before and ended in the most ignominious failure. We are thus locked in capitalism. And in our activities, day in, day out, we support and reinforce it.<p>But can capitalism expand endlessly? It seems to me that capitalism will expand itself to destruction.
评论 #21119126 未加载
评论 #21119020 未加载
lootsauceover 5 years ago
My frustration with the arguments for communism and or socialism vs capitalism is that they are surface arguments on ideological basis. I see socialism and communism as dressed up authoritarianism.<p>A massive hand-over of power to a few in government is not an improvement over capitalism where a much larger group vie for power in a dual reinforcing and opposing system of government and corporate interests. To hand the economy over to the government creates a far more centralized system of power and all the discussion of supposed benefits we could attain by such a system does not nullify the massive threat to freedom by that kind of system.<p>Capitalism is a horrible system but its the least horrible one we know of. A better discussion is how do we get to a better regulatory regime.
评论 #21120286 未加载
lanevorockzover 5 years ago
Capitalism is nothing more than giving everyone power to do whatever they want. The alternative is Communism which is giving a few government elites the power over everyone. Obviously, these extremes can NEVER be implemented so we will forever live in a middle ground between these two.<p>Each country will take steps in the latter and natural selection will find the best middle ground between this two. The big problem here is the Tyrannical aspect of Communism and the tendency for global wars. Want it or not almost every moral war was started on this envy stereotype that radical leftists have. Don&#x27;t forget, Hitler was leader of the National Socialist Party.
评论 #21120473 未加载