I’m a capitalist, but the only conclusion I can arrive at is that neo liberal capitalism makes it impossible to « do the right thing ». What we have is the logical result of the incentives at play
You're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. Concern isn't action but it's a necessary prerequisite for it.
Money and value exist in all economical systems and has existed in some form since immemorial times, that has literally nothing to do with capitalism, an ideology developed over the past 250y or so
Also, our current system grossly undermines the functionality of our market economy. A lack of pricing for negative externalities will essentially always result in the basic concept of market failure.
Run inaccurate pricing of carbon emissions long enough and something bad is bound to happen. Same ordeal with cattle ranching & agriculture to feed it in the Amazon basin: >20% of the 55-million-year-old Amazon rainforest has been degraded for cattle in the past 55 years, partially because consumers don't pay accurate prices and producers don't pay accurate costs.
The unwillingness to merely partially solve obvious market failures via accurate pricing is a catastrophic hypocrisy in those among us who thump their chests about 'free markets' while conflating the concept with modern capitalism.
> Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value
Value for who? Value as determined by who?
> Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'.
You're commenting on it right now. Rivers here are drying out. Glaciers are melting. Forests are burning. How long do you think we can keep going like this?
> Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet.
How long can we keep optimizing for capital self-reproduction at the expense of the base conditions we survive on? The incentive structure does not allow for making the systemic changes required for continued thriving of humanity. What good is it then? How is it anything but a suicide pact?
Who is "us"? Because in capitalism, only people with capital get to decide what has value.
The values of the poor are not reflected. The values of the indigenous are not reflected. The values of the non-capitalist are not reflected. The value of the unborn is not reflected. The value of nature is not reflected.
The glacier doesn't participate in the market and neither does the river. Are they without value?
> As if this never happened before capitalism?
That's correct. Look at the graph I posted above, you'll notice that things weren't always this hot. Before capitalism they sure weren't.
No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most, because the capitalist first and foremost need to provide value to us. I'm not sure what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market? Isn't it evident people assign great value to natural resources. The world is a bit older then 120 years in your graph. There were a lot of natural disasters that wiped quite a lot of living beings from the planet.
> No, every one participates. Ordinary people the most
That is just straight up not true. The tribal elder in the Amazon, who's forest capitalists are burning down never got asked how he defines value. The child not yet born was never asked if it's atmosphere should be heated up for data centers. Neither was the fish in the river or the river itself for that matter.
> what do you mean by rivers, glaciers or others not participating in the market?
I'm not sure what's unclear. The glacier melts as a result of somebody who's not the glacier deciding "value" on a market. In reality, the market doesn't decide value. Value is not price. The market decides power structures and violence distribution. The glacier has a value completely separate from the market, and not derived from it.
How exactly can you ask an unborn child, a river or a glacier what it wants? Did the Yugoslav dictator ask Kosovars what they want before violently oppressing them?
So which economical system enables us to talk to inanimate objects or unborn babies, since you think this is a fault of capitalism?
You have a deep misunderstanding of markets and capitalism!
I honestly don’t know and feel very conflicted about my own ideology. I recognize how broken it is at scale, but also value the personal autonomy, entrepreneurship, nonconformity capitalism promotes.
Though my version of capitalism isn’t the libertarian free market one, libertarianism will always evolve into oligarchy or something fascistic given enough time, it’s just baked into the incentives.
My personal ideology aligns with a managed capitalism, markets are created by an authority that ensures the incentives aligns with its overall goals. Mixed with very liberal social values.
I don’t know if that can survive overtime though. And that would very likely degenerate into something else when under stress.
As I said, I feel conflicted. But I appreciate the question
Perhaps this will help: commerce, free market and capitalism are three different things. Commerce, or trade, has existed for millennia, even among tribes and villages. The free market emerges when there are multiple producers of a good or service, and there is no compulsion upon any producer (from either a third party or another producer) to buy or sell. Capitalism would be when one or more of these producers no longer need to engage in production themselves, but are able to use their surplus savings to employ other producers and then keep for themselves the difference between market price and production cost (including cost of labor). There is nothing inherently wrong with that latter mode of production, except that it never reaches a dynamic equilibrium. Since it's surplus savings that enable the acquisition and direction of other producers (i.e. their labor), and that process leads to additional surpluses, the accumulation of surplus becomes exponential. At some point, the surplus becomes sufficient to apply compulsion on other producers, thus effectively eroding the free market that led to that mode of production in the first place.
I really appreciate the self-reflective answer and I fully understand the conflict.
You seem like a thoughtful dude, kudos.
I fully agree with your assessment about capitalism devolving into either fascism or some sort of feudalism.
I, too, have been struggling with what a more just system could look like.
Personally, some aspects of Yugoslav worker self-management appeal to me.
Basic idea is: Companies compete on a market, but theres no stock market. Companies <= 5 employees can be run however the founders envisioned, past that boundary the board and exec suite are required to be elected by the workers.
Combined with state grants and regulations to direct the overall direction of the economy, I feel like it solves for a lot of issues of shareholder capitalism without swapping them for a whole separate set of Commissariat problems.
Of course, the state itself wasn't democratic in Yugoslavia and it suffered from ethnic tensions that ultimately tore it apart. But we don't need to copy their setup wholesale.
Yugoslavia failed spectacularly economically. People had to smuggle bananas, diapers, coffee and jeans among other goods from the neighboring Italy and Austria. Millions of people (Gastarbeiter) migrated to Germany to be able support their families, because there was no opportunity at home. Inflation was horrendous, people exchanged the local currency to german marks on the same day as the payday, otherwise by the next day it was worth half as much. There was a shortage of gasoline and people sometimes waited years to get a car. But yes the dictator and the red nobility lived very well for sure.
First of all, as already acknowledged above Yugoslavia wasn't perfect - I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. As already mentioned, I'm not arguing for copying their entire setup wholesale - I just find the specific bits I pointed out interesting. Democracy comes was both invented and then repopularized by societies of slave holders, but that doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bath water!
Inflation was horrendous in many countries, including lots of very capitalist ones. Think Weimar Germany for a famous example, or the Latin American debt crises of the 80s and 90s for ones contemporaneous with Yugoslavia (note also the IMF involvement here)
In the case of Yugoslavia, there's a good argument to be made that the root cause were western trade barriers as part of the successful plan to push it into IMF loans that could then be used to dismantle the country.
Anyways, why are we even religitating the 20th century? We need to be looking forward and figuring out a solution to the crisis right in front of us instead of going all cold war again. The forest are burning right now. The rivers are running low right now. Yugoslavia, however you may feel about it, ended decades ago.
You brought the failed state of Yugoslavia as model. I don't have a clue why though. Its economic model certainly doesn't solve any of the existing problems and it would exacerbate them. The forest will burn and rivers will run dry as long as this planet will exist. You are acting as if this is not a naturally occurring phenomena.
A country that can't provide basic goods like bananas and coffee, needs to send millions of it's people to another country so they can survive, represses minorities and political dissidents, has Lukasenko type of dictator for life as president and finally bankrupts and violently disintegrates with a genocide is a definition of a failed state. I do ideologicaly oppose to such a system to be revived, it would be criminal to want that.
What are you even talking about? We were talking about approaches to the climate crisis and you responded by denying it even exists and going on long rants about Lukashenko's bananas?
Could you please be a bit more constructive and solutions-oriented?
The rivers are drying out. I'm sure you saw the news. Can we please not derail this to talk about your pet topic? The Cold War is over, move on. We got our own problems in the 21st century.
This is what Europe has, in one way or another. Europe is a huge spread - sort of semi-functional communism/socialism that France has for example, and it has nothing to do with more capitalistic approach of say Switzerland. Economies and their state show this very well over time.
Every system is potentially broken, there is always room for it to go extreme in some way. The last thing I would want in Europe is for of unhinged corrupted oligarchy that US has - common folks are squeezed like there is no tomorrow, crappy healthcare and expensive education, almost no chance to escape their allotted class within system based on income ('american dream' is not really... realistic to be polite and I could easily use a word 'lie' there, just to keep poor desperate masses in check around the elections or during crises). Maximization of pure income to suffer in literally every single other aspect that makes society a well working society long term - no thank you, we can and do get it better overall.
So one has to be realistic, there is no ideal system, Swiss system of minimal centralized power that is frequently changing hands is, as many things Swiss had come up with, IMHO the most resilient for the future. Any counter-argument to that can be easily dealt with the reality of frequent public votes on all major topics. If you follow their politics a bit its lightyears ahead of typical cesspool US or EU politics had become daily. But one can't have this system (or any other) without underlying population making it work, day by day, out in the streets. Swiss have it working, work actively and hard on preserving it as much as possible, again not something I see elsewhere, certainly not in EU.
Actually private equity have been accumulating stakes quickly in renewables lately. Makes sense. Talk bad of a future tech to own most of the cake early for cheap...
