Can We Reframe The Capitalism Debate?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- You know when you’re arguing with someone about some hot political issue, but you’re just shouting past one another?
What if you could integrate your different views into a bigger, more accurate picture?
Faces of X is a series of short videos that integrate different perspectives on divisive "culture war" issues - like abortion, gender, race and capitalism. The videos are deliberately simple - first, they steel-man the different perspectives of each issue, and then attempt to articulate a synthesis. But this synthesis isn’t just "both-sides-ism". Both-sides-ism assumes that all sides are equally relevant or valuable, which is rarely true. Synthesis is the act of thinking beyond a seeming dichotomy and viewing a contentious topic from a higher perspective, like stepping off a 2D page to see the shadow of a square and a circle are both true faces of a 3D cylinder. Only by seeing the full picture, can you hope to find truly viable and lasting solutions.
Anyway, if you enjoyed this video, make sure to watch the other Faces of X videos, and share them with someone you love to argue with: • Faces of X
For the script, discussion questions and more, visit the website: www.facesofx.org
Credits:
Brought to you by: Synthesis Media -
Starring: Liv Boeree
Director: Stephanie Lepp
Script: Stephanie Lepp and Liv Boeree
The line “A tree is worth more dead than alive” - inspired by the words of Daniel Schmachtenberger.
Music
Waltz of the Damned (Solo Piano), by JCar
New Theme 86, by Hays Holladay
Kokobongo, by Alessandro Gugel
Special thanks: Igor Kurganov, Greg Johnstone, Glenn Loury, Jeff Salzman, Carter Phipps, Jim Rutt, Denise Hearn, Nathan Schneider
#Culturewars #Capitalism
Enjoy this kind of dialectic? Watch the full Faces of X series here, and share it with someone you'd love to find synthesis with: www.facesofx.org/t/current-videos
I think you are sooo beautiful!😍 ❤
@@LivBoeree watched them all already.
Stephanie is great!
You say such a system will emerge in the future. So you support ETH 😂 ?
Anyways, such a system exists, and is called Chinese stlye cooperatives.
here's what everyone is missing
the VALUE of a HARD RESET
capitalism only works if you let het banks go bankrupt
how much can governmet (and their institutuions) interfear b4 it becomes annything other than capitalism?
Whenever there's a controversial debate it's always because both sides have a point.
so awesome!! love that you are deconstructing false dichotomies. extremely gratifying, gives me faith in worthwhile futures
Capitalism is initially innovative, but it incentivises only adequate innovation to out do the competition. Since ultimately capitalism rewards ownership, innovation stalls when oligopolies and monopolies emerge.
Even in a capitalist system like the US, most of the innovation occurs at public funded universities, and is often funded by state departments and the military, other than corporations.
The biggest job of a mixed society is to prevent monopolization, and keep innovating.
@@curious_one1156 I agree, except that I think the mix doesn't really need capitalism...
It does need incentive structures and those can be structured in a number of ways, but I think we put an over emphasis on innovation.
It gives us a mentality that we must always be improving when sometimes that just isn't true.
Things can reach a reasonable optimum and also allow for living a more meaningful life when we aren't always striving to do better.
I think it's a balance.
Sometimes the grind is good. Other times meditating by a river is what's needed.
Our society is u usually focused on the one extreme, and then some people reject it and move to the other.
But there's ways for us to expand the realm of possibility and balance things in a variety of ways.
It's just hard when so much of society is already monopolized and control mechanisms shape everything.
And that issue is only increasing until we can stop it
@@MattAngiono It isnt about improvement. It is about something else entirely. And you could call my thinking weird.
Answer the following question: Why should we not destroy human life on Earth right now ?
What !
Yes. Why not ? Because we do not feel like it ? Or because our existence has some incomprehensible reason, and we must find out more about it and fulfil it ?
Innovation is not a means to an end. It is our main output. Everything else is actually mundane, but needs to be managed as part of the human condition.
The more we discover, the more we realise that we can, and we must.
Where will this all lead us ? I do not know. Maybe we will finally be one with God or something, and then the rest will be his burden.
Tell me, if you were in the 18th century, and had to travel internationally, you would be forced to use a risky and slow wind driven ship. If you had the slightest hint that airplanes are possible, would you not prioritize creating them ? Or would you rather continue with "life" ?
We cannot stand still. The Universe is closing in on us. We can end up like the dinasours.
Also, life has a purpose. It isbl currently incomprehensible, but we must find it.
All of this seems too metaphysical in a "pragmatic economics debate", but this is what economics is missing. It is too approximate, and too afraid of judgement, not seeking to fulfill anything. Economics is just the politician's science. They never think about more than just being at the top, and then being still.
This desire for stillness, lack of innovation, is ironically, exactly what leads to communism and monopoly.
@curious_one1156 Well, there's lots I could say here.
This definitely depends on a lot of things about what we believe the purpose of life even is.
Is it to survive and procreate?
Is it to be enjoyed?
Is it to be meaningful?
I personally lean towards the latter, but that could also include the others.
I don't care much about what technology is in my life.
In many ways, I think I'd be better off without much of it.
But it's here so I use it and even depend on it in ways that I wouldn't if I had never had it.
I love being able to travel the world, but if this comes at the expense of the demise of mankind, I wouldn't say it was worth it.
We don't yet know where this leads, but the trends aren't looking great.
I think overall life satisfaction should be one of the most important metrics.
Simply, are we happier with ourselves and is our current state of mind better on the whole?
I don't think it is. Mental health and people taking their own lives show pretty unsettling evidence.
Also the drop in birth rates says something too.
I'm not saying we can't affect this by shifting our values, quite the opposite actually, but that requires some deep work on ourselves.
I'm not suggesting to stand still and just let things happen... not at all.
I think we need massive change.
I'm just saying that basing our economy on growth or progress or innovation isn't really sensible.
It will lead us towards greater depression IMHO.
If we change the economy to something that gets people what we need to live, but then can find balance without trying to constantly increase finding m consumption, we come now in line with our own inner nature and can be at peace with a lot less stuff dragging us down.
That allows us to really explore that purpose in life, because we aren't stuck being a cog in the machine most of our short lives.
I could expand on this more, but I think that gets the most important aspects of it...
Feel free to discuss further if you like
@@MattAngiono I understand. In a way, achieving what you want is a part of the intermediate step in achieving what I want. Satisfied people could prioritize discovery.
My understanding is that we have not yet even explored the "game map" completely, if you can relate. Therefore, it is too early to settle.
I mean innovation from the sense of "discovery", rather than something which just adds an unneccesary convinience. Although, we do not know if it will be as unnecessary in the future.
In more crisp words, both of us want the same thing:
A way of prioritising one innovation over another.
Capitalists and Communists have both basically tried to do this in their own way.
Also, no, the purpose of life is definitely more than just "procreate". How do we know ? Because if we can think this, means it is possible. Further, we can choose not to procreate, which means we have a different purpose ! Maybe something we cannot avoid, hence cannot even concieve.
Anyways, if it were just to procreate, then, logically, we would have no remaining reason to not just end things once and for all, right ? Think about it.
And I agree, society needs to correct. The problems of stagnation (suicide, low birth etc) must be solved through......
......wait for it.......
INNOVATION 😂
Also, without it, all of us will be harmed. So there is no choice, really.
@curious_one1156 maybe it's my failure, but I don't think you quite understand my perspective or what I'm going for.
Of course I think innovation is a good thing in general.
Just not that it's the only thing or the guiding light.
I'm looking at the broader perspective.
Innovation has to actually be linked to a larger goal.
It's can't just be for it's own sake.
This system is based on a bunch of terrible metrics that don't really generate things that make our lives better.
Just take a walk around the average person's home and look how much useless junk they've accumulated.
All that was once called innovation.
These devices we are using, while highly convenient, are almost certainly linked to severe mental illness and many deaths.
Maybe life was better without them.
Or maybe in the near future we will move beyond them to something more balanced and in line with our biology
Love this, thanks for sharing.
The content you put out where you act things out is always super interesting and thoughtful, but also, just fun to watch too 😄
The problem with a "win win" sentiment and "both sides are right" - as a principle (not just this particular topic) - is when one side is simply wrong or has wrong points or simply evil/selfish stances. When you mix wrong and right you absolve the wrong part from responsibility for the sake of "peace in the house". That principle allows wrongdoers to avoid responsibility and keep doing bad things. Sure, sometimes, win win is a good principle to implement. But sometimes, it is the most damaging, especially in the long run.
Thank you Liv for giving us quality and intelligent content!
Marx said capitalism was a necessary prerequisite for socialism as it was necessary to increase the productive forces. As Richard Wolff says, every system is born, evolves, and eventually dies, to make way for the next. Those who enjoy the most power and privilege afforded by the current system will fight tooth and nail to keep it alive well past its expiration date.
@TheViktorofgilead socialism doesn't have to be the next system.
There are better ideas out there that have similar values but also recognize many of the 21st century developments that have changed the frame of reference.
I think we can look outside the dichotomy that puts socialism against capitalism and find something better then both
no one has power in capitalism, only merit. power resides with the state
@@maggot1111666 what?
How does that make any sense?
You're going to have to elaborate.
Wealth is clearly power. You can look at the very legal means even of lobbying in Washington.
Money buys influence in government.
These aren't separate categories.
Capitalism goes hand in hand with government and they influence each other.
And clearly merit has very little to do with who gets wealthy and who has the power.
I won't say that merit has no influence, but it's miniscule
@@maggot1111666 This is utter nonsense, your bosses bosses boss has exponentially more power than you do. Merit is the metric the capitalist uses to decide who will give him the greatest bang for his buck, his most merited employees will never have the power he does.
@@MattAngiono do you think socialism today is the same socialism that was conceived of in the 18th century? Do you think capitalism hasn’t been updated since it was conceived?
I’m skeptical, but do you have any examples I can look into?
"The true is the whole" - G.W. Hegel
I... what even... this thumbnail 🤯 - but in all seriousness yes it's still en vogue to be hardline and double down on narrow tribal values so I anticipate this will be an interesting take. As I've tried to become more reasonable and "centrist" (for lack of a better term) it tends to alienate the fringes.
Hahaha yeah it’s one of the more deranged looks I’ve filmed 😄
Liv is an alien on the fringes... but that's why we all love her so.... 😁👽
@@LivBoeree Corporate Liv is kinda hot NGL. But yeah now that the video is live this is a great take. Enough with the either-or tribalism. Time for more nuanced conversations. Metamodernism ho!
@@DaveShaphippie Liv would be so superior if she wasn't a costume with a felted octopus monster in her hair
@@DaveShap Raised-by-wolves Liv would be way hotter than corporate-bootlicker Liv if that hair wasn't quite so ridiculous 😂 But art-teacher Liv trumps them both!
No no no Liv please not the septum ring🤣🤣 1:01 Sure did enjoy this upload! Ty LIv!!
In an underpopulated world with easy access to what seems to be almost unlimited resources capitalism makes sense. That is not the world we live in.
@@kevinmclain6741 exactly.
It's a psychotic system and will consume itself alive if we don't stop it soon
Enticing title and thumbnail. I'll watch when i have the time. She's a cool gal
I love this format!
Putting capitalism aside I think Liv would look great in a Sin City movie :)
Perfectely balance, I don't know why everytime you where about to explain something I felt like you were about to do a pitch for a commercial 🤣😅
The greatest driver of human prosperity is science. I don't care wether you're a socialist or a capitalist, if you have no idea what a germ is or how electricity works, you're going to have a bad time. Capitalism's supposed "innovation" occurs entirely within the boundaries of what scientists and engineers have discovered and elucidated about nature. BOTH systems are the beneficiaries of an absolutely massive subsidy of human knowledge and understanding created by a system of inquiry that, frankly, couldn't care less about which system it finds itself in, as long as it's free to do it's research. And neither system, quite frankly, does a particularly good job of giving basic research - the REAL driver of innovation and prosperity in the long term - the resources it needs and deserves.
This was like young grace and frankie (costume wise). And it was incredible!
Everyone go watch the other Faces of X videos too! They're just as awesome!
this wasn't steelmanning, this was 15 min wikipedia/reddit research depth with way more effort in the costumes & performance than the arguments. steelmanning requires actual, critical, historical understanding, not slogans & zingers with flashy costumes.
@real_pattern I agree... the point of the video was a good idea, but the arguments weren't really all the great.
Plus capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy.
Those aren't the only systems or ideas out there
Yeah, the conclusion of the video isn't necessarily bad per se, but it seems to be coming from a very surface level understanding of both capitalism and socialism.
@MattAngiono private vs public ownership of the means of production isn't a false dichotomy.
Love the way you framed the argument, great job Liv
When I saw the thumbnail, I was sure these looks of yours were just photoshopped for the thumbnail 😂
As always amazing content of yours.
That "invisible hand" as an unseen limb, can and will do as it wills, and emee understandably cannot see it, but only the continuing, troublesome results. It's time to see what "the hand" is doing, and why. It may need a slap?!
@@Eric-tj3tg it's choking out some b****es.... that much is certain
Innovation isn't the causal effect of capitalism.
It can correlate, but not necessarily cause.
yeah it's disingenous and vacuous talking point of status-quo apologists. almost as bad as christians claiming something like helping the poor is somehow specially & exclusively christian.
Worse, it's an impediment to innovation, if you compared it to a system where there wasn't intellectual property, but instead were the sharing of knowledge and wisdom.
Just imagine if we could actually access all the hidden knowledge that capitalists lock away to intentionally prevent innovation when their competitors are doing it.
It's insane.
Everyone would be so much better off if cooperation was the norm
it is caused by it, commie. You can keep denying , facts won't change
@@MattAngiono Intellectual property is socialism
@rkdeshdeepak4131 what?
You're going to have to be more specific than that
I am with the both/and lady!
I have dreads and im on the side of pink business suit Liv
@@HouseJawn busting stereotypes is the spice of life :)
and there's the problem right there
@@LivBoeree So much flavor now for the taking :)
@@HouseJawn you've been brainwashed and just want to look like you haven't....
Rich dress like the poor because they don't want to be recognized for their terrible dehumanizing perspective
Pink business suit Liv is wrong
Capitalism (unlike socialism) doesn't try to tell you answers to moral questions (i.e. "what should/ought I do?"), only what is profitable to do. Asking capitalism a moral question is like asking mathematics to explain love.
Companies are duty bound (and ought to be) to pursue profits for shareholders, so if you want them to do something morally good make it in their financial interest to do so. It's that simple - that's how you constrain capitalism to do good. Have the cost of doing the "wrong" thing higher than the costs of doing the "right" thing. Where this all falls apart is the left/right divide on what the "right" and "wrong" things are, and whomever is in power at the time not gaining consensus on the "right/wrong" things to constrain capitalism towards/away from.
You start by wrong commie. Capitalism just like socialism is a moral system. It very much does tell what one ought to do, particular , you not violate property rights.
@SingleMaltGamer capitalism does though.
It's whole premise is based on a moral judgement that profit is the most important metric.
I agree that most other social issues are maleable in capitalism, like how corporations are suddenly now all woke.
But to think that driving the system with profit and growth isn't of moral consideration isn't really accurate
@@MattAngionoprofits are not only needed for businesses but also philanthropy And sustainability. If you want to boost a certain cause and make it Your mission. You can't just will it into existence. You need funds .This fundamentally makes the world a better place by letting people invest in what they think will make the world a better place. I think if everybody adopted socialism society would literally just crumble from lack of effort.
@@MattAngiono No, it doesn't. Capitalism only tells you if something is profitable or not, or tells you the demand for something, it doesn't tell you if it's morally good to do so. It's like measuring height: I can tell you if someone is taller or shorter, but that says nothing about the moral value of the person.
The good capitalism does is not by design. It's the result of humans acting in their self-interest, on average most people act mostly morally most of the time. That's the "invisible hand" Adam Smith spoke of.
If doing something bad is profitable, you have to make it not-profitable or the behaviour will continue. It really is that simple.
@bmo14lax that's such a crazy way to look at it.
You need philanthropy and sustainability BECAUSE of issues mostly created by capitalism.
Humanity sustained itself for 200,000 years before capitalism existed.
It's only because of the growth mentality that the system is based on that we even had to create that word.
The native Americans didn't talk about devoting funds to sustainability because they lived sustainable lifestyles.
It's just like someone brainwashed by capitalists to come with things that solved the issues that capitalism creates and exacerbates and calls those benefits of said system.
The idea that people only do things because of money is also the sign of brainwashing.
Have you seriously never done anything for yourself that wasn't motivated by money?
Does your family pay each other for every interaction you have?
Do you pay your friends every time they do you a favor?
Socialism isn't even what I advocate, but that's a dumb thing to say.
It's exactly what your owners want you to think.
Keep serving your master if you so choose.
I would rather help free humanity from this oppressive system
Liv, in my opinion you're a very smart person and you got some point here.
Please go on with your content.
I don't know if you'll have significant influence, but it's worth to try and make people think about some topics.
Yes, yes, THIS!! This all day long ❤
Great stuff! Steph did a good job with this!
she really did
It always rains on that one side of the house. How odd...
Thank you so much. Also, love the looks.
Brilliant dialog with yourself Liv! I thin that third Liv should have been someone from the future come back to sort us all out....
Funny enough, looking through your window, we get a glipse of un-capped capitalism. Europe was a good middleground (before lobbying got in).
That chess-playing hobo is quite accurately criticising capitalism. But I feel her points don't need to be pointing towards a large scale overhaul. IMHO, any system would work as long as we have an organically evolving sense of ethics strongly associated with it (or enforced in it?).
@abhijeet1in but we don't have that do we?
I try to discuss the ethics regularly and most people don't have the time to even consider them.
Plus, the pro capitalist ethical topics are always drowning out anything that is critical of it.
We only have so much mental space to debate ethical concerns.
Think about wokeness... corporations are now woke.
They spend all this time and money moralizing things that have no effect on their profit seeking ability
I love this take. I've heard it said (by Jeremy Rifkin?) that capitalism is so successful, it will destroy itself (because automation will mean that we won't need labor, and the system will crumble). Personally, I'm rooting for that, but we do have to manage the transition well.
@@davegrundgeiger9063 we need to have another system in place if we don't want massive poverty and death to come from the collapse.
I suggest a resource based economy
More of these on other topics. Please please thank you.
See the pinned comment...
There's 3 others on other channels
Perhaps governments should focus solely on pricing unpriced externalities and then let capitalism run.
Channeling Aristotle in a technicolour dreamcoat
Well done @LiveBoeree, Lord Schmachtenberger would be proud
There's the size of the pie and the way it's distributed, but there is a third concern: Whether the pie is made of shit.
You can use the same analogy for swimming pools and pee, if you like.
You get the idea, I hope.
Engaging, insightful and interesting!
The line "a tree is worth more dead than alive" originates from Daniel Schmachtenberger. Maybe you can mention him in your credits / thanks too :) 1:53
Done :)
Chinese style cooperatives are better than both.
Elon Musk actually pointed towards the solution. The industry itself is extremely capable of problem solving, its just a matter of incentive. If you make it so that it becomes more expensive for the industry to pollute....the industry will solve the problem itself. The only thing missing is politicians with a backbone.
Sure, but the reason the politicians struggle to find a backbone is because of their corporate puppetmasters wielding too much power over them.
@tzimiable well, they are bought out.
Lobbying is legalized bribery and it's rampant.
I think the problem goes deeper though.
Using profit incentives isn't really the most efficient way of doing things.
It's actually quite counter productive.
Between intellectual property and the way we waste resources on useless gimmicks, or the fact that most rich people aren't even all that happy, I think it's safe to say there's a lot more wrong with this system than the politicians (who also suck)
Fun vid, I think you're on to something 🙏❤️
Capitalism optimizes for capital, money well. Its problem is what is profitable with what we actually value most.
Socialism in Marxist theory is a transitional system in which production means/companies have been nationalized and controlled by the democracy. It doesn't optimize for a single thing, equality. If anything it optimizes for democracy, or at least improves it from capitalism. The thing about effeciency is, in theory the people could vote to just let the companies run as they would, but share the profits instead of letting the previous owners have the profits by themselves.
In my opinion this video is an oversimplification to a gross degree, and doesn't really handle alternatives to capitalism seriously.
I agree with the message that, even if you want to keep capitalism, critiquing it is still important. And taking more steps to align its goal (profit) with human value would be very valuable.
"Socialism in Marxist theory is a transitional system" Correct. Transitional towards the utopia which "optimizes for democracy" - utopia that can never ever exist.
Thesis > antithesis > synthesis.
cool series! thanks for sharing it, have followed and have enjoyed the other vids too
Strawman. Good video Liv
good shit!
Scandinavia seems to know how to run an economy. They call it, “Compassionate Capitalism.”
Really Norway calls it "having a lot of oil then investing it in the stock market via the SWF"
@@PizzaLord Norway is one of eight regional territories considered part of Scandinavia depending on who you’re speaking with. They average a pretty high per capita, standard of living, solid green tech policies, universal healthcare system, and overall well being.
Every nation has its resources, commodities, and GDP. My point is Scandinavian countries seem to know how to share their wealth rather well and ensure their citizens are taken care of. They do this better than pretty much any other nation with the exception of Switzerland and perhaps Costa Rica. Otherwise, I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
@OneRudeBoy I think those things are completely contradictory.
Capitalistic mentality means striving for things that require suspending your compassion about all the losers in the system.
A compassionate system won't be about accumulating capital at all.
It will be about providing quality of life to everyone and making sure survival needs are met, but also giving us the access to things we need to make ourselves happy
@@MattAngiono Have you researched, “Compassionate Capitalism?” It’s not pure capitalism, through colonialism, or imperialism. It looks after its citizens, both winners and the unfortunate. It doesn't fit the traditional definition of, “Capitalism.” Perhaps, they should have chosen a different nomenclature, so it’s not confused.
You should do "The faces of Corporatism"
One is really friendly and pretentious and wants you to do the motivational workshops and listen to corporate techhouse
The other is literally the devil
If both sides are RIGHT.... then there is nothing left.... especially left of center.
@@govcorpwatch what is left?
Does anyone even know anymore?
The problem with comingling Socialism and Capitalism is you get a Nanny government that always thinks they know what's best for you better than you do! If you tired of your current partner give me a ring.
UBI we need what I just said!
That's socialism
Your niece is socialism, don’t get me started on your grandpa 🫄🏻
Gorgeous, funny, brilliant!
cant wait!
Political ideology has become modern day religion, where vagueness supports every argument.
All nations are capitalist, but the stages vary.
Basically its similar to the transgender issue on a global scale, and its used to justify ones system. Even if the same system has tipped past justification.
In old days (somewhere in sixties or seventies) Sakharov believed that both socialism and capitalism will evolve in better, futuristic sci-fi order and opposition between them will magically disappear. He died in 1989/90 before a historic speech about socialism with human face expected by all of Soviet Union...and that was the end of Perestroika. Seen from now socialism and capitalism are evolving in digital-concentration-camp with AI done in obviously wrong but very effective way...and we need a new declaration of human digital rights to protect freedom... otherwise mankind is history...
While i kind of disagree video was great
And I think we all know Free Market Harpy is gonna be best in the sack!
Will Georgism be mentioned?
No, Land communism should be rejected outright.
I love that you're doing this, and I think we definitely need to avoid the team based mentality, but I think we've fallen into a false dichotomy here.
Socialism is NOT the only alternative to capitalism.
Nor is it an effective way of dealing with some of the issues that the "socialist" Liv is presenting.
This is also why the middle ground character doesn't really make sense if we want to survive this coming century.
There are also a lot of holes in the pro capitalist side of the argument that aren't really partial truths but just exaggerations or outright lies.
I don't think a 5 minute video drawing this as something we need to just compromise on is effective at all.
Capitalism will eat itself alive.
That much is certain.
No amount of innovation or wealth creation can matter if the end result is game over.
Imagine the innovation that could occur if we weren't in competition but instead were in collaboration with each other.
If new ventures have access to the whole of human knowledge (minus certain things that posed existential risks), we could innovate so much more.
The wrong thinking is that we innovate purely for selfish reasons and to make profit.
Profit doesn't signal benefits to humanity.
It's so far removed from that.
There's all the externalities that come with it, and profit might not even be generated by most companies if it weren't for this big lie at the center.
We need to ACCURATELY account for the negative effects of all this activity on the environment, on our health, on our minds.... that stuff adds up fast.
Right now, between clean up ventures, Healthcare, therapy, etc, we actively BOOST the GDP by having these completely negative outcomes that necessitate care and repair.
Totally illogical!
I could literally speak for hours about this, but I'll spare a longer comment.
You should really look outside the dichotomy at a system that isn't just a mix of socialism and capitalism, but is a new idea altogether.
Are you familiar with a resource based economy?
That seems like a much more logical path and can escape so much of the debate taking place here.
Socialism and communism are just too feared by so many, and they don't even solve the main issues that capitalism has created.
Personally i think those systems could be much better, but if they still suffer much of the same flawed values and logic, what's the point?
We want human dignity to be restored. We want a healthy planet.
We want cooperation and the right to compete only when we choose, not as a requirement to survive.
We want to work less and achieve more, and we want a society where equality is truly achievable for most.
By lending any support even as a compromise, to capitalism, we make most of those things impossible.
We need to reject, no matter what apparent benefits it gave us in the past.
Capitalism in the age of super intelligence and so much pervasive digital tech will lead to even worse circumstances for most.
It's techno feudalism already, if we really think about it.
The inequality is only getting worse, too.
I hope this gives you some things to think about.
I'd really appreciate if we can take this all seriously.
Likely, our own survival will depend on moving past this. And not by just slightly reducing its impact.
I don't think we can just eradicate it overnight, but a totally new system is needed and we must start building it NOW while we still can.
Once the full swing of techno feudalism is entrenched it may become impossible to ever replace it until collapse.
We have a short widow IMHO.
Cheers, thanks again for at least talking about this topic
I appreciate your wide view and the time you have dedicated to this comments section. I agree with a need for entirely new systems. The properties of this system must be resource based and incentivise different behaviours. These will be radical and also subtle. Also, since any new system will also depend on distributed tech, we must also consider the values embedded in the technology.
imo, it doesn't matter what new systems are put in place, if they depend on existing lending patterns and profit-oriented goals, they will all suffer the same fate - commodification, exploitation and subjugation to market forces, leading to centralisation of control and impact-blindness. My feeling is that people are generally predisposed to laziness and greed and that the economy solves for the first, but exacerbates the second. It is, after all, only economical in terms of human effort, not resources.
You seem to have the drive and nous for the task, but I didn't see you put forward any suggestions. I have a couple of ideas: 1) we re-examine supply and demand and introduce a unit of account for surplus/waste and 2) we design greed-resistant systems, with an appreciation that people will always aim to exploit the system for their own benefit. "Capitalism" might be damaging, but it is also predictable.
I have a prototype in mind. You or anyone else want to help me build it?
@@wholebodysneeze what a breath of fresh air to hear someone else who recognizes what has been glaringly obvious to me for most of my adult life.
Living in this world sometimes feels like being trapped in a think smog where it's so hard to see outside our immediate assumptions or just breathe calmly.
You raise plenty of important facts and I do think it's important to recognize human predisposition to undesirable modes.
I fall for it plenty.
I can be lazy or greedy like anyone else.
It's like banality of evil... we are all capable of doing wrong based on our circumstances.
This is why it's so imperative to take a systems based approach.
I'm a big fan of the resource based economy as a basic framework, though i'm sure there would need to be variations for different communities.
But you already pointed out some key requirements:
Accurate understanding of available resources. Accounting of externalities.
Incentive structures based on the knowledge of human predisposition and adaptability.
Throw in a good amount of ancient wisdom from native cultures that survived 200,000 years before civilization took root.
I'm sure there's plenty I'm leaving out at the moment too...
Would be more than happy to hear about what ideas you have and discuss them further!
If I can be of help, that could potentially be cool too!
@@MattAngiono Thanks for such a positive response. I also sometimes feel that I am screaming into the void. Where to begin...
I'm definitely more prone to laziness than greed, but have been known to enjoy both, sometimes at the same time... and I certainly consider them tendencies, rather than 'human nature', which I don't think is one thing. As you point out, we are inescapably tied to our context in what we think, say and do. Generally i try to think in terms of process and the iterative unfolding of patterns.
More broadly, I see habitual patterns as central to all life. We iteratively learn, grow etc. and society reflects these patterns. We each engage with a monetary system each day, so of course it is the dominant mode. Once cannot declare war on a habit, just as one cannot "solve" climate change. It's nothing new to say that we need different behaviours, but I see little evidence of anyone even trialling new processes.
I should add, I don't have 'the answer' and I don't believe there is 'an answer' - I seem to only get more pluralistic with age - but I think we need to start building processes (algorithms) that measure, store and disburse representative value in new ways. In addition, since we are deliberately trying to design complex systems, we must acknowledge that we cannot know how they work without actually testing them and observing their emergent characteristics.
A key element, imo, is the notion of diminishing returns. This is expressed everywhere in nature through biomarkers that inhibit growth or some other action in the plant or animal. Plants grow exponentially, until they meet shade, whence they slow down. So our designed systems must contain expansive and inhibitory aspects. This does not fit well with "market thinking".
Getting to tech, i think distributed ledgers (but not crypto in its current form) are a key piece of the puzzle, and i propose computation as the test resource to track and manage. As you can imagine, the crypto space is traumatic to work in (almost ubiquitous greed) but i see a chance to build something meaningful. To be clear, such a project cannot (and should not) make me wealthy, if there is "exit liquidity" built into the system, it has already failed.
I'll stop now, but you can find some more info about this proposal on X, under 'Delta_ICP'. Needless to say it is a work in progress
@@wholebodysneeze hey, meant to get back to you, but got lost in other things the last few days.
I agree about most all of that.
Observing the way nature regulates different processes should have been central to our thinking all along, but the profit driven, growth based mindset keeps us living in an illusion.
The shade example is sufficient.
It seems that previous economists at least has some respect for this when they taxed the rich at much much higher percentages, but because the underlying values weren't there, this all eventually got flipped on its head, to now where the richest most exploitative entities can pay no tax and have no regulation.
But I know you can see that, so I don't need to bother explaining.
Great point about iterative processes.
No one has the answers entirely because we are human and highly adaptable and unpredictable.
As the main agents in the system, at least at the moment, we don't invite m know just how people will react.
People often want more free time, but then get it and don't know what to do with themselves.
How billions will cope with this as AI and robotics replace almost all jobs is unknown.
While I can imagine a beautiful world coming from that, I can also imagine many ways for it to go wrong.
I know that most people I know could find plenty of productive ways to contribute to a better society if given the chance.
But almost none of us are yet thinking that way.
We are still very much a herd like species and think like those around us.
In this regard I often feel like an anomaly, but just know that it's because the system can't continue like this.
If I thought it could, I might just seek to fit in.
But it can't, so trying to just operate within it seems crazy.
@@wholebodysneeze I'm open to many new ideas about systems, but also tend to be cautious when it comes to the digital space.
I have seen both the potential benefit and extreme horror that blockchain could bring with it.
On one hand, it seems like the perfect tech to combine with AI for creating distributing mechanisms and accounting. Between these, it seems we could achieve far better outcomes than any invisible hand ever did.
With the predictive capability we could also figure out needs of people as well as desires much better.
But that's also a slippery slope into manipulation.
Still, the potential for solving most areas of accounting is there.
On the other hand, having digital identities that are associated with permanent digital fingerprints that could follow us for life into every aspect of life is terrifying.
Especially with super intelligent computers that can shape and judge so much about us.
I could go on with this risk analysis, but you probably get it already.
The point for me that this drives home is that values and ethics are central.
Like you mentioned, there can't be a profit mechanism involved or it WILL be gamed, likely by something more intelligent than any of us.
We have to have a solid basis of ethics built in from the ground up.
We need to know exactly what goals we are trying to achieve and also what limits MUST be adhered to.
We don't want any system that can take what little freedoms we have left and shrink them even more.
I think we'll have to have a built in value that provides anyone who wants to largely exist outside the system, living mostly in nature or even in a virtual reality game, to do so.
We can't have the mentality we have now that everyone has to pay their way when there's just no need for billions of us to be working at this all the time.
I think some work can be divided up, so whoever is working does less, but there will still be billions who have "use" to the system and so we have to make sure they don't feel or become "useless"
Not that I'm a fan of his, but Yuval Noah Harari has described this process and it's truly dystopic.
But when a lot less of us are working, I won't be surprised if our values change naturally and the repulsion to handouts goes away.
We will ask most likely live off of "handouts" in a truly successful system leaving room for us to make art and music and be good humans to each other.
Play well once again become a major mode of life.
Not that I want us to become dependent children, but things will clearly have to look very different.
I imagine this will also have to mean much more localized production but also greater community interaction, based on the future libraries we build for access to many things...
I think of these a lot like current libraries, but carrying just about anything we might need or use occasionally.
Ease of access will become the new ownership.
Who knows the exact structure but the possibility isn't hard to imagine.
I can look around my house now and see so many things just sitting there. Things that are perfectly usable, and I'm sure someone out there would want to make use of them in a second.
Similarly, there's things I'd use right now if I had the access, and I'm sure there are hundreds just sitting in someone else's home.
The ownership paradigm means we create so much wasted stuff.
An access paradigm would mean everything gets used and things are much more available, though it might take longer to access them if they were overly popular.
Still that sounds like a much happier life to me.
Just the space in my own mind and home that it could free up...
If only those three divergent groups of people could discuss and get along as well in reality as they do when they are all Liv. 😉
haha indeed. Multiple personality videos FTW
This is the way
capitalism has its problems but it SOLVES them through innovation!
well, it solves the problems that matter to the bottom line, yes. as long as the obscenely unequal concentration of accumulated wealth isn't significantly threatened, there's no incentive to solve any problem that's a public interest, maybe as a side effect if it somehow can be twisted and manipulated into creating new desires and avenues for more exploitation.
Before blaming capitalism check if might be a problem of central planning; aka higher ups being intentionally or unintentionally sheltered from having all the information giving orders to workers who feel pressured to do it even when they know it's a bad idea. A problem that gets even worse when governments pass a bad or imperfect law telling companies have to behave, making bad orders even less possible to disobey. Any time instructions are given by someone who isn't at the location of the work being done, the disconnect of the obvious consequences to wether or not the work should continue creates an inheriently psychopathic system
@@oldsoul3539 I blame capitalism because of faulty logic.
It's a systems based approach.
There's no central planning needed to have wealth and power concentrate.
That's a basic byproduct of driving a system on profit and growth.
@oldsoul3539 I think the idea of capitalism itself is what's psychopathic.
I take this from a psychology professor actually.
Dr Sam Vaknin.
You should look up his talks about what it is and why it's crazy for us to base an economy on this logic.
Even if you disagree, I guarantee you'll learn a lot from him
@@MattAngiono Capitalism can be summed up as "people are free to do as they want, if you want them to work you have to make an offer that they can freely choose to accept or reject." This is in opposition to the dictatatorship inherent in most other systems of "the people are our property and so owe us work, they should be punished if they don't work."
@oldsoul3539 mind = blown!
Where do you get such a simplistic idea if not from your capitalist overlords?
For one, that's not even close to the actual definition of the term, and two, it's a complete exaggeration of what happens in practice.
Wealth is power in the current world.
Not the only form of power, but a huge one.
Wealth can buy you political influence and even get you into office.
Almost every candidate that wins an election is the one who spends the most money. Look it up.
So, what is the wealth distribution in our current society?
Is the power even distributed?
Clearly it's not.
In fact, it's more stratified than it was during feudalism.
Add digital technology on top of that, with modern systems of control, and you can see that we already have dictators, even if not by name.
The system allows the people in power to act as if they are dictators, but they don't have to do it overtly.
They dictate your life COVERTLY.
If you call that freedom, then fine, remain asleep and enjoy your slavery to them.
Having a choice between this job or that job isn't freedom.
Freedom is the ability to live outside the system of oppression and none of us can really achieve that except in very rare circumstances.
The systems of control reach to almost every corner of the globe.
They only let you reject the system to the extent that you don't affect their bottom line.
Just look at what the American empire does to affect any country who tries to take even a little bit more socialist approach.
They won't allow it.
They have overgrown dozens of governments for the simple audacity to try to do things outside the capitalist system. Just look up the history of South America over the past century.
Please explain to me how that is freedom?
@oldsoul3539 you could more accurately sum up the system as "a few people are free to violently threaten the rest of humanity and steal the vast majority of the resources for themselves and their cronies, while maintaining an illusion that everyone is free to choose their enslavement from a limited set of options. You are also free to use the wealth gained to influence the government and systems of control, and to brainwash the populace into willful compliance. This includes legalizing and monopolizing the use of force and calling it justice......."
I could elaborate more, but you see where this is going I hope
Well said
Uhhmm. ?
Social democracy! What a brilliant new idea!
How did you clone yourself? And how did you get all three of you in the same room at once?! ;)
Thanks for the video!
A balanced system is definitely needed
Balance is important for most things in life, tbh
Luckily, we humans excel at adapting/change...it's just finding the motivation to do so :)
♥ it! Out with the kakistocracy, in with the tech-empowered sapiocracy! The data-driven party of tempered nuance!
Moloch is immortal.
Hippie does not have a engament ring meanwhile capitalist has. Liv is bias.
Love it! 💜
Thank you! 😎
Ok, Americans have to learn that somehow, I guess.
0:33 actually, that's not true, look at how much research is government funded, businesses mostly do the development part of R&D.
The way I always say: capitalism is a great engine for the economy, but it shouldn't be running the government. Government should make the guide rails for capitalism.
I honestly think the pretty one made her point best.
Capitalism is King baby, socially speaking, it's even fair and balanced. Somebody's thinking in the very short-term may think not, but if you think of a country's future, there's no better option. Usually people who make these wild claims against capitalism are thinking in the very short term 50 to 100 years maybe. I think this needs to change and people need to really widen their scope of time if they think they want to alter a system that's been in place for hundreds of years.
" socially speaking " capitalism has zero social environments. It's all box on wheels driving to a dumb table. Most people have zero to 2 real friends. Theirs nowhere to hangout. It's all streets; isolated.
Literally the exact opposite.
Capitalism has zero long term plans and prioritizes short term profits over anything beneficial in the long term.
You really don't know what you're talking about here
@@MattAngiono 😂😂😂 my man We have different opinions but you're making me Have a great laugh. Keep denying that capitalism wins everytime though 😂
@@bmo14lax I deny it because that's a fact.
Again, laughing only shows you're mentally incapable of comprehending what's outside your understanding.
You seem like a person with no desire to learn and grow.
Sorry.
That must suck tremendously
@bmo14lax laugh away.
That's only the sign of mental incompetence.
You fail to engage any real discussion and so you have to cope with a bunch of emojis
Love it!
You need a bodyguard from now on.
Capitalism emerged ‘from the discovery of fossil fuels’. Peak oil supply circa 2012.
factories in 1750s.
Let’s gooo
It's called Star Trek ;)
Yeah, F money altogether! 👍
This video gives me nothing to get angry about. That makes me so angry!
Some thoughts from a Political Theory GTA. Outside of degrowth orientated movements, the benefits brought by the productive capacity of Capitalism aren't really in contention among most wings of Socialism. Marx himself wrote at great length about the material and subsequent social benefits of the industrialism facilitated by capitalist economics. Your interlocutors speak primarily to issues of production, and also highlight the question of what kinds of goods/services are best provided via market systems. However, I think the dialectic would benefit from tackling the issue of ownership more explicitly, especially ownership of these future means of production, rather than just wealth inequality more abstractly. Especially as proletarian ownership of the means of production isn't synonymous with State ownership, albeit this was certainly the pattern of most 20th century Socialist Nation State projects from Lenin onward.
I think part of the problem is that it's "dialectic" at all.
I think a false dichotomy has been assumed when we look at capitalism vs socialism.
Both of these systems have issues with the exploitation of the ecosystem, even if one is far better for most humans and equality.
I think we need to look outside the box and avoid the dialectical debate altogether.
Capitalism is on a crash course to extinction, for sure.
But I'm not sure that just better distributing wealth is the only answer.
It's definitely crucial to the solution, but it can't stop there.
A lot of these debates get caught into they being the main focus.
While I'm not necessarily a degrowth person, I do think the growth oriented paradigm is toxic and suicidal
@@MattAngiono "even if one is far better for most humans and equality." That being capitalism, right? Because Equality is the exact polar opposite of Equity.
"isn't synonymous with State ownership," The reason why it is, is because that is the only way to implement it in practice. Which explains why it was a pattern for every "project" that tried to do so. Which means "tackling the issue of ownership" is neccessarily synonymous with oppression of the people.
@rauminen4167 No capitalism is not far better, though we can't really compare because it dominates the world.
Capitalism is full of internal contradictions that are driving it towards self-destruction.
The question is how much of an ecosystem and survivable planet will left afterward.
It has no regard for equality or equity.
Clearly there is a class of people that have more power, more aren't seen equally under the law, meaning it doesn't treat people fairly nor equally.
That's obvious.
Equality and equity are not opposites.
They overlap in several ways.
@@MattAngiono "because it dominates the world" That, right there is one of the ways to know it's far better.
"full of internal contradictions" Or, alternatively, thinking that it's full of contradictions just proves you don't understand it so you think that it is driven towards self-destruction.
"how much of an ecosystem and survivable planet" The planet will be fine. The ecosystem survived much worse than this, there's already bacteria that's evolved to eat plastic. Worms that adapted to carry this bacteria in their stomach. Even a 1000 years of nuclear winter would just be a blink of an eye, just another episode in a long list of even worse episodes. The only thing we need to worry about is humanity.
"It has no regard for equality or equity." Those are polar opposites though. You can only have one of the two. And you can only have equality in capitalism. "aren't seen equally under the law," That would be corruption - which capitalism has built in systems to fight based on merit.
Socialism on the other hand is founded on corruption, which is why introducing more and more socialist policies breeds more and more corruption that we can see today.
"are not opposites. They overlap in several ways."
Do they though? How? How is treating people equally and discriminating against people based on the whims of an oppressor overlap?
Liv, do you think at least one of them will get married?
This is pretty cute and holesome
Read The Use of knowledge in society by Hayek.
this video is more biased than i am;
unless i misinterpreted it;
twisting it's meaning(s) into pretzel logic;
i do that in my spare time;
Beautiful!
Not to mention you fundamentally could not have a "functional socialist society" without it first being capitalistic In nature And structure to build.
That's actually something Marx discusses and isn't really a gotcha.
Capitalism was a step in history that got us out of feudalism.
But guess what?
It's already reverted back into feudalism.
Techno feudalism.
Inequality now is worse than before capitalism.
Great system! 🤪
There's also no reason to think socialism is the only alternative.
There's many other ideas that could provide far better for the people
@@MattAngiono no you live participate in the capitalist society. Lol, Just like anybody else, You take advantage of the system just like we all do to benefit each other, then you rag on it 😂
Capitalism is dying all over the world due to technology permanently destroying the need for labour. AI and robotics will ensure that most people won't be able to work for a 9.00 to 5.00 in the future. Capitalism like any other system has a lifespan, and it's rapidly coming to an end. What comes next ? My guess is that a stop gap measure like a UBI will be introduced until they work out what to transition to. The question is can they peacefully transition to a new workable model, or will the powers to be resist changes because they don't want to lose their power. Listening to the talking Financial heads about how a UBI is bad is like listening to Lords and Barons in Medieval times say giving the peasants land rights is bad.
@elliskaranikolaou2550 I agree and think that what you say is evidence that the system is already here...
Techno feudalism!
We are just learning that we are all peasants and there will be fewer lords than we can imagine.
We better build something with far better values ourselves, before it's too late.
They are definitely working hard to entrench their power and make this impossible
Smartypants.
Just need to take the money out of the hands of government. Force governments to justify their existence and any spending. No more money printing to fund endless wars, monopolies, media propaganda, etc. The only way to have prosperity is via the free and open market without the capital controls our "capitalist" systems have right now.
We can't forcebly take the money out of the hands of government but by some sly round-about way introduce something they can't stop...
Bitcoin
"Hi. Nice! Very good. At least the three characters, don't lose their sense of humor. I've not lost mine ether. Great #Short 'Liv Boeree.' Well done.";) 😎🤘👍🌟👆🤟🌐☮🎭🔥🚀#FacesOfX ''Preservation earth.' 😜🙏
Except those criticizing capitalism are often calling for a communist ontology
@@MatrixMav not necessarily.
The problem is that there's a false dichotomy where people make this assumption.
I don't advocate communism is the solution, but I'm constantly pointing out that capitalism is psychotic
@@MattAngiono I said often. Not always.
Pure capitalism is the ability to own private property and exchange property freely. Fiat currency, printed at the whim of a parasitic elite is psychotic though
@MatrixMav private property, differing from PERSONAL property, is the heart of exploitation.
By allowing individual entities infinite power to grow and control others, you get the huge problems with poverty and debt that we are today, as well as the slavery most of us can't see.
We've been brainwashed into supporting this system.
We need to wake up from the matrix and look outside the box.
This doesn't mean you couldn't own things.
It just means we'd stop the exploitation of people
You really didnt address some more weight arguments:
a) Capitalism isn't merely an economic choice but something that developed alongside the rise and progress of civilization throughout history, to the extent that we don't even know if any other system was truly viable.
b) Again, capitalism isn't a choice but something that arises from human nature itself, characterized by individualism, egoism, and competition, traits that describe each developed mammal.
c) Since it's a natural psychological force, we cannot assume that a transition to another theoretical model could happen without imposing violence on people.
d) Men who are not in the top 5-10% of attractiveness cannot achieve partners if they cannot freely compete to excel in other areas, so female hypergamy plays a significant role in this overall picture.
I don't think any of those are correct.
There was a time and place for capitalism, but that has passed.
If we don't get beyond it, it will take down most of civilization when it crashes.
And if you look at the debt crisis, you'll see that's coming soon.
The real question you need to look at though, is your kind the ecosystem can handle such growth.
Hint: it's not much longer
@@MattAngiono There is no sense of "we". The dominant sense is "self", for many reasons. Female hypergamy, survivor instinct and personal needs (and fear) being the main. You can look and find the better argument existing on the world, you will not be able to turn the vast majority of people against their priorities, which is themselves, and if you can not do what would be needed, this strategy is lose of time.
@Calbac-Senbreak I'm not asking for people to go against their interests.
Quite the opposite.
I'm trying to extend the awareness around the effects of the choices we make and how those lead to ruin.
Hypergamy clearly doesn't lead to "better" outcomes even if it gives a feeling of short-term gains in wealth.
Divorce rates still rising indicate we've taken the wrong path with relationships, for a number of reasons.
Birth rates are also showing signs of poor quality of life, leading to fewer children.
I didn't argue to ignore self-interest.
We are "selves," but we are also part of a society.
Everything about who we are is shaped by society and culture.
We can't escape it.
My argument is to look at the system and the effects it has on the selves within it, especially in the long term.
Right now, those effects are terrible.
Mental illness rates are a clear indication of this, amongst plenty of other things.
These show negative trajectories, too, so they are getting worse.
The irony is that acting in one's own self-interest in time comes to bite everyone in the rear, including you.
That isn't obvious at first, but it's what the data is demonstrating
@@MattAngiono You really missing the point. You can't just assume that any of your 'awereness' arguments have the POTENTIAL to change people's minds. The majority of people do not have a true collective sense as well as they can not understand complex explanations. They are self interested and that's all you are gonna get from them.
@Calbac-Senbreak I'm not claiming that everyone has to understand.
It's an appeal to those who are capable.
Those are the people who are intelligent enough to change systems.
There are lots of sheep and lots of wolves.
I'm not unaware.
But there's a lot more intelligent and compassionate people than you seem to be aware of.
This system is already ripping itself apart and many can see that.
Especially younger people.
They didn't create this mess and are looking actively for other ways forward.
Many are just giving up, writing m quitting jobs, moving back home, and opting out of this system..
That's a sign that things are changing and something new is on the horizon.
The question is if it will be digital dystopia like techno feudalism, or if we will try something else.
You do you.
I'm going to try to make something better and find the ones who are willing to try with me
Epic video nice one! Externalising harm, fk the fossil fuel boys club
Are those actual dreads or a wig ?