Competition
Jul. 7th, 2010 01:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribSo, via Making Light, I find this Marxist critique of the financial crisis in cartoon format. It's an 11-minute video, and actually not terribly off base.
The final argument boils down to this (I paraphrase): In the 1970s, we had financial problems because labor had gotten too powerful. This 'problem' was fixed by outsourcing and off-shoring. We now have a problem where finance is too powerful, and it's being 'fixed' by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.
The Marxist critique goes wrong when it argues that getting rid of the 'inherent contradictions' (AKA "conflicts") in the capitalist system is either possible or desirable. Getting rid of these contradictions is like getting rid of predator / prey relationships in ecology - neither possible nor desirable.
In ecology, predator species obviously need prey to eat. Prey species need predators to prevent overpopulation, which leads to habitat destruction. But expecting this relationship to be anything but adversarial is to live in a fantasy world.
Libertarians, to their credit, understand this need for competition. Where they go wrong is their desire for the competition to be as 'red of tooth and claw' as that in nature. As the French and Russian aristocracy discovered, there are more poor people (prey) then rich (predators) and the poor people can fight back.
The trick is to resolve the conflicts via peaceful means. That means government, regulation and the ballot box.
The final argument boils down to this (I paraphrase): In the 1970s, we had financial problems because labor had gotten too powerful. This 'problem' was fixed by outsourcing and off-shoring. We now have a problem where finance is too powerful, and it's being 'fixed' by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.
The Marxist critique goes wrong when it argues that getting rid of the 'inherent contradictions' (AKA "conflicts") in the capitalist system is either possible or desirable. Getting rid of these contradictions is like getting rid of predator / prey relationships in ecology - neither possible nor desirable.
In ecology, predator species obviously need prey to eat. Prey species need predators to prevent overpopulation, which leads to habitat destruction. But expecting this relationship to be anything but adversarial is to live in a fantasy world.
Libertarians, to their credit, understand this need for competition. Where they go wrong is their desire for the competition to be as 'red of tooth and claw' as that in nature. As the French and Russian aristocracy discovered, there are more poor people (prey) then rich (predators) and the poor people can fight back.
The trick is to resolve the conflicts via peaceful means. That means government, regulation and the ballot box.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-08 02:27 pm (UTC)Also, the alternative to capitalism is not always and everywhere Soviet style communism. Could you provide some examples?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-08 05:15 pm (UTC)As for examples of other economic systems, Wikipedia has a handy list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system). I would point you to a few in particular, like a subsistence economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_economy), the system that was most common in human history; participatory economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics), which is often touted as an alternative to capitalist inequality and communist authoritarianism by making economic decisions communal and democratic; and virtual economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_economy), which are currently a huge growth market, springing out of the proliferation of online gaming, like World of Warcraft's multi-million dollar gold farming trade.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 02:20 am (UTC)I can't eat virtual food, so virtual economies are right out.