Comments on: Capitalism => Consumerism? http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180 Ian Lance Taylor Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:45:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13305 Wed, 07 May 2008 04:10:31 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13305 I long ago stopped paying attention to the supposed goals of any political group, and discover their true nature by looking at the predictable consequences of the policies they promote. Libertarian policies promote unlimited power of large organizations over individuals. They fetishize government, so that it, uniquely among large organizations, retains little power, but hands it over to whomever is equipped to claim it. In the Libertarian heaven, corporations direct the government to enforce their wishes against you, by court order, after you are forced to sign contracts giving up whatever rights you once had. Is there really any limit to what unfettered corporations could do? The prison industry has given us a taste. I long ago stopped paying attention to the supposed goals of any political group, and discover their true nature by looking at the predictable consequences of the policies they promote. Libertarian policies promote unlimited power of large organizations over individuals. They fetishize government, so that it, uniquely among large organizations, retains little power, but hands it over to whomever is equipped to claim it. In the Libertarian heaven, corporations direct the government to enforce their wishes against you, by court order, after you are forced to sign contracts giving up whatever rights you once had.

Is there really any limit to what unfettered corporations could do? The prison industry has given us a taste.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13296 Wed, 07 May 2008 00:59:00 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13296 The similarity I am getting at is that the Libertarian argument, as I understand it, is that it is bad for government to have power. It is bad because the government abuses it, because they control information, etc. I agree that the effect is to hand power to the corporations, but that is not the goal. It seems to me that there is some parallel between the Libertarian critique of government and your critique of corporations. I personally sympathize more with your comments, but I think you are pushing the structural argument too far. I think there is a limit to what corporations can do. In fact I think that history so far shows us that governments can do far more harm than corporations have ever managed. This is because governments have the ability to control society at a much deeper level than corporations can, exploiting obedience to the law and nationalism in ways that are unavailable to corporations. My point is not that corporations are good and government is bad--indeed I tend to think the opposite. My point is that if you are not careful you can push your argument until it becomes unsustainable. The similarity I am getting at is that the Libertarian argument, as I understand it, is that it is bad for government to have power. It is bad because the government abuses it, because they control information, etc. I agree that the effect is to hand power to the corporations, but that is not the goal. It seems to me that there is some parallel between the Libertarian critique of government and your critique of corporations. I personally sympathize more with your comments, but I think you are pushing the structural argument too far. I think there is a limit to what corporations can do. In fact I think that history so far shows us that governments can do far more harm than corporations have ever managed. This is because governments have the ability to control society at a much deeper level than corporations can, exploiting obedience to the law and nationalism in ways that are unavailable to corporations. My point is not that corporations are good and government is bad–indeed I tend to think the opposite. My point is that if you are not careful you can push your argument until it becomes unsustainable.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13272 Tue, 06 May 2008 08:38:06 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13272 Sorry, I don't see any similarity. The Libertarian argument favors handing corporations unlimited power, full stop. The only way to contain the power of large corporations, as they are, is with something more powerful, i.e. a government. The only way that can actually work is if the large corporations don't themselves control it. The only way it can do any good is if it is structurally obliged to answer to the population at large, and if the population at large hasn't been propagandized out of its collective mind. The blogosphere is chipping away at the effectiveness of the corporate propaganda appratus. Whether it will be enough is unclear, particularly when working against massive automated election fraud. Sorry, I don’t see any similarity. The Libertarian argument favors handing corporations unlimited power, full stop. The only way to contain the power of large corporations, as they are, is with something more powerful, i.e. a government. The only way that can actually work is if the large corporations don’t themselves control it. The only way it can do any good is if it is structurally obliged to answer to the population at large, and if the population at large hasn’t been propagandized out of its collective mind. The blogosphere is chipping away at the effectiveness of the corporate propaganda appratus. Whether it will be enough is unclear, particularly when working against massive automated election fraud.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13043 Fri, 02 May 2008 14:17:11 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-13043 How does your argument differ from the libertarian argument against government? How does your argument differ from the libertarian argument against government?

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12779 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:06:45 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12779 People acting against the interests of the corporation that employs them are easily (and, indeed, routinely) replaced. Just as the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it, so large corporations treat conscience. I am always told that corporations are really just groups of people, but that's false, in every way that matters. The machine is constructed out of people, but as in any machine, it is not the materials but the design that determines what it does. The design of corporations is encoded in their charters and in corporate law. It has always been easy to find people to act out their assigned roles. Designing the roles to allow people to feel they aren't personally doing too much direct harm is an architectural matter, one of understanding the limits of materials, that has little to do with what goals the organization may pursue. Do I really need to cite examples? People acting against the interests of the corporation that employs them are easily (and, indeed, routinely) replaced. Just as the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it, so large corporations treat conscience. I am always told that corporations are really just groups of people, but that’s false, in every way that matters. The machine is constructed out of people, but as in any machine, it is not the materials but the design that determines what it does.

The design of corporations is encoded in their charters and in corporate law. It has always been easy to find people to act out their assigned roles. Designing the roles to allow people to feel they aren’t personally doing too much direct harm is an architectural matter, one of understanding the limits of materials, that has little to do with what goals the organization may pursue. Do I really need to cite examples?

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12772 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:39:44 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12772 That is all true, but corporations are still run by people, not robots. I think it's a mistake to analyze corporations purely in terms of their own interests separate from the interests of the people who run them and work for them. That analysis will increasingly break down as the circumstances get more extreme. That is all true, but corporations are still run by people, not robots. I think it’s a mistake to analyze corporations purely in terms of their own interests separate from the interests of the people who run them and work for them. That analysis will increasingly break down as the circumstances get more extreme.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12679 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:47:10 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12679 Corporations can (and do) own the public media that shape public opinion, and thus votes, and thus elections. Nowadays corporations also control the machines that are supposed to count the votes. (In the last congressional elections it appears they underestimated the number of fraudulent votes they would need to retain full control by about 30%.) We don't have any practical choice about whether to buy from corporations or (in aggregate) to work for them. Corporations are required by present law to be opposed to free society anywhere it might interfere with profitability, except where their own charter explicitly implies otherwise. Corporations can (and do) own the public media that shape public opinion, and thus votes, and thus elections. Nowadays corporations also control the machines that are supposed to count the votes. (In the last congressional elections it appears they underestimated the number of fraudulent votes they would need to retain full control by about 30%.) We don’t have any practical choice about whether to buy from corporations or (in aggregate) to work for them.

Corporations are required by present law to be opposed to free society anywhere it might interfere with profitability, except where their own charter explicitly implies otherwise.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12657 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:10:01 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12657 Corporations, like governments, are comprised of people. While I am not unsympathetic to your reasoning, it sounds somewhat like the arguments of libertarians about the government. Corporations are not *necessarily* opposed to free society, any more than governments are. There are a number of ways to resist corporations, the most obvious being to not buy their products and not work for them, a slightly less obvious one being to elect politicians who will contain them. Thus I believe that they do have a limit. Corporations, like governments, are comprised of people. While I am not unsympathetic to your reasoning, it sounds somewhat like the arguments of libertarians about the government. Corporations are not *necessarily* opposed to free society, any more than governments are. There are a number of ways to resist corporations, the most obvious being to not buy their products and not work for them, a slightly less obvious one being to elect politicians who will contain them. Thus I believe that they do have a limit.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: ncm http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12649 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:21:59 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12649 Capitalism, like any engine, needs constant maintenance. If your society is not strong enough to provide that level of maintenance, it devolves into fascism, a process we are witnessing in the U.S. Capitalism entirely lacks any mechanism to limit its own impact, and without external limitation, it crushes institutions oriented to human needs, such as democracy. Is that a failure, or just an intrinsic property? It depends on your expectations. What's not clear is whether any society can be strong enough, in the long term, to contain capitalist extremism. Reform movements come and go, but big corporations can afford to (and do) keep the pressure on continuously, decade over decade. As an engine of production, capitalism is unique in human history. When it gets big enough to determine for itself what it will produce, humanity and life itself become subordinate. That's actually the theme of every SF story in which robots threaten to take over the world. (Sorry, it's already happened.) Can citizens ever take back control of government from corporations? The blogosphere looks pretty robust right now. If it can sustain this level of activity for decades without getting co-opted, we stand a chance. Capitalism, like any engine, needs constant maintenance. If your society is not strong enough to provide that level of maintenance, it devolves into fascism, a process we are witnessing in the U.S. Capitalism entirely lacks any mechanism to limit its own impact, and without external limitation, it crushes institutions oriented to human needs, such as democracy. Is that a failure, or just an intrinsic property? It depends on your expectations.

What’s not clear is whether any society can be strong enough, in the long term, to contain capitalist extremism. Reform movements come and go, but big corporations can afford to (and do) keep the pressure on continuously, decade over decade. As an engine of production, capitalism is unique in human history. When it gets big enough to determine for itself what it will produce, humanity and life itself become subordinate. That’s actually the theme of every SF story in which robots threaten to take over the world. (Sorry, it’s already happened.)

Can citizens ever take back control of government from corporations? The blogosphere looks pretty robust right now. If it can sustain this level of activity for decades without getting co-opted, we stand a chance.

]]> Comment on Capitalism => Consumerism? by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12628 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:34 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/180#comment-12628 To me it seems like a failure of human nature, so to speak, rather than a failure of capitalism. Any society has areas which can be exploited, and people learn to exploit them. I think the goal has to be to on the one hand minimize those areas, and on the other try to ensure that when they are inevitably exploited, the net result is beneficial rather than harmful. I agree that the U.S. is not doing all that well on these grounds, but I still don't agree that the blame should be placed on capitalism as such. To me it seems like a failure of human nature, so to speak, rather than a failure of capitalism. Any society has areas which can be exploited, and people learn to exploit them. I think the goal has to be to on the one hand minimize those areas, and on the other try to ensure that when they are inevitably exploited, the net result is beneficial rather than harmful. I agree that the U.S. is not doing all that well on these grounds, but I still don’t agree that the blame should be placed on capitalism as such.

]]>