I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. (I read the thread three times) And I don't mean to say that this is the fault of Streetlight. I mean, my reading comprehension, for some reason, is low when reading this thread. I take this seriously; and I don't have an answer. I'm sure this is a well thought-out thread.

Edit: I wanted to participate, but I'm at a loss for words due to my not understanding most of it.

@Benkei mentioned something about the perpetuity of corporations -- that they are a separate entity, existing with rights of a person, which should be discussed here. I related to that, but the response had again put me in confusion. So, there's got to be a gap in my understanding of this discussion. Which embarrasses me. :zip:

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with.

Interesting, I frequently don't understand the point (or content) of threads here but this one seems clear to me - how best to understand the principles of capitalism, taking us through key concepts - markets, financialization, neoliberalism, etc.

For me these two points are important and often overlooked.

Capitalism on the other hand, cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. It is precisely because capitalism has to do with production (and not just exchange), that capitalism cannot be understood apart from changes in labour, in how labourers go about producing things, along with the conditions under which they labour. — Streetlight

The birth of 'the individual' follows quite nicely from the birth of generalized market-society. It is no surprise that liberalism - whose unit of analysis is precisely the individual, upon whom rights and obligation accrue (and property rights above all!) - is born exactly at the end of feudalism at the point at which markets become ascendant. — Streetlight

Many of us forget that our values and sense of self are a product of this ideology.

And Tom, precisely those two quotes are what kept me in confusion, among other explanations here. So, I'll try to read up on capitalism. Thanks.

Many of us forget that our values and sense of self are a product of this ideology. — Tom Storm

What Streetlight said there isn't really true, though.

Capitalism on the other hand, cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for — Streetlight

His focus seems to be on industrialized societies, forgetting that markets can be deal with things like bundles of mortgages, which are not produced by anyone per se, and certainly don't involve labor.

The birth of 'the individual' follows quite nicely from the birth of generalized market-society. It is no surprise that liberalism - whose unit of analysis is precisely the individual, upon whom rights and obligation accrue (and property rights above all!) - is born exactly at the end of feudalism at the point at which markets become ascendant. — Streetlight

The 'birth of the individual' is usually identified as the Renaissance. It's true that it's an idea in conflict with feudal life. So he's sort of right about this. A guy can't be wrong all the time.

I think our reactions to content like this will be indicative of where a person comes from politically, no?

I think our reactions to content like this will be indicative of where a person comes from politically, no? — Tom Storm

We're just discussing the way "capitalism" is used, not whether it's good or bad.

Streetlight's views seem outdated to me, like he's in the 19th Century or something.

Streetlight's views seem outdated to me, like he's in the 19th Century or something. — frank

Well, you know what they say, truth doesn't have a 'use by' date. I'm sure Street will clarify anything you throw at him. I can't comment at any depth (debating this stuff begins to resemble arguments about the meaning of Bible verses) as I don't study politics or history closely. But so far nothing I have read here strikes me as egregious.

I'm sure Street will clarify anything you throw at him. — Tom Storm

I doubt it.

Even if IN the co-op it is now democratic and presumably fair, then it's interaction with the rest of the world isn't. — Benkei

One potential consequence is that our political governance changes along with corporate governance. Externalities and foreign trade would still exist, but would be much less of a problem — because the state would be acting under different pressures from a different set of interests. It wouldn’t be “profit over everything”, there would be less short term thinking, more investment in communities and general welfare.

Of course I have no certainty of this— it’s speculation really. I wouldn’t pretend to know how it all pans out. There’s bound to be flaws in any system. But unless we move in this general direction, I don’t see how we survive much longer as a species. That alone is reason enough to push for it.

I hope you push back a little on this and elaborate, because there may very well be scenarios I’m overlooking.

When you think of capitalism, think of activities that people engage in specifically to make a profit.

So

1. George buys a car for his own use. There's no capitalism there.

2. George buys a car to sell. This is capitalism.

Notice how the car is seen differently in each case.

In the first case, George sees the car as a tool, as a thing that will enhance his ability to survive, or will up his profile among friends, or maybe he wants to tinker with it.

In the second case, the car is an object to be resold. This is the merchant perspective. The merchant doesn't see bread as food, but as a way to make a profit.

In a capitalist economy, this perspective is pervasive. It can go so far that people are looked at as mechanisms for making profit. It can have a devastating effect on culture.

But as for what the profit-making object is: it can be anything. There doesn't need to be any production of goods involved. That's just one scenario.

But in the 19th Century one could be forgiven for thinking industry and capitalism have to go hand in hand. Industrialists were huge and all-powerful back then.

Things are more complicated. Now stocks and bonds are more central.

It's debating Bible verse time, Frank. No thanks.

It's debating Bible verse time, Frank — Tom Storm

So, you don't really have any thoughts about the prevailing economic structure of your times?

It's Bible verses to you? That's seems a little alien to me, but Ok.

And the other thing states do, more and more - I think maybe among the most consequential and least talked about - is to take on private risk. That is, private business risk is 'offshored' to state, who bear the burden when capitalist markets fuck up. The political economist Daniela Gabor has a really, really excellent and easy to read paper [PDF] on this topic. From the abstract: "The state risk-proofs development assets for institutional investors by taking on its balance sheet: (i) demand risks attached to commodified (social) infrastructure assets, (ii) political risk attached to policies that would threaten profits, such as nationalization, higher minimum wages and climate regulation, (iii) climate risks that may become part of regulatory frameworks; (iv) bond and currency markets risks that complicate investors’ exit". This 'taking on investment risk' tracks with the increase of financialization: states can function as lenders of last resort and prop up 'too-big-to-fail' institutions without which everything goes tits-up. — Streetlight

Is there a kernel of truth in my thinking the state taking on private risk is least talked about (albeit most consequential) because it is a critical phase of the economic life of a mature capitalist state wherein it starts to move toward socialism strategically?

Moreover, have you seen this movement towards state-run economy attributes in other mature capitalist economies that are nearing market saturation (in the absence of wars of conquest), thus suggesting as capitalism matures, it's compelled to move away from free market purity towards a complex, mixed capitalist-socialist economy?

Note - the section in bold is excepted because it describes anti-socialistic moves.

So, you don't really have any thoughts about the prevailing economic structure of your times? — frank

Course not. :wink: You'll note that I said this subject becomes like debating the meaning of Bible versus.

For me your car example only hints at the surface of such discussions. My questions would be - who made the car, the labor conditions and how were they paid? Where did the materials come from to make the car and under what circumstances where they obtained? What businesses supplied the components? Who gets the profit from every point during this process and the selling of these vehicles? What were the tax concessions and tariffs loaded into the manufacturing and selling process? Etc. There's an entire ecosystem in operation. But I'll leave this to people who care more about political debate than me. This site is fun mainly for its more trivial issues like theism or what Nietzsche might have actually said.

But I'll leave this to people who care more about political debate than me. — Tom Storm

There's no political debate here. I'm not sure why you think there is.

:up:

There's no political debate here. I'm not sure why you think there is. — frank

Bible versus again, Frank? I can't see how one can construct observations on economics without the perspectives and values from political discourse. :wink: There is no value free discourse.

To the degree that capitalism ultimately makes a change at the level of production so that production becomes production-for-market, so long as this remains in place, I think what we have is still capitalism. A key notion here is that of market-dependency. If our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves, then, to put it bluntly, we're in trouble. It's simply a matter of imperatives and necessities: if even a democratically governed workplace will be subject to market imperatives, there's every chance that the planet-killing imperatives to further commidification and assestization will chug along regardless. — Streetlight

This is important to dwell on I think.

It helps me to take an example. Take energy. Is there a market for energy? Obviously. But there’s no reason we have to get our energy from fossil fuels. It’s often argued that what’s produced is produced due to market pressure, but as you know this is usually complete nonsense. The fossil industry in particular loves to frame things this way. The reality is that choices simply don’t get presented — by industry or by government.

My point is: as political policies can change depending on who’s in power, both output and markets will change depending on who’s in control of production.

Cars are another example. There’s a market for them— but there’s also a market for public transportation. (Or at least a desire for it.) But public transportaiton really isn't offered, because there’s little money in it -- despite it being better for the environment, the population, for traffic and smog and so on.

If you eliminate the owners, then businesses get run not by far-removed individuals from some headquarters but by the local workers, which will definitely have communities in mind -- what's needed, what's useful, etc. So this would tend to cut down on externalities— much harder to pollute, for example, when it’s your own back hard you're polluting.

Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well.

But as I said to @Benkei, I don't pretend to know for certain. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. — L'éléphant

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with. — L'éléphant

It's commendable that you admit this rather than pretend the opposite. I think our way of life (including economic way of life) often gets overlooked precisely because it's taken for granted -- like gravity. "Just how things are." When challenged or questioned, it takes some getting used to.

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding?

can't see how one can construct observations on economics without the perspectives and values from political discourse — Tom Storm

While discussing the definition of capitalism, it's preferable in my opinion to put political debates to the side. First start with common terminology unless all you wanted was useless verbal spew.

Anywhere where exchange is not impersonal: families, friends, strangers asking for directions in the street, co-workers passing pens to each other across the room. Market exchanges make up a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our lives. It just so happens their influence is unimaginably deep. Their extensity does not match their intensity in society. Markets are parasitic on non-market exchange that happen everywhere, all the time, among everyone, at all levels. I'm not even charging you for this
— Streetlight

This is utter nonsense. — frank

It's exactly right, in fact.

There's my Twitter response for a Twitter post.

Did you want to discuss something?

Sure, once you say anything whatsoever of substance. Or by all means continue dropping your Twitter-like one-liners on every thread that gets made.

Sure, once you say anything whatsoever of substance — Xtrix

Stay tuned. I might just say something AMAZING!

You've had 10.9 thousand tries. But I hope you're right.

Ugh. I gave you a soft pitch and that's all you came up with? You must be back on your bipolar meds. :joke:

there has been the ongoing activity of creating and animating private life and personal interests.
The omnipresent deterritorization has been compensated, balanced, and concealed by the all-embracing territorization.
— Number2018

Examples? — Tom Storm

There are so many examples around. Take the US right now: every field of social, political, marital, and private life have been transformed into a zone of intensive experimentation and contestation. One cannot work, study, raze children or have a family the same way as it was for the previous generation. You could ask how all these radical changes are related to the notion of capitalism? One of the possible answers is what Streetlight wrote: “our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves.” The conjunction of our vital social and cultural conditions is inseparable from the most acute contemporary political and economic struggles.

The birth of 'the individual' follows quite nicely from the birth of generalized market-society. It is no surprise that liberalism - whose unit of analysis is precisely the individual, upon whom rights and obligation accrue (and property rights above all!) - is born exactly at the end of feudalism at the point at which markets become ascendant. — Streetlight

The guiding light I follow in thinking about this is the exchange/production distinction. To the degree that capitalism ultimately makes a change at the level of production so that production becomes production-for-market, so long as this remains in place, I think what we have is still capitalism. A key notion here is that of market-dependency. If our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves, then, to put it bluntly, we're in trouble. — Streetlight

It can be more productive to expand the discussion of contemporary capitalism beyond the framework of “the exchange/production distinction so that production becomes production-for-market.”
Let’s consider, for example, the concept of immaterial labour, introduced by Maurizio Lazzarato:
” A new “mass intellectuality” has come into being, created out of a combination of the demands of capitalist production and the forms of ‘self-valorization’…The worker’s personality and subjectivity have been made susceptible to organization and command…Workers are expected to become ‘active subjects’ in the coordination of the various functions of production…The capitalist needs to find an unmediated way of establishing command over subjectivity itself; the prescription and definition of task transform into a prescription of subjectivities”. (Lazzarato, ‘Immaterial labour'). Before entering a market, a product’s particular marketing specifications have converted into a set of
a customer – a salesperson- producer relations. Further, exchange, communication, and cooperation have become transferred, internalized, concealed, and personalized. As a result, the collective and impersonal production conditions have become profoundly personal and individual. The radical expansion and mutual intensification of the spheres of production and exchange should not be limited to the world of work. In our lives, we are habitually enacting a variety of pre-given, constituted, and defined communicational and informational models and networks incorporated within the processes of capitalistic valorization. Likely, that is close to what you mean here: “our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves.” To not lose the original-Marxist critical anti-capitalist perspective, it is worth to combine an expanded socio-economic approach with the notions of various surplus-values, apparatuses of capture, relations of power, and individuazation.
As a result of the conjunction of these dimensions, on the personal level, articulating theoretical or historical perspectives on capitalism is also a matter of enacting a particular subjectivity, agency, or identity. And what is stated or declared can, in the long run, assist the reinforcement of the object of critique. It is another reason for the expansion of the theoretical anti-capitalist framework.

While discussing the definition of capitalism, it's preferable in my opinion to put political debates to the side. First start with common terminology unless all you wanted was useless verbal spew. — frank

I'd hold the view that any discussion of capitalism, all the terms used and their relationships to each other and how they are understood systemically involve presuppositions. There is no free world of 'terminology' without perspectival relationships.

:up:

I'd hold the view that any discussion of capitalism, all the terms used and their relationships to each other and how they are understood systemically involve presuppositions. There is no free world of 'terminology' without perspectival relationships. — Tom Storm

I agree. As you may have noticed, a discussion of capitalism becomes a discussion of history.

History is a dangerous topic because we take it to be an unbiased look at the facts. A little philosophy says that as much as we may long to have that unbiased view, it's probably not really available. For us English speakers, that usually means Eurocentrism, as if nothing important ever happened beyond European dominion.

On the one hand, there's never been a culture more pervasively influencial than Europe. But the problem with being Eurocentric is that we miss out on valuable perspectives.

So yes, there will be some bias in any discussion of history. We can still put politics aside and agree on something as basic as the definition of capitalism, though. The only thing standing in our way is ego: the one thing that has always screwed leftists.