Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years?

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

Mostly for whom? To the extent "capitalism" has "increased standards of living", this has happened – "trickled down" – unevenly, cyclically, and at the cost of mass alienation – what John Dewey aptly describes as industrial feudalism – the return of "Gilded Age" wealth inequality (e.g. T. Piketty)¹ accelerated by the last half century of neoliberal globalization and fiscal austerity policies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_Ideology ¹

Looking at the economy broadly, working class people -- including minorities and GLBT people -- have not benefitted as much as pundits suppose they have. The richer 10% of the population have done well; the richer 20% have done well. The less one has, the less one gets is the general rule for the rest of us.

I'll cite my own white gay case: over the last 50 years, including working years and then retirement, I have not seen a lot of improvement in my standard of living. I'm not complaining -- I have enough -- but IF I had had dependents, my income would not have been anywhere close to enough. Many minority and GLBT people did or do have dependents, and have found the going pretty tough.

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

There have been periods of time over the last century when our capitalist economy distributed more resources to a broader population than at other times--the post-WWII period up until the early 1970s. But the post-war boom was sandwiched between a severe depression (1930s) and a period of neoliberal distribution of resources for the richer 25%, which is still in effect.

For a substantial block of the population, roughly 25%, there just hasn't been economic advancement.

:100:

I was more focused on

Mostly for whom? To the extent "capitalism" has "increased standards of living", this has happened – "trickled down" – unevenly, cyclically, and at the cost of mass alienation – what John Dewey aptly describes as industrial feudalism – the return of "Gilded Age" wealth inequality (e.g. T. Piketty)¹ accelerated by the last half century of neoliberal globalization and fiscal austerity policies. — 180 Proof

This doesn't track with my own experience. I'm a teacher, a career open to anyone who can go to two years of community college, two years of state college, and pass a few tests. Plenty of teachers make over six figures, and teachers are desperately needed. Making six figures for working 185 days a year does not seem like "industrial feudalism". I live quite well on that.

That hasn't aged well. The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out. — RogueAI

Not for lack of trying. A current candidate for president of US frequently criticizes past & current attempts to "level the playing field" politically, economically, and lingustically. "Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny." Maybe the candidate prefers proactive tyranny. :cool:


The Tyranny of Political Correctness? :
Claims of so-called reverse racism mainly circulate within closed social media groups
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12690?af=R

Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, — Gnomon

That's kind of the point we have been discussing. The resentment within populations which seeks antidemocratic 'strong men' to deliver them from political correctness, technocrats and educated urbanites. That's Rorty's point too.

Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, — Gnomon

Yes, I think this is the problem when people play with fire.

The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out.
— RogueAI
Clearly, either you've not been paying attention and/or you're just choking on reactionary grievance. :mask: — 180 Proof

:up:

Generalizing from a personal anecdote is very poor reasoning especially by a so-called "teacher".

The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out. — RogueAI

There are social gains, political gains, and economic gains. Which GLBT people have gained what, when, and where varies quite a bit. To be fair, GLBT gains which have been firmly established haven't been wiped out. Where minorities are also economically, socially, and politically marginalized, my guess is that things at least haven't improved, or have regressed -- again, varying by areas.

Somalis in the Minneapolis have done well politically and economically, certainly. The Hmong, not so much, even with a longer residential time. Illegal immigrants are generally marginalized, are generally minorities, and are generally not doing well.

Gay people in liberal, prosperous states have seen solid social and political gains. Many (not all) have seen economic gains, too. In politically and religiously conservative and less prosperous states, the situation is not the same as in LA, Boston, Chicago, and NYC.

The Methodist Church is going through a schism over homosexuality -- how much to accept, who can be married, who can be ordained. Missouri Synod Lutherans are not especially tolerant. Southern Baptists, ditto.

The right to access abortion services was settled law until it wasn't. The protections available to GLBT people is not, for the most part, constitutionally protect on the state level. 16 states have very little protection on the books.

I am sure some school districts pay handsomely for the services of experienced teachers, even figures well over $100,000 per year, maybe adding up to a couple million bucks after 20 years. Great!

Most teachers are not getting that much, on average, during much of their careers. According to the NEA, the average public school teacher earns $66,745. They are earning on average $3,644 less now than they were 10 years ago. And then there is inflation, of course.

Two teachers making $66k a year is a very good household income. You can live quite well on it. And that's only for 185 days a year. And the retirement and health benefits are great. I'm going to retire at 55. It is also not hard to become a teacher and there's a very severe teacher shortage nationwide. The average pay for teachers in California and NY is over $80,000. Those two states represent a fifth of the country.

I point this out to push back against 180's doom-and-gloom. There are still good jobs out there if people want them, and are willing to go back to school for four years. That's not so expensive if you go the community college-state college route. School districts aren't picky about where degrees come from.

The right to access abortion services was settled law until it wasn't. — BC

And yet Ohio of all places just codified abortion rights. Trump carried Ohio by ten points! Dobbs was clearly a setback, but paradoxically, it's making abortion rights stronger in certain states.

My overall point though, is the prediction made in 1998 that "One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out." was very wrong. Wouldn't you agree that that prediction failed? Since 1998, we've seen the legalization of gay marriage, the first black president, first woman presidential nominee (who then won the popular vote), first black woman VP, first black woman Supreme Court Justice, etc.

I'm not arguing against teachers making a decent income, and I wasn't using household income, which of course increases with more than 1 earner. Depending on where you live in New York or California, $120,000 might not be enough to buy a mediocre house or afford to rent the nicest place. It is, however, extremely sufficient to prevent starvation, homelessness, and having to hitchhike to and from school 185 times a year.

Advocates for human rights (in all of the various subcategories there are), or anything else, don't get anywhere by announcing that things are fine. They may have to dig a little, but problems can be found anywhere, everywhere. It helps if the problems are getting worse. Never let a crisis go to waste!

I'm not as cynical as I sound. If you are in the advocacy business, are a fundraiser, are a middle class liberal well-intentioned non-profit executive, etc. you have to do whatever works, or you get left behind. It's hard to get people to pay attention and send money for honest-to-god good causes. A fundraising letter that says the formerly homeless are all in long-term shelter, the drug addicts are all in treatment, and that the drunks are all sober is going to yield a big fat nothing,

(Confession: I was not a successful fundraiser.).

I'm actually pretty gloomy about the future. My doom-beat is global warming which I think will swamp all the other problems. I'm gloomy about capitalism (WHEN is it going to go away, for god's sake?). I could, however, be equally gloomy about the ocean of debt on which individuals, companies, states, and the federal government are all floating. I could be gloomy about Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, Taiwan, China, India, Ecuador--if it's on the map, I could lament its future.

For a closer example of what looming fascism might look like, I would look at what is happening in Poland right now under Donald Tusk.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union.

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union. — Tzeentch

How is it an undemocratic abomination?

Just what do you think is the EU? Who do you think it's leaders are?

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded. — Tzeentch

Who sent Tusk?

I think in Poland it was the Polish Parliament that gave Tusk the mandate to form a new government after elections where Tusk's coalition won the most seats.

"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. — Gnomon

This plain and simple will not happen. Happy to 'suck it and see' on this one. More a prediction

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

Collectively, the US standard of living has increased since the advent of industrialization, urbanization, and representative Democracy. But that general upward trend looks quite different when you break the sample down into classes*1. Historically, societies have been characterized by a tiny minority Upper class (royalty), and a great majority Lower class (slaves & serfs), with a small Middle class in between (merchants). Industrialism temporarily increased the SOL of the Middle class, but Computerization (mechanical slaves) is beginning to reverse that trend, as the Middle class is sliding downward : becoming computer operators instead of mule-drivers*2.

One consequence of that downward trend seems to be : for the Declasse*3 Middle to look for a King-like Tycoon --- with executive immunity --- to restore their semi-exalted status by fiat from above (MAGA), not by economic improvements. The Upper classes benefit by owning the means of production and by increasing the number of mechanical slaves working for the 2% at the tip of the top class. Democratic Capitalism is a feudal economy, with Oligarchs instead of Kings*4*5.

Personally, as the son of a unionized blue-collar worker, my economic status increased due mainly to socialistic GI Bill education. But since the last "great" recession, it has taken a nose-dive. But I'm getting by with help from Democratic Socialism : VA medical care plus Social Security. The American economy is a hybrid of Socialism & Capitalism, with those at the top controlling and reaping the economic largesse. But history has shown that Communism is not the answer for modern nations. So, don't ask me what WE need to do. I'm just an over the hill serf, and nobody cares what I think. :cool:


*1. Upper class increased SOL, Middle & Lower classes decreased :
The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/

*2. LOWER & UPPER CLASSES INCREASE ; MIDDLE CLASS SHRINKS


*3. Déclassé : having fallen in social status.

*4. Does 1% own 90% of wealth?
The accumulation of wealth enables a variety of freedoms, and removes limits on life that one might otherwise face. Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

*5. ECONOMIC CLASS PYRAMID

How is it an undemocratic abomination? — ssu

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for).

Meanwhile, countries, including my own, are being completely hamstrung in certain fields by European legislation (see Dutch farmers' protests, for example), which, despite never being talked about in Dutch elections and there being no domestic support for much of this legislation, seem to be ever-expanding.


Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway).

Who knows what uncouth, Europhilic lobbies this man is controlled by, but he was clearly sent in response to Poland's anti-EU trend, and indeed was successful in getting elected.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track."


They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest.

Not that long before the elections, two parties on the left conspiciously merged into one, even though these parties did not have all that much in common and this merger will likely bite them in the end. However, together they did have a chance at winning upcoming the election.

Then, notorious Europhile Frans Timmermans was summoned out of nowhere to lead this questionable alliance. Timmermans had been working for the EU in relatively major positions for some 10 years, and architected the European Green Deal (which has been a total disaster for the Netherlands, by the way).

Long before the elections the propaganda machine was already churning, extolling him and labeling him possible 'future Dutch prime minister', etc., even though it is now clear that the anti-EU party probably won specifically because so many people did not want Timmermans as PM.


What this should tell you, is that the EU is not some impartial legislative body that follows the will of the European nations, but in fact is trying to influence the European nations' democratic processes towards a ever more EU, and often 'slipping in the cracks' to do so.

It's an undemocratic, untransparent abomination.

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for). — Tzeentch

That's true, but the union is a de facto confederacy: it is created from independent states, who actually are still quite independent. Furthermore, Central Banksters aren't usually elected in a public election. We don't similarly elect our generals either. Likely that would simply politicize even more the position and make Central Banks even more the "deficit helpers" that they are now.

But I hear you. The problem is that the bureaucratic culture is basically from France and isn't something as open as for example in the US. And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become.

And how would we vote? Let's see, Germany has the most people in the EU, so you would like it to be a perpetual position for Germans to hold? Even if it sounds crazy, perhaps the way Eurovision song contest works could be an answer: you could only vote for those candidates that don't come from your own country!

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African...

Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway). — Tzeentch

Yes, and Poles voted for him. Perhaps the reason is that the Poles got fed up with the former Law and Justice -party, the right-wing populist party. It's quite natural that people want to change their leaders.

Populism, and especially populists in power, paint these ideas where they are against a powerful cabal, be it "Brussels" or the "EU" or whatever, yet the fact is that EU is a confederacy and an assortment of independent states pulling in many directions. Brexit here has shown us actually how beneficial the EU actually is.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track." — Tzeentch

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested...

They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest. — Tzeentch

Who here are "they". It's really important to answer this. Because typically it's actually domestic media and parties that are in opposition that promote the "anti-EU" stance of some parties.

I think Italy is the best example of this. There was a huge uproar about the administration of Giorgia Meloni, but in fact (at least for me) the administration simply looks to be conservative. And the fuss has died down. Just how fascist they truly are is in my view very questionable. But of course, I'm not a specialist about Italian politics, so someone can inform me better.

Meloni’s approach to Europe was centred on the vindication of Italy’s “national interests” but within the framework of European integration and with a self-declared ambition to play a protagonist role. In the run-up to the 2022 election, FdI’s electoral programme jettisoned some populist tones of the past (especially regarding the euro). Instead, the emphasis was placed on the need for Italy to “return as a protagonist in Europe” and to “relaunch the system of European integration, for a Europe of homelands, founded on peoples’ interests”. In a similar vein, in her inaugural address to the Chamber of Deputies, Meloni stressed the desire for Italy to stand “with head high” in Europe and the other international fora, “with a constructive spirit, but without subordination or inferiority complexes”. The emphasis on the “national interest” was accompanied by the acknowledgement of “a common European and Western destiny” – as well as of the importance of a frank dialogue within the European institutions, taking a “pragmatic” approach. As a matter of fact, Meloni’s first mission abroad as Italy’s prime minister was to Brussels.

Never underestimate the huge effect that Brexit had. It showed to all Europeans just what a shit show it would be to leave the EU. We've all seen what a trainwreck disaster that was for the UK. If it was bad for the UK to opt out, it is easy to understand that opting out for other EU members would likely suck far more. Hence for example in Finland we have now in the administration the "True Finns" populists that were anti-EU, but they have shed away their ideas of exiting the EU. (Also the war in Ukraine has had them select their partners it the European Parliament too, as the party enthusiastically support Ukraine.)

This just in, in the past 10 years the richest 5 persons have doubled their wealth whereas over 5 billion people became poorer. Website: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/inequality-inc/

Capitalism is working just as intended.

I'm not sure, considering the disparate definitions of fascism, whether focusing specifically on fascism is relevant. In that respect, I think Rawls really was onto something with is justice as fairness. And that's a gliding scale. And unfairness can be either about the number of people affected or the egregiousness of the injustice (e.g., from tax benefits for the richt to outright institutional racism). It doesn't really matter whether we then qualify an unfair society as fascist, nepotist, authoritarian, etc. other than as a tool t diagnose why it is unfair.

And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become. — ssu

Quite so. It's an abomination, sadly. I think if Europe wants to remain functional and sovereign, it needs to replace the EU with an entirely different structure. I estimate the chances of that happening to be very low, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this mess.

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African... — ssu

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. European nations economies function in vastly different ways, and the idea of an economic union has caused serious issues all over and I don't think was ever feasible.

Other elements like open borders (but with protected outer borders) I think would be fine as well.

I'm not sure about a "European identity" - attempts at trying to force something like that are silly, heavy-handed and probably doomed to fail (also reeks of communism) - but I do genuinely feel like I have a lot in common with other Europeans. We share a lot of history, and have reconciled the good and the bad. I also find war between two European nations pretty much unthinkable.

There is a lot of commonality which could be the basis for a more functional union that also respects the differences.

Yes, and Poles voted for him. — ssu

And somewhat predictably so. The Law & Justice Party pursued many foolish policies. This I don't have an issue with.

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested... — ssu

Tens of thousands protest in Poland against ex-ministers' imprisonment (Reuters)

Pro-EU fanatics are silent on Poland's new illiberal turn (The Telegraph)

All of this is taking place as we speak, so we'll have to wait until later for some more brainy stuff.

Taking over the media and throwing the opposition in jail literally within weeks of taking office is probably the most blatant power grab I have ever seen in a western "democracy".

Who here are "they". — ssu

The Brussels elite, which is pursuing its own agendas that, predictably, never involve "less EU" but always "more EU".

Let me ask you, who does Von Der Leyen represent? Certainly not the European people, so who? Personally, I couldn't tell you, and that's what worries me to no end.

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. — Tzeentch

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island.

If the US goes home to eat it's apply pie, then they can. But they'll wake up one day to see that the apple pie isn't so great as it used to be with them being the Superpower...

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island. — ssu

Ukrainian official: Johnson Forced Kyiv to Refuse Russian Peace Deal (The European Conservative)

This is the reason.

The UK belongs to the Anglosphere, and together with other countries from the Anglosphere follows foreign policy that is heavily aligned to the US. The Anglosphere consists of exclusively island nations. (The US and Canada being essentially an 'island' in every practical sense)

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security.

I do think that there are the old fashion conservatives, but they are simply muted out by the Trump crowd. — ssu

I hope you're right. But at least when it comes to elected officials, it seems that most are willing to follow Trump's lead regardless of their principles, if they have them.

Yes, that's the case now, in any event.

This just in, Capitalism is working just as intended. — Benkei

Old news in these quarters.

Fascism does have many definitions, but "the way it works" is less variable. If some people are operating in a fascistic manner, it's worth focusing on.

other than as a tool to diagnose why it is unfair. — Benkei

And, one hopes, do something about it!

Fascism does have many definitions, but "the way it works" is less variable. If some people are operating in a fascistic manner, it's worth focusing on. — BC

That's what I question I guess. Any form of unfair policies is a step in the wrong direction. You're a decade too late if you're trying to assess what type of evil you're dealing with. I think it's much more interesting to analyse how societies get there through the gradual, "legal" means, erosion of the rule of law. And I see this play out in many different conversations, where moral reasoning is reduced to whether it breaks a law or not.

So if we procedurally pass awful laws then these are "just", which is why tax breaks are deserved, breaking up families at the border are fine, gerrymandering is just smart, tax evasion a walhalla for consultants, pollution is a-ok as long as you got a permit, lobbying is effective, improving the material conditions of citizens optional and daytrading considered a meaningful vocation. From where I'm standing Fascism is fucking close in every European country but probably not in the US, which is more likely to fully degenerate into a corporatocracy due to its particular off-brand of delusional idiocy.

the US, which is more likely to fully degenerate into a corporatocracy due to its particular off-brand of delusional idiocy — Benkei

Hey, calling our delusional idiocy "off-brand" is an insult!

You're a decade too late if you're trying to assess what type of evil you're dealing with — Benkei

That's a good point. Bad stuff may crawl out of the swamp, but it takes time to coagulate and grow. For example, the far right wing of the Republican Party wasn't created by Trump. Tax law is critical for the growth of the super-rich class and happened decades ago. 3M was secure in dumping per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS into the ground. Etc.

Fact is, all sorts of bad stuff have happened in the US, carried out by duly elected representatives, following (sort of) open procedures in legislative sessions, and signed by elected chief executives. Fascists weren't required.

All of this reminds me of famous Orwell essay, Politics and the English Language (1946) he writes:

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...'

Even close to 80 years ago this word was seen as devalued currency. It can be used to describe anyone from a Tory Prime Minister to a supermarket manager. Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games.

Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? — Tom Storm

I think this is a far more realistic position to consider. And, while I personally think its super-unlikely, it's way more possible that Fascism coming into play.

Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games. — Tom Storm

And herein lies the problem, right? From any standpoint of intrenched ideology, its almost impossible not to see yourself as the victim of 'the other side' - otherwise your ideology is 'in power' and defeats the point.