Globalisation v Parochialism

TruckerT

"Some aspects of globalisation are inevtiable. We have the technology. It doesn't mean they have to be run by multinational corporations.

There doesn't have to be an ever-increasing volume of world trade, with the skies ever more full of flying businessmen.

The 20th-century Western model - large factories mass-producing metal and plastic consumer goods - can't be extended worldwide and indefinitely, because there aren't enough raw materials.

I think we'll see a return to more things being made from sustainable materials - ceramics, glass, bamboo, plant waste - by new technologies, like 3D printing and others not yet invented.

These things will negate the advantage of mass production, enabling a lot more stuff to be made locally."

I brought this quote back from an earlier thread which has been moved to a different forum - it was originally posted by pqrdef.

I agree that 20th century mass production has a limited future. But without it, Capitalism is unlikely to survive.

TruckerT

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

"Some aspects of globalisation are inevtiable. We have the technology. It doesn't mean they have to be run by multinational corporations.

There doesn't have to be an ever-increasing volume of world trade, with the skies ever more full of flying businessmen.

The 20th-century Western model - large factories mass-producing metal and plastic consumer goods - can't be extended worldwide and indefinitely, because there aren't enough raw materials.

I think we'll see a return to more things being made from sustainable materials - ceramics, glass, bamboo, plant waste - by new technologies, like 3D printing and others not yet invented.

These things will negate the advantage of mass production, enabling a lot more stuff to be made locally."

I brought this quote back from an earlier thread which has been moved to a different forum - it was originally posted by pqrdef.

I agree that 20th century mass production has a limited future. But without it, Capitalism is unlikely to survive.

TruckerT

I don't get the leap. Why can't capitalism survive by making stuff from bamboo rather than iron? Hell, capitalists sell vast amounts of stuff that doesn't even have a physical form these days.

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

I don't get the leap. Why can't capitalism survive by making stuff from bamboo rather than iron? Hell, capitalists sell vast amounts of stuff that doesn't even have a physical form these days.

The substance is not important - it's the quantity that counts! Romans were paid in salt - hence the word salary.

The true value of 'virtual' stuff is yet to be established!

TruckerT

chewmylegoff

If I, as a private individual, sell only one bit of jazzed up bamboo for profit and I am allowed to keep that profit by the government (minus tax so they can pay themselves more of course) am I a capitalist or not?

How many pieces of sustainable bamboo tat do I have to sell at a profit before I reach the capitalist threshold?

TruckerT

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If I, as a private individual, sell only one bit of jazzed up bamboo for profit and I am allowed to keep that profit by the government (minus tax so they can pay themselves more of course) am I a capitalist or not?

How many pieces of sustainable bamboo tat do I have to sell at a profit before I reach the capitalist threshold?

It's to do with the exploitation of labour, which in your example does not take place.

TruckerT

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If I, as a private individual, sell only one bit of jazzed up bamboo for profit and I am allowed to keep that profit by the government (minus tax so they can pay themselves more of course) am I a capitalist or not?

How many pieces of sustainable bamboo tat do I have to sell at a profit before I reach the capitalist threshold?

I wore bamboo undies yesterday and they were very comfy.

Of course bamboo is scarce in the same way that iron, caviar and tiger skin slippers are.

I don't see what causes the death of capitalism here.

I agree that price discovery for some products has been complicated by models like iTunes. My guess is that closed platforms will die in favour of quasi-open ones like Android. True open-source is a PITA.

pqrdef

Yes. I would define capitalism as the idea that when capital and labour come together to produce stuff, capital is the boss.

It doesn't have to be that way. If labour took power, capital would come begging and would settle for dividends without voting rights.

It's a case of who can play at divide and rule. One man could own a mill which employed thousands of workers, wth always the threat that they could be replaced.

But even if the workers got organised, our one-sided concept of property made it difficult for them to replace the owner and substitute somebody else's capital.

If more production facilities were crowdfunded workers' co-operatives, capital would lose its power. From what experience there is of P2B lenders, it's already clear that trying to organise them would be like herding cats.

CLAPTON

I never did understand why the miners didn't buy and then run the mines and sell cheap coal and pay high wages.

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

Yes. I would define capitalism as the idea that when capital and labour come together to produce stuff, capital is the boss.

It doesn't have to be that way. If labour took power, capital would come begging and would settle for dividends without voting rights.

This is all absolutely correct and is, I guess, what most people think of as socialism/communism. If this really is what socialism/communism was, a freely entered into agreement to own property communally, then it would be great.

pqrdef wrote: »

It's a case of who can play at divide and rule. One man could own a mill which employed thousands of workers, wth always the threat that they could be replaced.

This is where we get to the problem with socialism. In the end, communal control of property doesn't seem to work in reality (it never has worked beyond a very small scale agrarian subsistence group AFAIAA) so it has to be imposed by an authority figure. That is where it all goes wrong and really is the road to the Gulag.

pqrdef wrote: »

But even if the workers got organised, our one-sided concept of property made it difficult for them to replace the owner and substitute somebody else's capital.

I don't understand this bit at all. Why is property ownership a one-sided concept?

TruckerT

pqrdef wrote: »

From what experience there is of P2B lenders, it's already clear that trying to organise them would be like herding cats.

I was about to post something very similar to Generali's post, but he beat me to it. The bit about herding cats is another way of saying that most economic systems require an authority figure. Human groups which are content to be self-sufficient (Australian aborigines, Inuits, Siberian nomads???) seem to survive quite happily until their lifestyle gets wiped out by capitalist (or communist?) imperialisms.

It is arguable that Western capitalism has recently passed its peak. It is now the Chinese who are applying the true principles of capitalism - little regard for human rights, pollution etc etc in their quest for ever more GDP and world domination.

TruckerT

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

Human groups which are content to be self-sufficient (Australian aborigines......) seem to survive quite happily until their lifestyle gets wiped out by capitalist (or communist?) imperialisms.

Now the Aboriginal thing is very interesting to me.

Supposedly (and I really don't know whether this is true) Aboriginal Australian groups (not tribes) didn't have any concept of ownership. That in itself seems like a huge sweeping statement to me about people living 1000s of kms apart in a land without horses or mechanised travel.

Now I've read stuff written as late as the 1950s and 1960s where aboriginal family groups have avoided contact with the whites up until there was at least an outside chance that they'd be treated in something like a reasonable fashion.

From what I've read (not nearly enough) I think that there was some ownership of 'stuff'. Spiritual things were often owned either by a Shaman figure or by individual men I believe. Hunting tools the same.

Land wasn't owned in any way of which I am aware but then there are painted caves and carved rocks and that painting could be a mark of ownership, or not of course.

As to whether Aboriginals were self sufficient...? I have doubts about that. There were certainly contacts between family groups to allow marriages across groups for pretty obvious reasons. There is also some evidence, I believe, that inter family group contact was used to share and to trade. Without ownership there can be no trade. I can't swap what's not mine for what's not yours. I guess it depends what you call self-sufficient.

I certainly don't and won't defend what white people did to the traditional owners of Australia. What is happening today is slightly better in a similar way to stopping beating up a small child and moving on to her mum. It's an improvement but not really what you'd call right.