I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. — Average

It worked ok for me.

I don’t think that biology is what makes someone “human”. — Average

It plays a pretty significant role.

Theories of biological humanity have been used by some of the most nefarious forces in history to justify their atrocities. — Average

Agreed, which is why I think we should play it safe and just avoid 'dehumanization' whenever possible.

But I also don’t think that it’s a good idea to be merciful to someone that would not extend that same mercy to you. — Average

So because person A would (or wouldn't) do X to me, therefore it's ok for me to (not) do X to them?

Given the chance they would probably butcher you just as quickly as their other victims regardless of your humanistic or humanitarian ideas. — Average

So I should just discard one of the main things that differentiates me from them (e.g. my commitment to humanitarian ideals)?

Maybe it has more to do with the arbitrary nature of the crime and the fact that such behavior is unwarranted. Under this revised metric it would not be the simple fact that the serial killers are predators but it would instead be the fact that they are hunting people that haven’t done anything to warrant the death sentence. — Average

'Innocent', 'guilty', 'warranted', 'unwarranted'. All of these concepts are vague at the boundaries and can be weaponized in the ways you've described above. Even 'reasonable' people will sometimes disagree on how to classify things. Generally, this is why I tend to advocate for something like a principle of 'least force' or 'least punishment' where we always go with the minimum punishment necessary to protect the rest of society from that person. This way when the fuzzy cases arise (or when we inevitably get things wrong) the consequences are minimized.

I don't deny that there are downsides to this approach.

you have interesting arguments and I need to think about them before I respond.

No problem.

Generally, this is why I tend to advocate for something like a principle of 'least force' or 'least punishment' where we always go with the minimum punishment necessary to protect the rest of society from that person. — Theorem

How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment?

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others. — Xtrix

No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this.

Many "collaborations" have as their goal an utopia. And I'm not making here a cynical remark about "human nature". It's that people want things that are realistically, practically, physically not possible. For example, it is not possible on planet Earth that everyone would live a first-world lifestyle. It isn't, because there just aren't enough natural resources for that.

And while many people try to "make life better" for themselves and others, they also have some measure of awareness that there are practical limits to how much better a particular person's life can get. It's because of this awareness that their heart isn't quite fully in their activism.

I don't see capitalism as intrinsically evil. Capitalism is a fairly efficient means of solving extremely complex problems. We don't appear to have an effective alternative. In my opinion, it's simply a tool that's not being wielded for the common good as it should be. — Theorem

We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. Therefore, I also disagree that we don't have effective alternatives. Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.

If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business.

There are other alternatives as well.

At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear. — Xtrix

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you.

This is a big one, no doubt. For the last 20 years I’ve often used this as an excuse — for all kinds of things. But then I look at what people in Argentina and Nicaragua and Sudan achieve, or in the poor areas of Boston and Chicago, and I realize I have far more opportunity than they do. Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities. — Xtrix

Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue.
Once people are relatively materially comfortable, they feel no real, urgent need to get together with others, other than for the purpose of obtaining more power or for entertainment.

This relates to what I’m saying here as well. In much the same way as we know depression is often linked to social isolation (loneliness) or general lack of fulfilling relationships, I think this political hopelessness is also linked to a lack of collaboration with others.
— Xtrix

No, it's the lack of a realistic goal, and people being less or more aware of this. — baker

That's what others have mentioned earlier. It is indeed an important factor, which is why I created this thread, which specifically addresses this.

But as I mentioned there, I'm no longer completely convinced that this is the most important obstacle. The problems are pretty well understood, as are the goals/solutions. The case of climate change is a good example. Plenty of solutions, plenty of goals.

I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others.

Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do. — Tom Storm

Yet we can see that every right, every privilege that was won through a revolution is eventually taken away from people, usually indirectly.

For example, women have won themselves the right to paid work, but the trend is that more and more employers try to diminish that (such that a woman must sign her resignation papers if she wants to get the job in the first place).

At the heart of the matter, in my view, are phenomena that have always been there: irrationality, false beliefs, greed, hatred, prejudice, fear.
— Xtrix

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder you don't feel motivated to get together with others, and also why others might not be particularly motivated to get together with you. — baker

I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.

I never once said others don't want to get together with me.

The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context, you'd see that this was an acknowledgement of aspects of human beings which have indeed been around forever (I don't see how anyone could disagree with this), but which in today's world have much bigger effects, and are in fact encouraged in an economic system that prioritizes personal gain.

Yet they make things happen, and it’s largely because of strong communities.
— Xtrix

Or because they are so poor, in such real need that this keeps them together, acting as glue. — baker

I don't understand the "or." It's not either-or.

They make things happen because of strong communities. That people often come together in desperation and under harsh conditions was exactly my point.

Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested.

I could be wrong, and it really is ignorance. I would argue that isolation contributes to this. But let's assume I'm right, and the problems are known and solutions are fairly clear. What then accounts for inaction? A lack of a detailed plan? Perhaps. But I would point instead to isolation, hopelessness, despair, and the inability to engage with and join with others. — Xtrix

Rather, the love of comfort and convenience.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

The theme of this thread is solidarity, but above, you're talking about different settings, where some of them have a category of relating to other people that other settings don't. While one may be solidary with acquaintances, strangers, and also with friends and family, there is another category of relating that applies only with friends and family. This is having cordial relations with people.

I never once said I don't feel motivated to get together with others.

I never once said others don't want to get together with me.

The sentence you quote was in response to someone else. If you paid closer attention to the context,
/.../

Seems to me you're hell-bent on disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. If that's the case, I'm not interested. — Xtrix

See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person.
I've brought this up before with you in the covid thread, and I'm bringing it up here only because you said in your OP:

But in talking with others, I've come to learn about factors which were once invisible to me until pointed out. — Xtrix

See, this is exactly why I don't want to get together with you: your bad faith in relation to other people, your readiness to quickly assume the worst about the other person. — baker

:roll:

You repeatedly take me out of context, put words in my mouth, "disagree" for no reason, and initiate this "bad faith" with condescending comments like

If this is how you think about it, then it's no wonder — baker

...and I'm the one assuming the worst?

Your tone is often disrespectful and condescending.

So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect.

I'm perfectly willing to do so, as is obvious above -- until condescending remarks get made.

So again, I'm not interested in interacting with those who are impolite and choose to posture and lecture.

We can't talk about alternatives to something we can't define. Your definition of "efficient means of solving extremely complex problems" is inadequate, and I don't agree with it. — Xtrix

That wasn't intended as a definition. It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved.

Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation.

If you look at how corporations are organized and governed -- with a few people on top (shareholders, board of directors, CEO) making all the important decisions, and everyone else living with those decisions and taking orders -- then it's easy to point to alternatives: worker co-ops. Workers owning and running their own business. — Xtrix

I wasn't denying the existence of alternatives. Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. And I'm not claiming that all corporations are anywhere close to being maximally efficient. Nor, am I claiming that efficiency is the only important consideration, though it certainly is important.

How do you calculate the necessary amount of punishment? — Average

Unfortunately, I don't have a formula for this.

So how about this for feedback -- at least when dealing with me: give respect, get respect. — Xtrix

That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. You have the attitude that others should make the first step, others should take responsibility for the quality of communication. Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. I just used you as an example for your thread topic.

It was simply an observation. Capitalistic economies have been the most productive and efficient economies in history. Through them an incredible number of highly complex problems have been solved. — Theorem

But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything.

So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism."

I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism.

Just questioning how efficient the alternatives are in comparison. — Theorem

I think co-ops are very efficient.

That's just it: you don't give respect to begin with. — baker

Yes, I do. There's a long record of it, if you care to go back and look. Taking this exchange on this thread, it's very obvious. Going just fine until you decide to through in your disrespectful comments. Always nice to see you take zero responsibility for it, as usual.

Others should respect you first, and then, maybe, you'll respect them. And you apparently don't seem to see the problem with this one-sidedness. — baker

You're just making this up. My tone was very measured and very respectful, until YOU decided to be impolite. After that, you're correct: I don't "turn the other cheek." I respond in kind.

Now perhaps I shouldn't lower myself to your level of communication, which is very poor and disrespectful indeed. Others have pointed this out -- and perhaps they're right. But I can't help myself. I don't like posturing, rude people who pretend to know things they don't know, while taking no time to understand another's arguments.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that puts people off and why they don't want to get together with those who have such an attitude. — baker

Yes, which is why no one likes you.

But it's never your fault, so just forget about it.

Bottom line: you make rude comments to me, expect the same in return. Don't learn that lesson? Too bad. Learn some manners, or shuffle the fuck back to where you came from -- I'm not interested.

But if you don't define it, then you're not talking about anything. — Xtrix

I agree, and I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't try to define it.

So far as I can see, there are no capitalist economies in the sense of "free market capitalism." — Xtrix

Sure, I can agree with that. No markets are 'absolutely' free. Yet, it seems accurate to say that some markets have been encumbered with more constraints than others at various times throughout history. I think the word 'free' is still appropriate, so long as we recognize that it's being used in a 'relative' rather than an 'absolute' sense.

I see no evidence that capitalist economies have solved problems better than others, nor are more productive, nor are more efficient. — Xtrix

Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history?

Sure, if we attribute everything to "capitalism" that's positive, then you're stating a truism. — Xtrix

I'm not attributing everything positive to capitalism. I think that capitalism, as currently practiced in the western world, has some major (and potentially fatal) flaws. But that doesn't mean I'm going to just ignore it's positive aspects.

I think co-ops are very efficient. — Xtrix

They can be. I've worked for a couple of co-ops. My observation has been that co-ops are efficient until they reach a certain size, at which point they typically have to either split or re-organize into a more traditional hierarchy. When they decide to split they effectively become two separate organizations and (in the long run) evolve in different directions. This isn't a 'bad' thing, per se, but it maintains egalitarianism at the expense of the original solidarity. When a co-op decides to organize into a hierarchy, traditional power politics arise. The organization retains its solidarity, but now at the expense of the original egalitarianism.

In my experience, there is an natural trade-off that arises between egalitarianism and solidarity as an organization scales.

Would you agree that most of the economies of the 'western' world qualify as broadly capitalistic in nature? If so, do you not agree that these economies have the been the most productive and efficient in history? — Theorem

That's exactly the point, though. How (1) are we defining capitalist? And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? China is a fairly large and booming economy, by many metrics. Is that capitalism? Is the US economy, with its massive state intervention, from the Federal Reserve to tax cuts to subsidies, etc. capitalism? Are they particularly efficient? Efficient at what?

Western economics are mixed economies. Those that have a higher social welfare system, like the Nordic countries, fair far better in terms of outcomes. Maybe that's what we mean by capitalism?

It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts?

Humans will unite and will work together in common cause when they think they can win.
Their level of confidence will rise or fall depending on unfolding events as their campaign ensues.
A majority has struggled against a minority since the time we were emergent from the wilds.
If you study any insect or animal 'society,' the most successful and long lasting ones are those who show the best ability to 'work in common cause.'
The Lions would kill and consume all the young bison born if the adult bison had not figured out how to crowd around their young as a wall of horned protection that frustrated the Lions.
The original humans who became the first of the 'Rich' and 'Powerful' were simply those who were physically strongest and could intimidate a significant number of others.
If in those early days, all of those intimidated by the one or the few, could have been 'brave' and 'wise' enough to unite and kill those few who wished to impose their will on the majority, then we would not be facing threats from f***wit's like Putin today.

Everything that has happened to create the societal imbalance today between a powerful, sycophantic global elitist minority and an abused, cowed global majority has been possible because of this early inability of an intimidated majority to prevent a determined nefarious elite from imposing their will.

How do we fix this now before we are made extinct due to it?

Understand that what I have said above is true and help in any way you can to unite the majority of people globally.

The global, powerful elite, are fierce and will use every erg of energy and measure of power they have to stop such from happening because they are convinced that they can maintain their legacy of privilege without courting/causing their own destruction. They are most willing and indeed are actively seeking to significantly reduce the current number of the majority to a number that is easier for them to handle, will consume less resources and still number enough to be able to maintain and service them.

One great hope in our favor is that, just like us, they fight a lot amongst themselves. Individuals like Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Modi, Boris Johnstone and many other such individuals are all cut from the exact same nefarious lump of human shit, (as are all billionaires or multi-millionaires, in my personal opinion). I am surprised that they are not more successful at global unison as they absolutely have a common cause.

If we don't do better towards the idea put forward in the OP and we don't unite and take power away from the current nefarious minority who monopolise it then I don't think the Universe will miss us too much but it will take the Earth a long time to recover and try again with another species. Perhaps an evolution from the termites or ants.

How (1) are we defining capitalist? — Xtrix

I thought we were using the definition you provided earlier:

Capitalism, as I see it, is just the name for an socioeconomic system, one which is differentiated from past systems by its unique power structure -- viz., one of employers (owners) and employees. In the modern industrial age, its best representative is the corporation. — Xtrix

Do you still agree with this definition? I personally think it's a little narrow (of which more below), but it's the one I thought we were using.

And (2), how are we measuring efficiency? — Xtrix

My understanding is that economists use a concept known as 'pareto efficiency' - the state at which any change in the allocation of resources within the economy would result in a lower standard of living for one or more individuals. This is usually broken down into categories of 'efficiency in production' and 'efficiency in distribution'. Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly, so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc.

It seems hard to argue that capitalist economies (per your definition above) have not been particularly adept at solving problems related to the efficient production and distribution of goods on an incredibly large scale. That's not to say that they are maximally efficient, or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization.

It's just too broad to talk about. We can't possibly say that "capitalist countries are more efficient" -- because we haven't the slightest idea what that means. China is productive and efficient, outpacing the US in many ways (including GDP) the last few years. They're without a doubt a communist country, but a mixed economy as well. Is their efficiency due to their "capitalist" parts? — Xtrix

I don't think the waters are as muddy as you are suggesting. By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. Looking at it through a broader lens, it's generally understood that economies are capitalistic to the degree that they are based on things like private ownership, profit motive, unregulated price systems, competitive markets, unlimited capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, wage labor, etc. It's true that no real-world economy is perfectly capitalistic, but such is always true of the real-world. The lack of a perfect definition, and the existence of fuzzy boundary conditions does not undermine the fact that some economies are clearly more capitalistic than others. Admittedly, China's economy is highly 'mixed', but it seems fairly clear that China's growth was invigorated by the incorporation of many of the practices listed above.

Again, I'm not arguing that capitalism is an unalloyed good. I'm simply arguing that there is enough consensus around the definition of capitalism to effectively categorize most economies as broadly capitalist or not. This doesn't seem controversial to me. Also, the historical data seems to confirm a correlation between increased productivity and efficiency with the adoption of 'capitalistic' practices within an economy.

Pareto efficiency is a theoretical state that (as far we know) cannot be achieved in practice. Also, there's no way of measuring it directly — Theorem

So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured?

so economists usually use other metrics such as GDP, unemployment, etc. — Theorem

Which is what I am using as well. And when you look at GDP, unemployment, real wages, productivity, etc., the results vary. China does very well in many of these metrics, and not so well in others. The US has seen increased productivity and stagnant wages for 40 years, along with huge wealth inequality. I wouldn't call that efficient distribution.

If you're talking about the ability to produce and distribute goods -- then yes, the modern world generally has improved as technology has improved. I don't think this has much to do with centering our economy on the relationship between owners and workers. I don't see why the major decisions have to be in the hands of a tiny fraction of society, rather than the entire community.

If we reject these notions in politics, we should reject them in the workplace.

or to deny that some degree of central regulation is required for optimization. — Theorem

The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution?

Again, take China. Are they capitalist? Are they communist? Their manufacturing doesn't seem to be one or the other. We know the state is involved on every level, and that they made the decision to open their economy to the rest of the world in the 1980s and 90s. Why some vague notion of "capitalism" gets credit for their current economy and not the communist government is obvious, at least in the West -- where communism=bad, capitalism=good.

So I repeat myself: it's just not that simple.

By the definition you provided above, it's fairly easy to determine which economies qualify as capitalist. — Theorem

In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state.

It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so.

If you get rid of the Walton family, Wal Mart will go on just fine. If you get rid of the owners of major car companies, cars will still be made. If you replace the leadership roles appointed by board directors to those appointed/voted for by workers, you also won't sacrifice efficiency and productivity. Co-ops are productive and efficient too.

So you're referring to a theoretical state that cannot be achieved and cannot be measured? — Xtrix

Correct, it can't be measured directly. It's practically infeasible. Like all scientists, economists build idealized models of observable phenomena. These are always approximations. For extremely complex systems (like economies) it's not feasible to measure the exact state of the system at any given time. Therefore, various proxy measures have devised to estimate the state.

The level of state intervention involved in the economy is enormous. So my point is this: whatever success you point to, why not attribute it to the state? Why is it "capitalism" that accounts for this so-called "efficiency" of production and distribution? — Xtrix

I feel pretty confident that it's a combination.

In this case, nearly every country on earth is capitalist, including Asian and African nations. Saudi Arabia and Sweden and Japan and Gabon and Belize are capitalist in this sense. But clearly that's not the entire story -- it just points to how business is generally run (by owners). In order for the private ownership and private profit to exist, it needs the assistance of the state. — Xtrix

Yes, correct.

It just so happens that the state is now the lapdog of wealth, and wealth is generated in the main from business, particularly the corporate world, and particularly the financial sector of the corporate world. So what I want to see change, therefore, is the concentration of power in the hands of the owner class (the capitalists), and more in the hands of the community. We don't sacrifice productivity or efficiency by doing so. — Xtrix

I agree. That said, it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from.

it seems like we should want power to be in the hands of the most competent people, regardless of what class they happen to be from. — Theorem

True. Like the people. Like workers. Etc.

It doesn’t mean everyone is the same, it means decisions are made by the entire community— voting is one way, and still pretty limited. But at least it’s something.