I found the article reasonable as a whole, but this line stuck out at me. 'Losers' are just people who aren't doing very well out of the current social and economic system. Of course they are more likely to complain about society than winners! Discounting critiques of society than come from losers is a little bit like discounting movie reviews from people who didn't like the movie. Or to put it another way, it's like feudal lords discounting critiques of Feudalism because they always seem to come from gross stinky peasants.
There's an awful lot of well researched content out there critiquing aspects of capitalism and the system as a whole. This article is a lazy attack on the most vacuous facet of the movement. I think most people with a sort of anticapitalist lean have correctly identified that whatever the fuck economic system we have going right now has failed to distribute wealth in a way that is globally optimal and are A) mad about this, and B) looking for a solution. "Capitalism sucks" is an easy shibboleth to ease human communication about the matter. There are clearly large swaths of people for who the current system is not working well, we should listen to them.
The result doesn't meet my bar for critical thinking, but I did appreciate the cartoon.
The rant about Shamu and the ozone layer is just Meditations On Moloch[0] distilled into an emotional outburst. The thing is, he's right about those things. It is infuriating that we do bad things for money, and it's important to care enough to get mad about them and do stuff to effect change[1].
0. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
So even if a person has a well thought out argument against capitalism, Johnson dismisses their thought automatically.
Interesting.
Most of the article focuses on how the individual doesn’t understand capitalism and can’t define it.
Fair, that’s the average person though. The average person hasn’t had the academic training or study to articulate every aspect of the economic model.
What the average person does have is experience with capitalism. They might not know what alienation means, but they’ve experienced it.
They might not know exactly what it means for their boss to make a profit off their labor, but they know they’re the ones making the company money, while not seeing profit sharing.
It’s easy to be a commentator and say “the average person doesn’t know what they’re talking about”, when the average person is just trying to make ends meet. I don’t like how Johnson is “punching down” in that respect.
In hope of sparking some new thoughts, I've just realised that this is one of the subjects where you don't get that "enlightened centrism" thing happening.
Presumably because there's a fairly well defined outcome where the rich get all their stuff taken off them. And so if you meet in the middle then you end up with some kind of modern social democracy, which your average enlightened centrist doesn't want.
But capitalism needs regulation, and our current iteration of capitalism needs more regulation. When people refer to "late-stage capitalism", most of them agree that capitalism itself isn't the issue, they're only referring to our current iteration. And I agree with them, capitalism today is broken.
What do I mean by "broken"? There are companies who seemingly everyone hates, have terribly inefficient production, make terrible products, and yet they are still successful (see: Amazon). At a certain size, a company can make terrible decisions, completely destroy their quality and efficiency, and they will still make more and more money. The practices which make companies more money are the opposite of those which help consumers, so that companies which try to be well-liked and genuine are at a disadvantage. And thus most big companies are not liked. This shouldn't be the case.
Also, getting out of homelessness is very difficult even if you have a work ethic (despite the fact most non-homeless people really don't). There are people who work 60-hour weeks and can't afford a living wage. The people who work the hardest in the most important jobs get literally 10x less money than people who barely work at all. This shouldn't be the case.
How can "late-stage capitalism" be fixed? It's next-to-impossible for a new startup to compete with the giant companies, and as a result, the giant companies more or less cooperate with each other and have become a monopoly. This is what needs to be changed to fix problem #1. Government regulation and public cooperation to help small businesses. Government regulation to make it so they don't have to go through trouble like production and distributor negotiations which big companies don't (because they own the production and distribution systems). Possible examples: governments forcing the distributors to sell popular small-business products, governments and new businesses creating their own factories and stores, governments and consumers heavily subsidizing small businesses. Maybe these aren't good solutions. But we need something, so that a business which makes good product efficiently with what it has access to makes money.
And, making it so that poor people don't suffer unless maybe they genuinely deserve it (and ideally, nobody should suffer at all). This is what needs to be changed to fix problem #2. People who work 60-hours should make enough money to sustain themselves and generate savings, whether by the company or by government subsidies, or by being able to quit their under-paying job and work 60 hours in a better one. People should be able to quit under-paying and toxic jobs, and buy more-expensive products from more ethical companies, without going broke. People should have ways to advance their careers and start their own companies. Via government regulation, better companies, or consistent and strong public support. Possible solutions: Universal Basic Income (which can coexist with capitalism); more, better government work programs and grants; large-scale community organization for a "social safety net"; fixing problem #1 causing companies to raise their wages and reduce toxicity naturally. Maybe these aren't good solutions. But we need something, so that a person who contributes what they can to society isn't poor.
> Government regulation to make it so they don't have to go through trouble like production and distributor negotiations which big companies don't (because they own the production and distribution systems)
So regulation to fix the regulation that the regulation caused problems with in the first place. Whack-a-mole? Good luck building your utopian government regulation system, I'll give it a hard pass and fight against it wherever I live.
> People should be able to quit under-paying and toxic jobs, and buy more-expensive products from more ethical companies, without going broke. People should have ways to advance their careers and start their own companies.
Again, what got is into this system in the first place. How is adding in even more bureaucracy, more rich corporate elite minions that actually just want to take advantage of these idealistic systems to make more corporate profits by faking that they want to help people. People already hate welfare, and for good reason (bureaucratic waste of money and time that doesn't actually help people that are struggling in the long run, giving them more stigma and more difficulty to become involved in society).
We live in a society in the West focused on globalized homogenized corporatist technocracy. It's sad to witness people like you, who probably live a great comfortable life, trying to push more of the same systems that are enslaving the people.
What we really need is freedom, free markets, real Capitalism, which is being sapped away quickly as the elite and their technocrat minions completely suck it out of all of us.
