[factorizer]

A first, rather easy solution would be to pay decently. What? Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes.

[chad_oliver]

Capitalism is an ethically bankrupt system which nevertheless manages to produce very good outcomes over the long term. It does this by redirecting human greed, jealousy, ambition, etc towards endeavors which benefit other people. To be clear: there are plenty of problems, and plenty of people being abused. But compare it with feudal economics, where a rent-seeking class had a monopoly on everything and had absolutely no incentive to improve the economic conditions of their subjects. Capitalism is messed up, but it works. It works because it accepts as a fundamental axiom that humans are inherently bad.

Compare this with communism, anarchism, etc. They assume that humans are basically good. Let's just increase everyone's income! Except that isn't sustainable unless it makes economic sense. Negative externalities and all that. There's always going to be people that want power and money and prestige. If you get rid of money, they'll seek those things by turning Russia into a dictatorship. Why should they care about the people starving in the holodomor famine? It's an externality.

Note, of course, that capitalism only works well if you have strong human rights and the rule of law. If either of those fail, you get corruption and slavery. But strong human rights and the rule of law aren't going to change the fact that some (many) people will still be working for $2 a day, simply because they've got no better option. The world sucks, but idealism alone can't fix it.

I don't think I'm explaining my point very well, so let me just state it plainly: it's easy to complain about our f^@!$d up system, but much harder to find a solution that works any better. Before you advocate radical architectural changes, you better be able to prove that your revolution won't eat it's young.

This doesn't mean that we get to sit back and enjoy our lives without guilt. I think every person in the first world has a moral imperative to help people in developing countries. However, we need to be realistic about what works. One great way to improve lives is to provide education, or employment for people who complete higher education. Technology provides a good opportunity in this regard (not the best opportunity, but it's something that we can do, without excuse). There's no reason why a Rwandan in Kigali can't earn first-world wages for doing software development.

[allochthon]

> But compare it with feudal economics, where a rent-seeking class had a monopoly on everything and had absolutely no incentive to improve the economic conditions of their subjects.

This sounds a little like the US today. In order for capitalism to deliver what promise it holds, it must be saved from the capitalists. That means intelligent regulation (as opposed to mere red tape).

[chad_oliver]

I don't really have experience with the US (I'm from New Zealand), but from first impressions I agree with you. Capitalism is a system of regulations to restrict the actions of capitalists.

[kansface]

Rather ironically, your post commits the same offense as its grandparents. You just posted yet another angry tirade with no actionable solution bathed in moral righteousness (as a reply to a post which is essentially the same as this one).

Your radicalism is just as useless to that girl as is the opposite opinion you deride.

[lmm]

> Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes.

Been tried. Didn't work out very well.

[jahaja]

Do alot people reading this react in this manner in their professional life as well, or is this just the usual kind of knee-jerk reaction when someone suggest that something needs to be changed, or rethought, on a much lower lever then the usual superficial alterations we're used to see in the political field?

It's just sad and juvenile.

[lmm]

I'm like this professionally too; in fact it's my professional experience that informs this political view (I was a fairly gung-ho socialist before I became a professional developer). Attempting to fundamentally re-architect a software system almost always ends in disaster - I've seen it happen, or http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html is the standard reference.

What works? Incremental changes that you can make while keeping the current system running. It's ok if you have some grand masterplan behind your changes, but try and make sure those small changes will be valuable even if you have to abandon the grand plan, or change its direction. So I now approach politics this way, and it feels like this is a more mature position, not less.

[jahaja]

I think we basically agree, but your reply was a dogmatic one. Discarding the notion of political change without bothering to listen to, or express arguments.

Gradual change do not exclude fundamental change - eventually. Revolution is after all just evolution speeded up. It's just a different approach.

[lmm]

I was flippant and dismissive yes, but I think that comment I originally replied to - "Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes." - was unlikely to be worth engaging with.

[solistice]

Meh, Communism is like Zero-Point Energy. It sounds good in theory, but it's been disproved time after time, yet it still has adherents saying that the conventional power grid is evil, and that Zero-Point Energy will solve everything.

I'm waiting for someone to tell me that Communism works, but that people are broken, the most marvelous rationalization that history ever spit forth.