Thank you so much Peter for this brilliant article. Everything you write leaves me with at least a few life-altering conclusions, without fail. But I would like to make a suggestion:
In mu humble opinion, you should make your articles a bit easier to read and less academic, that way you can reach a far larger audience. I understand, that may not be your style but that just my opinion.
Hi Peter, as always, a well worded systems analysis of of the market economic system and its inherent shortcomings. Reading your work always inspires a rare clarity of insight of the path towards real solutions.
To intentionally redesign a better economic system than the one that has evolved organically, we need to first clearly state the purpose for designing any economic system. Using your example that the purpose of a car engine design is to provide transportation, it seems to me that the most basic and inherent central intention or purpose of any economic system is the distribution of resources. To more clearly define our desired outcomes, resource distribution should be sustainable and should provide the best possible quality for all life upon the Earth.
Since this system is largely of human design for the long term benefit of humans, what parameters could be defined to regulate human behaviors while maximizing as much as possible freedom of choice? Many of us have begun to recognize that money in its many forms is a highly problematic human motivator for many reasons. What parameters could be designed into an alternative economic system that are viable and less problematic than money to incentivise behaviors more in line with the other desired outcomes? Perhaps something grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
To design a viable and effective economic system, clearly defining and agreeing upon the desired outcomes of our system, should allow us to begin designing regulatory parameters, the feedback loops needed to tweak our designed economic system towards maximizing desired outcomes while minimizing undesirable outcomes, like environmental degradation, poverty, hunger, homelessness and war.
Finding a way to peacefully transition from our present market based economic system towards an economic system intentionally designed to provide superior outcomes should be the unifying goal of everyone right now.
Should be, but I’m not sure we’ve ever been further from such a reality in our lifetime than we are today. We have people who respect only realpolitik, a cult of power. Such people cannot be reasoned with. Zealots are self assured of their own absolute right to do what they do, and reason will find no perch there. Fear controls the people and our education system certainly doesn’t create research groups on how to create egalitarian structures. So while, sure, you’re absolutely correct, we’re a long, long way from having the requisite freedoms need to actually begin exploring it.
I am writing to you in reply to your Substack post, Why Socialism Sucks.
I must say upfront, I'm quite shocked at this pop culture piece of shit of an essay you posted. I'm shocked because normally, when I read your articles, or listen to your podcasts, videos, i.e. "content", I'm truly inspired by your seemly accurate insight. Not to mention, I'm a “systems” person myself.
So, when I read this essay, my head exploded. This post doesn't reach anywhere near the level of accurate insight or intellectual integrity I've come to expect from you. Maybe that's my fault for "expecting" you not to produce such total shit, like this essay.
It's total shit, and here's why.
You mention upfront, "In relation to socialism, terms like Marxism and Communism are often used interchangeably in popular culture, but for the purposes of this article, we will not delve into nuanced semantics. There is no need."
So, what is the purpose of this essay?
It certainly isn't about furthering a "shared understanding", ney, the exact opposite is at play I suspect, because you've started out, incorrectly using two distinct terms as interchangeable, and then dismissing their distinctions as not worthy of clarification or discussion.
The cognitive dissonance produced by such conflation, really bothers the hell out of me!
First and foremost, Communism and Marxism, are two, very distinct things. The use of these terms interchangeably in popular culture, as most things in pop culture, are incorrectly applied. And for you to dismiss this distinction, is to eliminate the very possibility of shared understanding. Not to mention how completely and intellectually dishonest it is to do so.
Communism and Marxism are related concepts, but they are not the same. Marxism is a political and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century, while communism is a political ideology and a system of government that draws inspiration from Marxist principles.
Marxism begins with the concept of historical materialism, which asserts that the driving force of history is the struggle between different social classes. It suggests that the structure of society, its institutions, and its norms are shaped primarily by the mode of production and the distribution of wealth and resources.
The ultimate goal of Marxism is the establishment of a classless society known as communism, where private ownership of the means of production has been abolished, and resources are distributed according to the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." In such a society, there is no exploitation, and the state withers away, resulting in a stateless and classless society.
As to the meat of your essay, first and foremost, you are comparing apples (capitalism) to oranges (socialism). At nearly 60 yrs old, I've spent decades studying Socialism. No where in any of the material I have consumed has "Socialism" ever been presented as an "economic" system. It has always been portrayed as a "transitional period" in the "state" of society.
That's a huge distinction you have failed to mention. And I'm not sure why? To trash Socialism because it doesn't meet your "definition" of a Complex Adaptive System can only happen if you ignore the fact, that Socialism has never intended or meant to be a distinct economic system, different than capitalism.
Like all matter in the universe, societies have different states of being. From hunter gatherer's to full industrialized societies. Even in this transitional state of society know as Socialism, capitalism will remain as the principle means of economic activity.
Trotsky himself said as much in Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 4. Money and Plan.
"We shall be able to speak of the actual triumph of socialism only at that historical moment when the state turns into a semi-state, and money begins to lose its magic power. This will mean that socialism, having freed itself from capitalist fetishes, is beginning to create a more lucid, free and worthy relation among men. Such characteristically anarchist demands as the “abolition” of money, “abolition” of wages, or “liquidation” of the state and family, possess interest merely as models of mechanical thinking. Money cannot be arbitrarily “abolished”, nor the state and the old family “liquidated.” They have to exhaust their historic mission, evaporate, and fall away. The deathblow to money fetishism will be struck only upon that stage when the steady growth of social wealth has made us bipeds forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor, and our humiliating fear about the size of our ration. Having lost its ability to bring happiness or trample men in the dust, money will turn into mere bookkeeping receipts for the convenience of statisticians and for planning purposes. In the still more distant future, probably these receipts will not be needed. But we can leave this question entirely to posterity, who will be more intelligent than we are."
You mention...
"To achieve a meaningful understanding of these terms, we must first determine the context of use. In this, we are going to take an economic perspective as opposed to a philosophical one and we are going to use the lens of systems analysis or system dynamics – the science of organization."
You are using them completely out of context!
Capitalism is not a philosophy and Socialism is not an economic system. There is your mistake. My head is exploding that someone whom I have found to be quite intelligent, has made this huge, stupid, glaring mistake. In all my years absorbing Socialist and Communist materials, never has Socialism been presented as a discreet economic system, as you're trying to compare with Capitalism. It's absurd to me!
I do agree that Socialism is an intervention into Capitalism, but Socialism is not an economic system.
Socialism just reorganizes the players and the rules of the game a bit, but Capitalism will remain the economic system that will lie underneath this “Socialist” state of society.
Money, wage labor, the buying and selling of goods and services, will all still remain, but the exploitation of the Capitalist System, will be removed by new rules/regulations/ownership changes/property relations etc...
I get the gist of what you're trying to say, we need to move beyond a “money" based system/society.
Even Trotsky wanted us t get to the same place, “The deathblow to money fetishism will be struck only upon that stage when the steady growth of social wealth has made us bipeds forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor, and our humiliating fear about the size of our ration.”
But trashing Socialism like this is, well, unfounded, unwarranted and unworthy of your and my intellect. And certainly not going to get us beyond a money based system / society.
I'm truly shocked at the level of bullshit put forth by this essay, because it's underlying premise is comparing apples to oranges. It's intellectually dishonest and absurd to me!
Augh. Well don't expect many, if any, 'outsiders' to listen. :(
And are you going to provide any counter examples?
It's hard enough for me to determine what an alternative 'mechanism' could be (besides working to meet human needs), let alone those in the mainstream sphere. Referents are needed!! Or else it sounds hollow.
PLEASE work on your approach. "Know your audience."
Winter - while I am sure Peter appreciates feedback from his audience, I'm kinda thinking that his message and style are his own. It's what makes him unique. Could you help Peter by re-packaging his message in a way that "you yourself" find more appropriate to spread among people you think might benefit from it?
Also, I just watched a video by Jacque Fresco yesterday and he clearly understands this approach well. He'd found ways to turn people around in their thinking, such as infiltrating a KKK group to make them less racist, or working with troubled students "in the slums" to move them from violent to bright architectural thinkers. ..... We have to learn to speak others' language if we ever want to transform ignorant culture.
Thanks for the comment Jeremy. Yes, I've realized I should take it upon myself to help out in this way and find a way to communicate this stuff better (I've engaged a lot of people in the past, individually, but it's mostly a waste of effort ... making videos would be the best way to put the message out there). However, Peter clearly has the wider audience. He should make the most use of that. I think even a lot of followers have grown tired of the over criticisms without a fair amount of solution based offerings. We all get it ... but what are we working toward, exactly? ....... I wish we could operate in some way like a thinktank (similar to Venus Project) and come up with a "game plan" so to speak.
I hear you. And I think I understand. You are ready to "take the next step". Personally I don't think it's "fair" to burden Peter with that. He has already contributed extensively. I am at the stage where I am absorbing the material in The New Human Rights Movement.
Maybe "we" could help Peter by helping him get his message across. You have some interesting ideas yourself...
People who are turned off by the title aren’t going to make it very far into the text, either. Those people only want confirmation bias, not understanding. The thing is, we are largely powerless at the end of the day to affect any meaningful systemic change. People don’t like to feel powerless, so they’ll fall back on whatever comforting reality most assuredly assuages those feelings. They want self validation, and you can’t get that when you realized how fucked all of this is.
Already, no one I've suggested this reading to has bothered with it ...which isn't surprising, since that's the case with virtually all of the material I promote; even if it's a short, relevant video clip. And I've been automatically banned from at least 3 sub-Reddits just for sharing this essay (with my own warning attached). The title really is off-putting.
Peter Joseph is obviously full of insightful, transformative ideas ... but a socially-connective communication approach is not his strong suit. Besides most often coming across as flat-toned and dense in terminology, I don't think he considers what is going to actually grab people's interest enough to listen to/read him. They need an incentive beyond hearing that everything sucks. Of course the warnings about social & environmental destabilization are important... but too many people tune that stuff out since they're too used to bad news and the general impression that little can really be done about it. Why not spend as much time highlighting what can change, and more to the point, how vastly it can improve lives?
For example, I'm used to dull reactions when presenting any sort of critical information (except for those who want to agree so they can blow off steam, but do little more than complain)... and yet, when I talk about the positive aspects, such as the way jobs could be severely decreased with available technology, ears perk up. It's kind of selfish, but it makes sense that we care more about progress in our own lives first. The future seems distant and less concerning.
.... I use this approach when dealing with those who have especially opposing views (right-wing, libertarian type). Bridging the divide. ..... Include things they want to hear -- which is very important. It's well established psychologically that no one ever changes their mind by being introduced to conflicting concepts to their own biases. In fact, we retreat further into preconceptions as a self-defense mechanism / debate over reflection. The sole form of mind alterion is by internal, willful considerations and placing ourselves in others' shoes.
So, if they care mostly about topics like freedom and security (and similar needs we all have), question what those ideas mean as well as how we can obtain them (since decrees alone can't do it). Like, what if the whole world was your home to travel about unrestricted, while having free access to what you need anywhere you go, isn't that true freedom? And for security, well the best approach to not living in fear is to find out what causes corrupt behavior (a corrupt system) and address it.
Plus, arranging the conversation in ways they're not used to can sometimes help diffuse those keyword trigger reactions.
...I don't know. It just feels like there must be better angles to get the message out there. Clearly what's occurring now is having a minimal effect.
You make good points. One thing I’ll add is that we are powerless for system change, alone. But together, using a similar strategy - we can be very effective and powerful.
Have you heard of One Small Town with Michael Tellinger? Worth a look. Contributionism is better than capitalism no matter which way you slice it. Time to use the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation. One town at a time!
I don't know how much you've looked into it or the last time you did, but the One Small Town initiative has already started in a couple towns, one in Lebanon and another in South Africa. As far as a shared strategy? There seems to be quite a lot of sharing. This is an excerpt from the website:
"The ONE SMALL TOWN strategy creates a NEW social system, without any violence, opposition or conflict, by using the tools of economic enslavement as tools that serve the community and investors. We are creating a new system, for the people, by the people, that makes the old system obsolete.
This proposal is the product of 12 years of research, and involvement in various international activities, community projects, strategies, funding models, and deep analysis of the failings of our current socio-economic system. "
The other thing is that everyone who contributes 3 hours a week towards any of the community co-operatives becomes a member and co-owner and that gives them access to everything grown, created, built, fixed or provided from the other community co-op projects for free! The excess of goods or services can be sold on the open market or to non-members to generate revenue that is also shared with all members as a dividend. This cannot go on forever... I realize that.
But as you so brilliantly point out, if we did as much as we could to implement the 5 great economic transitions of localization, automation, access, open source and digital network feedback we could get to a pretty sustainable 'zero marginal cost society' and do more with less. Once the technology and machinery is set we won't actually need money. When food, water, shelter, electricity, healthcare, education, etc. is provided in abundance to the people of any community - money is not needed and that's the point we are trying to get to.
As far as I can tell, the OST strategy isn't trying to be stuck in socialist ideals, it is trying to bridge the gap between the monetary world we, unfortunately, do have to live in for not, but create the abundance and prosperity for each local area that can allow us to be free of the money-mad world.
I would also welcome more strategies that communities could implement, if something else were available. I am open to the best ideas and evidence for sustainability and public health. I would be worried about the OST initiative if it didn't have plans to get off the monetary system once the systems allowed it to do so. But maybe I'm missing something? Are there other concerns you have about this OST initiative? (Besides the super rich class coming after it for site hacks and disruption because they see it as a threat to their elitist lifestyles, lol!)
Professor Wolff has addressed your cynicism quite well. Yanis too. Socialism, like Capitalism is ever changing. Evolving. The Capitalism we know evolved. The game Monopoly was created to show how a system organized in that fashion ultimately ends. The USSR was not the first attempt at change. Horace Greeley went West to join a farming cooperative in Colorado. When the Commanding Heights pulled all the dollars out of Argentina, worker coops began to flourish. Are they all gone? Like the Mondrigon Coop in Spain, are/have they abandoned principles that they used to start the coop in order to survive Capitalism? Or is greed creeping in and destroying their original dream? Or both? I'll bet a bit of both. Just like the real world interaction of Capitalism and Socialism. You get a lot of things right, but as I have tried to point out, I don't think your quite there yet. None of us are.
Once again, you're talking about a completely different level of subject matter that is based on a non-systems understanding. I suggest you begin studying Jay Forrester up through the D. Meadows and then Stafford beer and then get back to me. If you're studying people that profess to be economists - you are in the wrong field. This is a systems perspective. Not an economic or social perspective. If you don't understand the system everything else becomes pointless. Good luck
What system are you talking about? Yesterday, today, or tomorrow? Yanis makes the same point about economics as I am now making to you about systems theory. Are you talking 1917 or 2017? Systems change and evolve. Evonomics has changed and evolved. Good luck to you too!
To that comment Peter, I would say look to your shadow. Damn disappointed!
Yanis is right in line with Richard Wolff and his organization Democracy at Work. The evolution is happening. Many worker owned companies growing in number.
They are both right in some ways but generally wrong in how they understand the system. None of these guys understand systems science. Why don't you actually read what I wrote rather than make arbitrary objections based on appeal to authority. And worker owned companies are not going to accomplish a damn thing. If they were going to, they would have 100 years ago. Just the same waste of time...
"If we created a new earth tomorrow and threw a bunch of humans in and introduced them to this economic system of market trade, it would just be a matter of time before the basic nature of their society mirrored our own. Hence, there’s a fundamental structural determinism based on this root behavior." A truly generic statement about most people and most societies.
"In other words, socialism is a (a) moral ideology and (b) reactionary means that can only exist as a response to capitalism; any characteristics attributed to socialism are interventions within the capitalist (or market) structure. Even this phrase "public ownership of the means of production" exists solely as a response to the natural development of power and resource concentration within market dynamics, where the “ownership class exploits the working class,” as the so-called Marxist saying goes."
Again, Capitalism relies on markets. Markets existed before Capitalism.
Next, Marx never said the state should own the means of production. All Communism does is trade an authoritarian private oligarchy for authoritarian public oligarchy. Granted, the private oligarchy in a Democracy should be more controllable than the public oligarchy in an authoritarian government.
"Simply, a clear distinction can be made between a capitalist system and a non-capitalist system: The use of markets"
Every economic system has markets. You can not stop one neighbor from trading with another to make life more livable. That is how and why society was formed! So to say the use of markets distinguishes capitalism from other economic systems is a fallacy.
Leaving this here - an evolutional biologist explaining the cultural analog of aging and why it also applies to the structural dynamics of our socio-economic paradigm.
‘intelligent inferential sustainable economic redesign’ I’m looking forward to hearing what you’re proposing and a way to approach this problem. I remember possibly from the Z films (?) that any isms in terms of socialism, capitalism, communism, all offer the same thing in many ways because all need money - the basic core operating system. Interesting that here you’re proposing that socialism only exists inside of capitalism (bit like neo in the matrix) serving as a control, release valve and maintaining the status quo. Is there a risk here though that the article is another criticism of capitalism with no solution?
‘intelligent inferential sustainable economic redesign’ sounds amazing. I’ve just been stack ranked and fired so bring this new system on asap please. I’m keen to understand it.
The article discusses the debate between capitalism and socialism from an economic and systems analysis perspective. The key points are:
Capitalism is a market-based economic system that has evolved over time, with inherent structural properties that constrain outcomes regardless of human desires or actions.
The use of markets is the defining feature of capitalism, leading to the development of institutions, hierarchies, inequalities, and other common features.
Capitalism, as a complex adaptive system, has built-in negative functions such as the creation of poverty, inequality, and unsustainable growth patterns.
Socialism is essentially an interventionist reaction to capitalism, aiming to regulate its inherent features to create a more sustainable and equitable world. However, it lacks a universally agreed-upon definition and is not a formally defined system that can be implemented uniformly.
The false dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism limits the potential for improved economic and social organization, as socialism is often portrayed as the only alternative to capitalism.
The author argues that we need intelligent, inferential, and sustainable economic redesign, moving beyond the historical orientation and adversarial labels of capitalism and socialism.
In summary, the article challenges the common perception of the capitalism-socialism debate, emphasizing the need for a more objective and creative approach to economic systems design.
I think PJ means that it’s inevitable as technology advances. All other factors are irrelevant compared to the inevitably extreme capital accumulations that increasing productive capacity creates plus the correspondingly necessary and extreme pecuniary investment required to “lift oneself up by one’s bootstraps”.
I would argue that market trade is simply an extension of the state of nature - why do we amplify rather than attenuate Nature is the issue with markets - instead of alleviating Nature’s stressors, we amplify the jungle scenario because there is still a percentage of necessary jobs required to ensure survival - who’s going to do those jobs? I advocate job share rather than creating “bullshit jobs”, and incentivising any unemployed/underemployed/bored/etc. people to look to further advancing machinery toward zero marginal employment (incentive being more free time due to more and more necessary jobs being obsoleted), but hey, who’s going to pay people when there’s no jobs left? In the words of Alan Watts “where’s the money gonna come from? Who’s gonna pay for it? The answer is the machine pays for it”. Maybe then we’ll have time for space exploration and every street corner having time for musical/philosophical/kickball/surfing/gardening/automotive, pick your interest, and people with corresponding time to share that interest with.
if there has to be an -ism or an -ology, Socialism should be reoriented to the much more semantically specific term “Democratic Sustainable Designism”, as this should immediately obviate pointless and unproductive association to historical incidences of “anything other than capitalism being inevitably a failure”.
If people are still fearful of anything different to capitalism, PJ is pointing out that historical examples of “Socialism” were just capitalist bureaucracies - not actually different in their underlying system of market trade. Perhaps the one recent and usefully relevant historical association can be drawn from Salvador Allende in Chile, which engaged Stafford Beer’s systems engineering redesign of the economy based on specific social goals - like designing an airplane with the specific goal of expedient travel with design constraints like safety/sustainability/access.
I look forward to PJs latest Zeitgeist film in March 2024, as I think it’s likely he’ll flesh out what actually happened in Chile and we can learn from possibly the only useful example of “doing something different” that has been attempted in relatively modern times - technology has advanced a lot since 1972, all the more reason to be optimistic in a localised but networked attempt to do in modern communities what Stafford attempted in Chile.
I really want to be part of something like what Stafford tried to achieve and PJ is admirably persevering in both bringing this knowledge to light, and doing so in a brilliantly creative and meaningful way. The aesthetic of creative visual and musical communication is unparalleled in its overlap with such intelligent scientific research/understanding. Thank you PJ.
As a professional engineer with construction/mining experience that could be leveraged by such a positive social project, I’d much rather put my skills/efforts towards making this happen. I wait, somewhat restlessly, but with hope that something in the real world will come of PJs work (to which I’d gladly get on a plane and uproot my life to be a part of).
In the meantime, my philosophy of action is to be nice to people (people are vastly more a product of their environment than their genes or “human nature”- see Robert Sapolsky’s book “Behave”) and to live minimalist. Being a nice person who is minimalist is my silent protest to the current state of things :)
Hi Peter, great article and delighted to see you on Substack.
A couple of things:
1. Very much hoping that more articles and podcast episodes of Revolution Now! will come (I appreciate, of course, that you are busy completing your new movie project - which is eagerly awaited!)
2. Public appearances - Peter, I would love to know why your public appearances have been so infrequent in recent years. I know you are always busy on projects, however the value of appearing on the well-subscribed shows/podcasts can be of enormous value to getting your work out there. For example, you were on Jimmy Dore about 5 years ago - Jimmy now has a much greater reach since then and I'm sure the door would be open to return? Similarly, you were on Joe Rogan many years ago - I appreciate that you are likely not a great fan of his but please think of the reach. Another related matter is debates; the only 'debate' that I can recall seeing you in was your encounter with that odious windbag pseudo-intellectual, Stefan Molyneux, and you destroyed him spectacularly. In addition to being entertaining, debates have great potential to convert the 'on the fence / oblivious' viewers and even some number of the opposing side's supporters. Rogan occasionally hosts such debates (e.g. vegan v carnivore-diet, Graham Hancock v Michael Shermer) and they have been enormously successful.
Your written work, podcasts and film work are excellent - I have consumed all of it, however not everybody is willing/able to do that. It seems tragic to me that you are not 'out there' to promote/debate your work. I understand that to do so would play into the personality culture that we live in but, to an extent, it is a necessary evil to achieve the notoriety that your work deserves. I would love to better understand your position on public appearances.
Thank you so much Peter for this brilliant article. Everything you write leaves me with at least a few life-altering conclusions, without fail. But I would like to make a suggestion:
In mu humble opinion, you should make your articles a bit easier to read and less academic, that way you can reach a far larger audience. I understand, that may not be your style but that just my opinion.
Hi Peter, as always, a well worded systems analysis of of the market economic system and its inherent shortcomings. Reading your work always inspires a rare clarity of insight of the path towards real solutions.
To intentionally redesign a better economic system than the one that has evolved organically, we need to first clearly state the purpose for designing any economic system. Using your example that the purpose of a car engine design is to provide transportation, it seems to me that the most basic and inherent central intention or purpose of any economic system is the distribution of resources. To more clearly define our desired outcomes, resource distribution should be sustainable and should provide the best possible quality for all life upon the Earth.
Since this system is largely of human design for the long term benefit of humans, what parameters could be defined to regulate human behaviors while maximizing as much as possible freedom of choice? Many of us have begun to recognize that money in its many forms is a highly problematic human motivator for many reasons. What parameters could be designed into an alternative economic system that are viable and less problematic than money to incentivise behaviors more in line with the other desired outcomes? Perhaps something grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
To design a viable and effective economic system, clearly defining and agreeing upon the desired outcomes of our system, should allow us to begin designing regulatory parameters, the feedback loops needed to tweak our designed economic system towards maximizing desired outcomes while minimizing undesirable outcomes, like environmental degradation, poverty, hunger, homelessness and war.
Finding a way to peacefully transition from our present market based economic system towards an economic system intentionally designed to provide superior outcomes should be the unifying goal of everyone right now.
Indeed :)
Should be, but I’m not sure we’ve ever been further from such a reality in our lifetime than we are today. We have people who respect only realpolitik, a cult of power. Such people cannot be reasoned with. Zealots are self assured of their own absolute right to do what they do, and reason will find no perch there. Fear controls the people and our education system certainly doesn’t create research groups on how to create egalitarian structures. So while, sure, you’re absolutely correct, we’re a long, long way from having the requisite freedoms need to actually begin exploring it.
In short, socialism is just a vaguely nuanced, philosophical term for in-system reorientation of market economics.
Only out-system activism focuses on transitioning entirely away from the market structure which is the exact foundation of the capitalist system.
Great read 💕
Paragraph 4 missing the word "of"
"System analysis in the context of economics involves understanding the emergence of dynamic individual and institutional behavior within a set".
Also, do you like the word endogenous? 😁
Thanks. I finally got through the stupid typos.
Great read Peter. “ We need intelligent inferential sustainable economic redesign “.
Reading is difficult, but I will try to read these in the future. Just subscribed. Thank you.🙂
His voice and articulation is an acquired taste, but worth sitting down and focusing.
Dear Mr. Joseph,
I am writing to you in reply to your Substack post, Why Socialism Sucks.
I must say upfront, I'm quite shocked at this pop culture piece of shit of an essay you posted. I'm shocked because normally, when I read your articles, or listen to your podcasts, videos, i.e. "content", I'm truly inspired by your seemly accurate insight. Not to mention, I'm a “systems” person myself.
So, when I read this essay, my head exploded. This post doesn't reach anywhere near the level of accurate insight or intellectual integrity I've come to expect from you. Maybe that's my fault for "expecting" you not to produce such total shit, like this essay.
It's total shit, and here's why.
You mention upfront, "In relation to socialism, terms like Marxism and Communism are often used interchangeably in popular culture, but for the purposes of this article, we will not delve into nuanced semantics. There is no need."
So, what is the purpose of this essay?
It certainly isn't about furthering a "shared understanding", ney, the exact opposite is at play I suspect, because you've started out, incorrectly using two distinct terms as interchangeable, and then dismissing their distinctions as not worthy of clarification or discussion.
The cognitive dissonance produced by such conflation, really bothers the hell out of me!
First and foremost, Communism and Marxism, are two, very distinct things. The use of these terms interchangeably in popular culture, as most things in pop culture, are incorrectly applied. And for you to dismiss this distinction, is to eliminate the very possibility of shared understanding. Not to mention how completely and intellectually dishonest it is to do so.
Communism and Marxism are related concepts, but they are not the same. Marxism is a political and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century, while communism is a political ideology and a system of government that draws inspiration from Marxist principles.
Marxism begins with the concept of historical materialism, which asserts that the driving force of history is the struggle between different social classes. It suggests that the structure of society, its institutions, and its norms are shaped primarily by the mode of production and the distribution of wealth and resources.
The ultimate goal of Marxism is the establishment of a classless society known as communism, where private ownership of the means of production has been abolished, and resources are distributed according to the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." In such a society, there is no exploitation, and the state withers away, resulting in a stateless and classless society.
As to the meat of your essay, first and foremost, you are comparing apples (capitalism) to oranges (socialism). At nearly 60 yrs old, I've spent decades studying Socialism. No where in any of the material I have consumed has "Socialism" ever been presented as an "economic" system. It has always been portrayed as a "transitional period" in the "state" of society.
That's a huge distinction you have failed to mention. And I'm not sure why? To trash Socialism because it doesn't meet your "definition" of a Complex Adaptive System can only happen if you ignore the fact, that Socialism has never intended or meant to be a distinct economic system, different than capitalism.
Like all matter in the universe, societies have different states of being. From hunter gatherer's to full industrialized societies. Even in this transitional state of society know as Socialism, capitalism will remain as the principle means of economic activity.
Trotsky himself said as much in Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 4. Money and Plan.
"We shall be able to speak of the actual triumph of socialism only at that historical moment when the state turns into a semi-state, and money begins to lose its magic power. This will mean that socialism, having freed itself from capitalist fetishes, is beginning to create a more lucid, free and worthy relation among men. Such characteristically anarchist demands as the “abolition” of money, “abolition” of wages, or “liquidation” of the state and family, possess interest merely as models of mechanical thinking. Money cannot be arbitrarily “abolished”, nor the state and the old family “liquidated.” They have to exhaust their historic mission, evaporate, and fall away. The deathblow to money fetishism will be struck only upon that stage when the steady growth of social wealth has made us bipeds forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor, and our humiliating fear about the size of our ration. Having lost its ability to bring happiness or trample men in the dust, money will turn into mere bookkeeping receipts for the convenience of statisticians and for planning purposes. In the still more distant future, probably these receipts will not be needed. But we can leave this question entirely to posterity, who will be more intelligent than we are."
You mention...
"To achieve a meaningful understanding of these terms, we must first determine the context of use. In this, we are going to take an economic perspective as opposed to a philosophical one and we are going to use the lens of systems analysis or system dynamics – the science of organization."
You are using them completely out of context!
Capitalism is not a philosophy and Socialism is not an economic system. There is your mistake. My head is exploding that someone whom I have found to be quite intelligent, has made this huge, stupid, glaring mistake. In all my years absorbing Socialist and Communist materials, never has Socialism been presented as a discreet economic system, as you're trying to compare with Capitalism. It's absurd to me!
I do agree that Socialism is an intervention into Capitalism, but Socialism is not an economic system.
Socialism just reorganizes the players and the rules of the game a bit, but Capitalism will remain the economic system that will lie underneath this “Socialist” state of society.
Money, wage labor, the buying and selling of goods and services, will all still remain, but the exploitation of the Capitalist System, will be removed by new rules/regulations/ownership changes/property relations etc...
I get the gist of what you're trying to say, we need to move beyond a “money" based system/society.
Even Trotsky wanted us t get to the same place, “The deathblow to money fetishism will be struck only upon that stage when the steady growth of social wealth has made us bipeds forget our miserly attitude toward every excess minute of labor, and our humiliating fear about the size of our ration.”
But trashing Socialism like this is, well, unfounded, unwarranted and unworthy of your and my intellect. And certainly not going to get us beyond a money based system / society.
I'm truly shocked at the level of bullshit put forth by this essay, because it's underlying premise is comparing apples to oranges. It's intellectually dishonest and absurd to me!
I wish you titled this different. The link is going to be an instant turn-off to anyone it would have useful affect on.
Well, that speaks to people's impulsive rejection of things. I have to have humor.
Augh. Well don't expect many, if any, 'outsiders' to listen. :(
And are you going to provide any counter examples?
It's hard enough for me to determine what an alternative 'mechanism' could be (besides working to meet human needs), let alone those in the mainstream sphere. Referents are needed!! Or else it sounds hollow.
PLEASE work on your approach. "Know your audience."
Winter - while I am sure Peter appreciates feedback from his audience, I'm kinda thinking that his message and style are his own. It's what makes him unique. Could you help Peter by re-packaging his message in a way that "you yourself" find more appropriate to spread among people you think might benefit from it?
Also, I just watched a video by Jacque Fresco yesterday and he clearly understands this approach well. He'd found ways to turn people around in their thinking, such as infiltrating a KKK group to make them less racist, or working with troubled students "in the slums" to move them from violent to bright architectural thinkers. ..... We have to learn to speak others' language if we ever want to transform ignorant culture.
Thanks for the comment Jeremy. Yes, I've realized I should take it upon myself to help out in this way and find a way to communicate this stuff better (I've engaged a lot of people in the past, individually, but it's mostly a waste of effort ... making videos would be the best way to put the message out there). However, Peter clearly has the wider audience. He should make the most use of that. I think even a lot of followers have grown tired of the over criticisms without a fair amount of solution based offerings. We all get it ... but what are we working toward, exactly? ....... I wish we could operate in some way like a thinktank (similar to Venus Project) and come up with a "game plan" so to speak.
I hear you. And I think I understand. You are ready to "take the next step". Personally I don't think it's "fair" to burden Peter with that. He has already contributed extensively. I am at the stage where I am absorbing the material in The New Human Rights Movement.
Maybe "we" could help Peter by helping him get his message across. You have some interesting ideas yourself...
Let me know if either/both of you have ideas and I’m down to join and contribute in any way I can!
People who are turned off by the title aren’t going to make it very far into the text, either. Those people only want confirmation bias, not understanding. The thing is, we are largely powerless at the end of the day to affect any meaningful systemic change. People don’t like to feel powerless, so they’ll fall back on whatever comforting reality most assuredly assuages those feelings. They want self validation, and you can’t get that when you realized how fucked all of this is.
Already, no one I've suggested this reading to has bothered with it ...which isn't surprising, since that's the case with virtually all of the material I promote; even if it's a short, relevant video clip. And I've been automatically banned from at least 3 sub-Reddits just for sharing this essay (with my own warning attached). The title really is off-putting.
Peter Joseph is obviously full of insightful, transformative ideas ... but a socially-connective communication approach is not his strong suit. Besides most often coming across as flat-toned and dense in terminology, I don't think he considers what is going to actually grab people's interest enough to listen to/read him. They need an incentive beyond hearing that everything sucks. Of course the warnings about social & environmental destabilization are important... but too many people tune that stuff out since they're too used to bad news and the general impression that little can really be done about it. Why not spend as much time highlighting what can change, and more to the point, how vastly it can improve lives?
For example, I'm used to dull reactions when presenting any sort of critical information (except for those who want to agree so they can blow off steam, but do little more than complain)... and yet, when I talk about the positive aspects, such as the way jobs could be severely decreased with available technology, ears perk up. It's kind of selfish, but it makes sense that we care more about progress in our own lives first. The future seems distant and less concerning.
.... I use this approach when dealing with those who have especially opposing views (right-wing, libertarian type). Bridging the divide. ..... Include things they want to hear -- which is very important. It's well established psychologically that no one ever changes their mind by being introduced to conflicting concepts to their own biases. In fact, we retreat further into preconceptions as a self-defense mechanism / debate over reflection. The sole form of mind alterion is by internal, willful considerations and placing ourselves in others' shoes.
So, if they care mostly about topics like freedom and security (and similar needs we all have), question what those ideas mean as well as how we can obtain them (since decrees alone can't do it). Like, what if the whole world was your home to travel about unrestricted, while having free access to what you need anywhere you go, isn't that true freedom? And for security, well the best approach to not living in fear is to find out what causes corrupt behavior (a corrupt system) and address it.
Plus, arranging the conversation in ways they're not used to can sometimes help diffuse those keyword trigger reactions.
...I don't know. It just feels like there must be better angles to get the message out there. Clearly what's occurring now is having a minimal effect.
You make good points. One thing I’ll add is that we are powerless for system change, alone. But together, using a similar strategy - we can be very effective and powerful.
Have you heard of One Small Town with Michael Tellinger? Worth a look. Contributionism is better than capitalism no matter which way you slice it. Time to use the tools of enslavement as tools of liberation. One town at a time!
There is no shared strategy, that's the problem. And falling back on socialist philosophy only runs in place as it has for hundreds of years.
I don't know how much you've looked into it or the last time you did, but the One Small Town initiative has already started in a couple towns, one in Lebanon and another in South Africa. As far as a shared strategy? There seems to be quite a lot of sharing. This is an excerpt from the website:
"The ONE SMALL TOWN strategy creates a NEW social system, without any violence, opposition or conflict, by using the tools of economic enslavement as tools that serve the community and investors. We are creating a new system, for the people, by the people, that makes the old system obsolete.
This proposal is the product of 12 years of research, and involvement in various international activities, community projects, strategies, funding models, and deep analysis of the failings of our current socio-economic system. "
The other thing is that everyone who contributes 3 hours a week towards any of the community co-operatives becomes a member and co-owner and that gives them access to everything grown, created, built, fixed or provided from the other community co-op projects for free! The excess of goods or services can be sold on the open market or to non-members to generate revenue that is also shared with all members as a dividend. This cannot go on forever... I realize that.
But as you so brilliantly point out, if we did as much as we could to implement the 5 great economic transitions of localization, automation, access, open source and digital network feedback we could get to a pretty sustainable 'zero marginal cost society' and do more with less. Once the technology and machinery is set we won't actually need money. When food, water, shelter, electricity, healthcare, education, etc. is provided in abundance to the people of any community - money is not needed and that's the point we are trying to get to.
As far as I can tell, the OST strategy isn't trying to be stuck in socialist ideals, it is trying to bridge the gap between the monetary world we, unfortunately, do have to live in for not, but create the abundance and prosperity for each local area that can allow us to be free of the money-mad world.
I would also welcome more strategies that communities could implement, if something else were available. I am open to the best ideas and evidence for sustainability and public health. I would be worried about the OST initiative if it didn't have plans to get off the monetary system once the systems allowed it to do so. But maybe I'm missing something? Are there other concerns you have about this OST initiative? (Besides the super rich class coming after it for site hacks and disruption because they see it as a threat to their elitist lifestyles, lol!)
Nice, I’ll look into it. Cheers
Markets are capitalism? Really? https://youtu.be/9aK4OztueuE
I understand his angle but really it's semantic gibberish. People creating novel definitions without understanding the structural foundation
Professor Wolff has addressed your cynicism quite well. Yanis too. Socialism, like Capitalism is ever changing. Evolving. The Capitalism we know evolved. The game Monopoly was created to show how a system organized in that fashion ultimately ends. The USSR was not the first attempt at change. Horace Greeley went West to join a farming cooperative in Colorado. When the Commanding Heights pulled all the dollars out of Argentina, worker coops began to flourish. Are they all gone? Like the Mondrigon Coop in Spain, are/have they abandoned principles that they used to start the coop in order to survive Capitalism? Or is greed creeping in and destroying their original dream? Or both? I'll bet a bit of both. Just like the real world interaction of Capitalism and Socialism. You get a lot of things right, but as I have tried to point out, I don't think your quite there yet. None of us are.
Once again, you're talking about a completely different level of subject matter that is based on a non-systems understanding. I suggest you begin studying Jay Forrester up through the D. Meadows and then Stafford beer and then get back to me. If you're studying people that profess to be economists - you are in the wrong field. This is a systems perspective. Not an economic or social perspective. If you don't understand the system everything else becomes pointless. Good luck
What system are you talking about? Yesterday, today, or tomorrow? Yanis makes the same point about economics as I am now making to you about systems theory. Are you talking 1917 or 2017? Systems change and evolve. Evonomics has changed and evolved. Good luck to you too!
To that comment Peter, I would say look to your shadow. Damn disappointed!
Yanis is right in line with Richard Wolff and his organization Democracy at Work. The evolution is happening. Many worker owned companies growing in number.
They are both right in some ways but generally wrong in how they understand the system. None of these guys understand systems science. Why don't you actually read what I wrote rather than make arbitrary objections based on appeal to authority. And worker owned companies are not going to accomplish a damn thing. If they were going to, they would have 100 years ago. Just the same waste of time...
"If we created a new earth tomorrow and threw a bunch of humans in and introduced them to this economic system of market trade, it would just be a matter of time before the basic nature of their society mirrored our own. Hence, there’s a fundamental structural determinism based on this root behavior." A truly generic statement about most people and most societies.
"In other words, socialism is a (a) moral ideology and (b) reactionary means that can only exist as a response to capitalism; any characteristics attributed to socialism are interventions within the capitalist (or market) structure. Even this phrase "public ownership of the means of production" exists solely as a response to the natural development of power and resource concentration within market dynamics, where the “ownership class exploits the working class,” as the so-called Marxist saying goes."
Again, Capitalism relies on markets. Markets existed before Capitalism.
Next, Marx never said the state should own the means of production. All Communism does is trade an authoritarian private oligarchy for authoritarian public oligarchy. Granted, the private oligarchy in a Democracy should be more controllable than the public oligarchy in an authoritarian government.
"Simply, a clear distinction can be made between a capitalist system and a non-capitalist system: The use of markets"
Every economic system has markets. You can not stop one neighbor from trading with another to make life more livable. That is how and why society was formed! So to say the use of markets distinguishes capitalism from other economic systems is a fallacy.
Leaving this here - an evolutional biologist explaining the cultural analog of aging and why it also applies to the structural dynamics of our socio-economic paradigm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpTb2ybqfPU
“ …A moral failure instead of a structural one.” Yes, but isn’t its structure inherently immoral?
‘intelligent inferential sustainable economic redesign’ I’m looking forward to hearing what you’re proposing and a way to approach this problem. I remember possibly from the Z films (?) that any isms in terms of socialism, capitalism, communism, all offer the same thing in many ways because all need money - the basic core operating system. Interesting that here you’re proposing that socialism only exists inside of capitalism (bit like neo in the matrix) serving as a control, release valve and maintaining the status quo. Is there a risk here though that the article is another criticism of capitalism with no solution?
‘intelligent inferential sustainable economic redesign’ sounds amazing. I’ve just been stack ranked and fired so bring this new system on asap please. I’m keen to understand it.
I Asked Claude to summarise your article PJ:
https://claude.ai/
------------------
The article discusses the debate between capitalism and socialism from an economic and systems analysis perspective. The key points are:
Capitalism is a market-based economic system that has evolved over time, with inherent structural properties that constrain outcomes regardless of human desires or actions.
The use of markets is the defining feature of capitalism, leading to the development of institutions, hierarchies, inequalities, and other common features.
Capitalism, as a complex adaptive system, has built-in negative functions such as the creation of poverty, inequality, and unsustainable growth patterns.
Socialism is essentially an interventionist reaction to capitalism, aiming to regulate its inherent features to create a more sustainable and equitable world. However, it lacks a universally agreed-upon definition and is not a formally defined system that can be implemented uniformly.
The false dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism limits the potential for improved economic and social organization, as socialism is often portrayed as the only alternative to capitalism.
The author argues that we need intelligent, inferential, and sustainable economic redesign, moving beyond the historical orientation and adversarial labels of capitalism and socialism.
In summary, the article challenges the common perception of the capitalism-socialism debate, emphasizing the need for a more objective and creative approach to economic systems design.
I think PJ means that it’s inevitable as technology advances. All other factors are irrelevant compared to the inevitably extreme capital accumulations that increasing productive capacity creates plus the correspondingly necessary and extreme pecuniary investment required to “lift oneself up by one’s bootstraps”.
I would argue that market trade is simply an extension of the state of nature - why do we amplify rather than attenuate Nature is the issue with markets - instead of alleviating Nature’s stressors, we amplify the jungle scenario because there is still a percentage of necessary jobs required to ensure survival - who’s going to do those jobs? I advocate job share rather than creating “bullshit jobs”, and incentivising any unemployed/underemployed/bored/etc. people to look to further advancing machinery toward zero marginal employment (incentive being more free time due to more and more necessary jobs being obsoleted), but hey, who’s going to pay people when there’s no jobs left? In the words of Alan Watts “where’s the money gonna come from? Who’s gonna pay for it? The answer is the machine pays for it”. Maybe then we’ll have time for space exploration and every street corner having time for musical/philosophical/kickball/surfing/gardening/automotive, pick your interest, and people with corresponding time to share that interest with.
if there has to be an -ism or an -ology, Socialism should be reoriented to the much more semantically specific term “Democratic Sustainable Designism”, as this should immediately obviate pointless and unproductive association to historical incidences of “anything other than capitalism being inevitably a failure”.
If people are still fearful of anything different to capitalism, PJ is pointing out that historical examples of “Socialism” were just capitalist bureaucracies - not actually different in their underlying system of market trade. Perhaps the one recent and usefully relevant historical association can be drawn from Salvador Allende in Chile, which engaged Stafford Beer’s systems engineering redesign of the economy based on specific social goals - like designing an airplane with the specific goal of expedient travel with design constraints like safety/sustainability/access.
I look forward to PJs latest Zeitgeist film in March 2024, as I think it’s likely he’ll flesh out what actually happened in Chile and we can learn from possibly the only useful example of “doing something different” that has been attempted in relatively modern times - technology has advanced a lot since 1972, all the more reason to be optimistic in a localised but networked attempt to do in modern communities what Stafford attempted in Chile.
I really want to be part of something like what Stafford tried to achieve and PJ is admirably persevering in both bringing this knowledge to light, and doing so in a brilliantly creative and meaningful way. The aesthetic of creative visual and musical communication is unparalleled in its overlap with such intelligent scientific research/understanding. Thank you PJ.
As a professional engineer with construction/mining experience that could be leveraged by such a positive social project, I’d much rather put my skills/efforts towards making this happen. I wait, somewhat restlessly, but with hope that something in the real world will come of PJs work (to which I’d gladly get on a plane and uproot my life to be a part of).
In the meantime, my philosophy of action is to be nice to people (people are vastly more a product of their environment than their genes or “human nature”- see Robert Sapolsky’s book “Behave”) and to live minimalist. Being a nice person who is minimalist is my silent protest to the current state of things :)
Hi Peter, great article and delighted to see you on Substack.
A couple of things:
1. Very much hoping that more articles and podcast episodes of Revolution Now! will come (I appreciate, of course, that you are busy completing your new movie project - which is eagerly awaited!)
2. Public appearances - Peter, I would love to know why your public appearances have been so infrequent in recent years. I know you are always busy on projects, however the value of appearing on the well-subscribed shows/podcasts can be of enormous value to getting your work out there. For example, you were on Jimmy Dore about 5 years ago - Jimmy now has a much greater reach since then and I'm sure the door would be open to return? Similarly, you were on Joe Rogan many years ago - I appreciate that you are likely not a great fan of his but please think of the reach. Another related matter is debates; the only 'debate' that I can recall seeing you in was your encounter with that odious windbag pseudo-intellectual, Stefan Molyneux, and you destroyed him spectacularly. In addition to being entertaining, debates have great potential to convert the 'on the fence / oblivious' viewers and even some number of the opposing side's supporters. Rogan occasionally hosts such debates (e.g. vegan v carnivore-diet, Graham Hancock v Michael Shermer) and they have been enormously successful.
Your written work, podcasts and film work are excellent - I have consumed all of it, however not everybody is willing/able to do that. It seems tragic to me that you are not 'out there' to promote/debate your work. I understand that to do so would play into the personality culture that we live in but, to an extent, it is a necessary evil to achieve the notoriety that your work deserves. I would love to better understand your position on public appearances.