Violence, implied violence and non-violence in economic systems
Most people would agree that non-violence is the ideal to aspire to. This ideal however might be quite tougher to achieve than what we think. The reason for this is that the predominant economic systems of our time are actually based on violence, in one form or another.
Socialism
When resources are limited, the issue of managing these resources becomes apparent. Socialism "fixes" the issue by the state acting as violent agent that forcefully (re)distributes resources. This violence can be explicit or implicit ("please comply or else..."). This is also why socialism can not really be considered a non-violent system.
Capitalism
What about capitalism? Unlike socialism, which has the state being the violent actor, capitalism is more about implied violence originating in the modus operandi of the system. For example, a few rich men who own the majority of the pharmaceutical market may want to overcharge people in order to generate tremendous profits. Some people will not be able to buy drugs and die as a consequence. That's a level of implied violence (deaths by implication) through the way the system itself works: If you can't afford an expensive drug, you die. If you can't afford food, you die. If you can't afford clean water, you die. If you can't afford a shelter, you die. Etc, etc.
Some people accept this implied violence ("shit happens" / "better be on the richer-end-of-the-spectrum") as the natural order of things - similar to how they accept that the lion will eat the zebra for dinner. The rich will live, the poor will die, and life moves on. Right?
The appeal of part-truths and buying the "whole package"
There are some people who object to the "jungle-like" rationale of capitalism where it is acceptable for people to die because they weren't "competitive" enough. It is precisely this degree of implied violence (from the system itself, rather than the state actor) which creates the appeal for Socialism in the lower strata of society. The tradeoff of reducing liberty to get a social net that prevents "cannibalism" of the weaker, seems to them like an acceptable tradeoff.
Obviously, by swinging to that direction, violence is simply moved from one social class to another, and to a different form. Violence continues to be perpetuated, this time not through the system itself but by the state actor, to those who are "more able", in order to get their resources and give them to those who are "less able" - something which capitalists feel is unjust.
Both ideologies have some degree of right and wrong, otherwise, if they hadn't this combination, there would be no appealing reason for anyone to support these systems for their positives.
Someone sees liberty as very important, another sees protection from cannibalism as more important. Who's to blame them? In my view, they are both right - the problem is that these positive properties are locked up in "packages" of tradeoffs, where you also have to pick up the negative properties along with the positives.
New Systems?
Now, if we are to seek non-violent economic solutions, we will need to also find new systems that replace the obsolete economic systems which are so intertwined with direct, threatened or implied violence of one form or the other - as the "tradeoffs" of their "packaged" solution.
While I'm convinced that this cannot happen within the constraints of either socialistic or capitalistic systems, because they are violent by their very nature, I am as of yet undetermined on what the ultimate solution will be.
However, if we take the problem and break it down, ideally, we would want to synthesize the good aspects of both systems and eliminate the negative ones. Meaning that people shouldn't starve or die from lack of medical resources, while, at the same time, making sure that other people are not forcefully deprived of their possessions.
The body - cell analogy
For years, I've entertained a system in my mind where humanity is like one being, while the people are the cells. It is a template that can perhaps be modeled into a non-violent economic system. The details are currently elusive but the rationale is the following:
At the level of one cell, it is in its interest to be well. At the level of the organism it is also in its interest for the individual cell to be well as the entire existence and well-being of the organism is based on the well-being of all its cells. Even other cells have an interest in their neighboring cells to be OK.
If everyone is working as a team then the team thrives, and the body supplies whatever each cell needs in order to perform optimally. The cells make the body possible and the body makes the sustenance of the cells possible in a win-win scenario.
However, even that, is not entirely free of non-violence. Individuals suffering from internal psychological "battles" can psycho-somatically manifest cancer, which is another way of saying that some body cells ("defensive cells") are attacking other body cells ("defective cells"), or the "defective cells" start to outgrow the ability of the "defensive cells" to limit their action.
I believe this is the state of affairs relative to our current state of humanity as an incoherent "body" whose cells are fighting between themselves and therefore why such a system cannot be applied right now.
My prediction here is that, in the long-run, as humanity becomes internally coherent, a new economic system will emerge that will emulate the win-win system between the individual cell and the greater body in order for humanity to finally experience a non-violent economic system.
What about now?
Until that future point of time, we must remain practical. The theories of what we may have in 30-50-70 years may be nice but do they really solve our problems right now? The answer is no. And when the answer is no it means violence is still ongoing and perpetuated, whether it is direct from some state actor, or implied where people are starving and dying from disease because, well, "that's the way the system works".
So we go back to the earlier point of hybridizing the good aspects from both systems and trying to eliminate the negative ones. Algorithms and programmed consensus-based systems seem to be an ideal candidate for reducing the violence levels experienced (at least in some facets of human activity): A consensus-based blockchain doesn't have the power to send you to prison if you break its rules. It does not steal your property (dilute your holdings) beyond a pre-agreed rate that is in the algorithm. Even the participation in such a system is indeed voluntary: If you don't like it, you don't use it.
Still, the state wants to piggyback on these projects in order to steal from their users through taxation, but this could be avoided if cryptocurrencies become sufficiently strong or anonymous in order to be used in a parallel-economy without involving any fiat currency whatsoever. Bitcoin is starting to acquire that type of momentum as it stabilizes in terms of "store-of-value" although it currently lacks anonymity features. I think this momentum will become stronger in the years to come, also affecting other cryptocurrencies.
Now, will cryptocurrencies solve all our problems? Obviously not. In fact they may attract state-violence, as already pointed out. But at least people involved in these projects are trying to do something instead of waiting - and while doing so, evolving the collective knowledge on how these systems can be improved to become even better and practical over the long-run.
Hi, @alexgr ...
I generally like what you're saying, but when you talk about "Capitalism:"
What you're describing here is, I believe, better described as "Crony Capitalism." The state creates what is in reality a protection racket that enables big pharma to monopolize their fancy drugs.
The solution is Agorism, i.e. truly free market economics. In a truly free economy, unconstrained by violent enforcers, everybody benefits from the natural ebb and flow of supply and demand.
...for a while. Once competition settles, the weaker competitors drop out and the largest players cooperate / merge or are bought-out. And then you have oligopolies and monopolies. The market always favors the bigger corporations and their economies of scale.
If there are no "enforcers" there can be no oligopolies or monopolies. The "little guy" will always be able to outmaneuver and outperform the bigger corporations as long as there is no state or other large, violent gang to punish enterprise.
A "big fish" moves in and captures your market? No worries, just move on to the next innovation and keep on 'steemin' ! ;)
It depends on the scenario and the various degrees of enforcement. If, for example, you are pro-intellectual rights, then you need a state enforcer to do that. If you are against, then that's a scenario where one can just copy the drugs and destroy the pharma oligopoly. But then someone would complain about theft of intellectual property.
As an Agorist/Anarchist, I'm certainly not pro-intellectual "rights" in any enforcement sense. However, I have no problem with "trade secrets" and whatever protection they may provide. Big Pharma (as we know it) is only able to work their protectionist/overpricing evil through complicity with the state and state guns.
I have come to believe that something like a "principle of least aggression" or "principle of least violence" (modeled after the computer security "principle of least privilege") is a more realistic goal than complete non-aggression. The nice thing is that, even if I'm wrong about non-aggression, the logical conclusion of perpetually seeking to reduce aggression is, eventually, non-aggression.
I'm not sure I accept the claim of "implied violence" in capitalism, but even if we stipulate to it, capitalism supplemented by voluntary charity can reduce the implied violence to any desired level. If you want to reduce implied violence, you simply need to increase voluntary charity, and the problem becomes one of persuasion.
Indeed. The more you reduce it, the less of a problem it becomes.
For socialists, this implied violence is the "barbarism of capitalism" and represents the main selling point of the "better and progressive alternative" (=socialism). In effect, socialism wouldn't be able to "stand" if that particular selling point wasn't there as a "defect" of capitalism.
Charity could work to patch the issue to some degree, but I don't know if it can scale to billions of people in need, and how the charity itself would not make people charity-dependent (as socialism does with the cultivation of welfare-dependent mentality).
A socialist would say that if this "flaw" of capitalism could be solved with voluntary charity, it would have already been fixed throughout the centuries - and it was precisely this lack of action that led to the rise of socialism.
i. Charity has never had the tools available (including the blockchain, as you note in the original article) that it has now - and more importantly - that it will have in the future. The capitalist system, supplemented by charity, also failed to produce human flight for many centuries. Clearly, human flight is not impossible.
ii. There is a 400+ year global trend moving in the right direction, and accelerating in recent decades.
iii. Socialism is an increase of violence over capitalism, not an improvement. In socialism, (stipulating to implicit violence), violence changes from implicit to explicit.
iv. If another system will replace capitalism, it can happen 2 ways - persuasion or violence. If we want to minimize violence, persuasion must be used. Of the two competing persuasion problems, which case is easier to make? Which one represents the lowest amount of risk?
Indeed, just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.
I think we have to seperate capitalism in the fiat era and the gold/silver era. The fiat era is definitely moving towards increased wealth inequality which makes the problems in the lower strata worse...
My personal preference (between the two) is capitalism but I don't want to argue in favor of either. A socialist would say however that it is an improvement in terms of how civilized societies should work, claiming that people shouldn't die just because they can't afford X or Y and that this is of greater benefit compared to the losses incurred by the state violence. He could go down the moral or philosophical road and start questioning whether human lives are less valuable than some rich people losing some of their wealth, etc etc - and all these are very common arguments in the last 100+ years. There are definitely people who find some sense in this, otherwise socialism would be dead-on-arrival as a philosophy. Some will weigh the benefits of socialism higher, others will do the same with capitalism.
Regarding (iv), there may be more options ahead of us. Meaning that technology itself, as the merging of robotics+AI moves forward, is a catalytic factor that forces us to rethink how the economy will operate.
The socialist model that promises people a job and a wage doesn't work in a robotic society where the bulk of the tasks is done by AI. The idea that the worker is at the base of all activity which generates added value will crumble. The whole model will be obsolete.
At the same time, the capitalist model which needs a worker-consumer to move the economy cannot be sustained if the worker has nothing to do and therefore can't earn (and can't spend).
These things alter how the economy works in a fundamental way that has not been experienced before. The industrial revolution couldn't replace the human element due to the intellect involved, but AI will do that. It's just a matter of time. And then we have to see how we adapt to these changes.
The only way to make voluntary charity a viable option would be to provide advantageous incentives to those you're soliciting charitable contributions from. While there are altruistic individuals out there, many people don't want to give without getting something in return.
There are examples of this in our current society. Donating a portion of your income to charity in order to reduce your income to a lower tax bracket, for example, and thus being rewarded by keeping more of your own money. Of course if you view taxation as theft, this still highly problematic!
So how can a non-violent society that seeks to provide a social safety net go about persuading high enough charitable contributions in this scenario? What sort of reward could a society possibly furnish towards those that already have so much? Are we talking about bizarro-world version of the Internal Revenue Service where agents go around giving handjobs to Warren Buffet every time he donates a million dollars to charity?
I'm trying to figure that out myself.... plus you'd also need a central authority (state apparently) to provide the incentives... it seems like a clusterf*ck to begin with.