So you hate Capitalism in SL...

So you hate capitalism in SL. What would you propose instead. Your answer has to actually work with human nature and our population size. Don't forget to factor in historical examples either.

I'm fully aware of some of the problems with capitalism, but I've traveled in communist countries, lived in both European and Latin American style socialist countries. All systems have drawbacks. Why will yours work?

Discuss.

I have no problem with Capitalism in SL. Just selling stuff on SL isn't my thing. I would suggest the folks complaining about the low L$ exchanges are a vocal minority.

I'm thinking if I made significant income off SL I would try and develop a Builders Guild or Content Providers Guild. Sort of a Union that would have a stronger voice when dealing with LL and could possibly have some influence on price structure on items being sold in game.

The folks making money in SL would be a powerful force if they worked together.

I guess it's not exactly on topic but my 2 cents anyway.

Surreal,
Are you really my old college professor?

-Hunter

Thanks for starting an interesting discussion Surreal, there haven't been that many on this forum recently

Along with Flavian, I don't hate capitalism in SL but I do have my criticisms of its drawbacks. I believe that capitalism is the best we have come up with so far in RL (Karl Marx was of the same opinion, read 'The Communist Manifesto' for a lengthy hymn of praise of capitalism's achievements) ... but that doesn't mean we can't do better!

Here are a couple of the problems with the form of anarchic capitalism practiced on the SL mainland: despoilation of the land and the lack of zoning. The landscape is littered with ugly builds that have no relation to their surroundings and residents have no control over what is put up next to their property (except if they have the RL wealth to buy it all up - remember the Bush guy?) There are some stunningly beautiful exceptions to this rule but the impression that new residents often get is that the SL mainland looks a bit of a mess.

The alternative is to live according to someone else's rules on a private island/rental land. That suits many but it's not for me.

I joined Neualtenburg a few months ago because I wanted to be part of something more community-orientated and because I was attracted to the idea of implementing democratic forms of social organisation in a virtual world. Now, while it's true we're an argumentative bunch and we've lost one or two people along the way, we have a functioning democracy, a community of 30, are about to expand to a second sim and are genuinely trying to do something new.

How does this relate to capitalism? Well, one thing that capitalism fails to provide in RL is public goods that are accessible to all - education, infrastructure, healthcare, environmental protection etc. Most Europeans (and I accept that the US political tradition is different) see government as the legitimate provider of these goods. In SL terms that means that I see the government of the Democratic Republic of Neualtenburg as the guarantor of high quality public buildings (our school, marketplace, church and so on) and the uniting architectural theme of the sim (medieval Bavarian in N'burg soon to be joined by Roman in the new sim Nova Colonia). So, to answer your question, my alternative to capitalism would be to supplement it with democratic forms of government which, naturally, residents should be free to opt in to or ignore as they see fit!

It isn't capitalism I hate in SL. Its those trying to cut paid for premium stipends for a short term gain, and those who resell freebies in the name of the system.

If we got rid of all the capitalists who are here just to make money and don't care about the game... we'd be a lot better off, and the world wouldn't fall apart either.

Lewis

I believe the topic requires you to explain:



You've been very vocal on the subject. Here is an opportunity to lay out the Lewis plan. Can you explain how we'd be better of without those capitalists? And how your way would work, exactly?

Is SL really a capitalist society?

Using the wikipedia we get:


There are a number of problems I have with that statement as it applies to SL. What are the means of production that are privately controlled? Where is the massive employment of labour? SL is largely a collection of self-employed individuals, Anshe being one of the notable exceptions.

We've got individuals who act in a fashion that meets this model more or less, as well as people that don't get anywhere near, people who sell/give away freebies (I'm thinking the $1 freebies here), people that basically don't interact with the economy, groups that support each other financially for other reasons than company profitablity. There are cultures like Gorean and Vampire that are patriarchal and aristrocratic I guess.

Although I'm a shopper and a seller and thus economically active and potentially part of the capitalist elements of our culture(s), I know of people who basically undertake no economic interaction in world - I suspect there will be more of them now.

I suspect that SL is really balkanised - there are a number of intermingling political models in action in SL. More power to it I say.

There are a number of people who are here just to make money, and have only their own interests at heart. Those are the kind of people we don't need here.

Renting land, for example, is bad because instead of all the money going to Linden Labs, a portion of it goes to the land baron who in many cases does nothing more than divide up a region into 512 and 1024 parcels, and sets it back up for sale. Sure, they might be taking a risk that it doesnt sell - but that's their problem, nobody else's, because nobody makes them take that risk.

If there wasn't an "easy option" of just renting from a land baron (despite the inherent risks of rental, several cases of which have been documented in depth on the forums), then people on the mainland might actually have to work together to keep some semblance of order, and peer pressure (with co-operation from Linden Labs) might stop things like the "Bush Guy" problem before it becomes such an out of hand problem.

Whilst forum rules prevent me from naming the culprits, there have been a number of times recently where it has been obvious that the Lindex value is being manipulated and deliberately attempted to crash, in order to support their claim that stipends are damaging and must be removed immediately. This is, of course, not true, and the removal of stipends would be far more damaging overall than their retention.

It is clear to even the casual observer that the more money you spend on Second Life, the greater your success and the greater your chances of being listened to by Linden Labs. However, that group make up only a tiny percentage of the overall active player base, and there are a great number of people with good ideas being ignored simply because they are not considered to be "big players". Each person should have an equal say in any decisions asked of the community - not just a few specially chosen people. Regardless of what they may think, they are not better than anyone else.

The root of capitalism is essentialy "do what's best for me, and screw everyone else". In an online game such as Second Life, the socialisation aspect of doing things with other people is sadly lacking. For SL to truly succeed, there has to be things to do - both for new players and old - that are not centered around money, especially due to Linden Lab's mistake of removing stipends and start-up money for new players. Otherwise there becomes nothing to do except commercial or money-based activity - all of which require money that the new player does not have, and is unlikely to be willing to invest until they know what the game provides. Therefore they miss out, and Second Life loses a potential player.

I do not pretend to have all the answers - after all I'm just a Brit - however I do know that something needs to be done before the investors money runs out and Linden Labs pull the plug. I merely recognise the problem, offer my thoughts, and hope that somewhere along the lines Linden Labs finally realise it too.

I would actually turn it around and ask you the opposite question... what do the capitalists do, except bleed the game?

Lewis

Cool Lewis, I was just curious to see it laid out in one cohesive post. I had a few thoughts on it, but I'm going to think about it a while. And you asked me a question here... I'll probably answer it tomorrow, when I'm feeling better

I'm not a political scientist but my understanding of a democracy is a form of government where everybody gets a vote on everything decided affecting the whole. A community of 30 could certainly sustain a true democracy and if that is what you have in Neualtenburg, cool. Many people who live in western type free world countries think they live in democracies when they live in democratic republics where they are free to elect representatives who make the decisions reserved for anyone living in a true domocracy. That being said why does Neualtenburg refer to itself as the the Democratic Republic of Neualtenburg if it is a true democracy.

Oh yah it would be a great world consisting of Lewis Nerd and a couple other people since I assume capitalists are anyone who makes money doing anything. Have fun playing with yourself.

We don't need people like you here Lewis and yet here you are. But, Its a free world where everyone can be who they are.

Great topic Surreal. I guess the whole of the argument depends on what each persons definition of capitalism is and some of them seem to define capitalism very loosely as anyone who makes money and profit and is not me.

Very interesting and very good post, thanks!

Starting with RL. How do you get people to use public resources responsibly? It seems like people need some sort of external regulator to make them think about their use of a system. In capitalism, that's money - as much health care as you can afford, to use one example. Which sucks if you're poor. But people do tend to be more conservative if they are paying for something themselves and they see that cost up-front, as opposed to buried in their taxes or insurance premiums.

I agree that the lack of zoning and land use restrictions have serious drawbacks in SL. IMO LL has been unwilling to implement rules because they don't want to commit resources to enforcing them. Think of the infrastructure we have in RL for enforcing laws and regulations. If we had a volunteer system, someone would still have to oversee it.

I think there are many systems that work for a small number - like 30. How do you scale that to thousands.. or more. Especially if you don't share a common culture.

I agree, and that was an excellent analysis in my opinon.

I understand that SL is not a capitalist society, but with all the threads pro and con about capitalism in SL, I was curious why people think that particular model is wonderful or evil and why.

I have a soft spot for autocracies - so long as I'm the autocrat!

Obviously you have missed the many, many times where I have said that I have no problem with people putting in effort and being rewarded for it, and cashing out if they choose to.

My problem is with the people who run huge empires purely to make themselves money, probably never actually log in to play and have fun, and especially those who employ others and pay peanuts for doing all the work whilst they sit back and rake in the cash.

Lewis

I'm glad to see your reasoning all laid out in one post too. I'm going to have to ponder the rest of it a bit, but you're first statement troubles me. How do know? And are you talking about everyone who has a buisness, or do you have a particular list in mind?

Can you tighten this a bit so I can understand better where you are coming from?

Actually you need a lot more people like me. People who spend money, have fun in-game and provide things for other people to do, with no real concern about not covering their costs affecting whether they continue to provide what they do.

I am also a consumer. Without people like me buying stuff that people are selling, or visiting the builds that people have made, there is nothing. You can't sell what nobody is there to buy, and you can't cash out if nobody wants to buy your money from Lindex.

Those who just sit back and rape the game purely for their own selfish greed and lining their own pockets are the ones whining that they're losing money on Lindex because the free market they are so desperate to achieve is working properly. It doesn't always go the way of the seller.

Lewis

Happy to elaborate - but remember this is just my view.

I kinda touched it in my response above - but I'll elaborate as requested.

I see four types of player in SL:

1) Those who are just here to have fun, doing things, and that's it. Mostly casual players.

2) Those who create stuff or provide entertainment, but still have fun, visiting other people's events and buying their stuff. Again, mostly casual players.

3) Those who are here just to create things and make money. Less casual.

4) Those who are just here to make money, and never have fun, perhaps never even logging in except to do something that will result in making money.

I would put myself in category 2 - I provide content and entertainment, I sell a few things, but mostly I am here to enjoy all that SL offers, either alone or with other people. Therefore it makes no sense for that category of people to be a problem to me!

The root of my problem is with the category 4 people, and some of the big category 3 people. First and foremost, Second Life is a computer game, entertainment, something that we play because we want to. Its temporary and unstable nature means that it is really not designed to replace real life, and most certainly not designed to be a full time income replacement.

When your entire online life centres around how much money you can make, or having to make money to cover tier or whatever, then I believe that people have really lost all that Second Life offers. This need to make money, when it is your sole income, is the cause of much of the instability in Lindex, as people panic sell undercutting each other, in the hope of at least making something even if they lose a couple of dollars in the overall transaction. This instability then feeds the "kill stipends" argument - which is factually incorrect as well as overall bad for the game - and all the other 'methods of control' that are being suggested to 'correct' the economy, when in fact the economy is working perfectly well as a free market, just not necessarily in the way that some people would like it to be. But that's a free market.

Lewis

I was making a point Lewis that no one has the right to dictate who has the right to be here or not. Capitalism and consumerism go hand and hand are really aren't clearly defined as all A or all B.

So who are these people who are sitting back, raping the game for selfish greed and lining their own pockets?

Forum rules prevent me from naming them, but as you've been here longer than me I'm sure you are as aware of their names just as much as I am.

Lewis

Lewis one day you are going to wake up and smell the coffee. Whilst your analysis of the player base is interesting to be sure it is all based on your notion that SL is first and foremost a game. While they be true for YOU,let me please remind you the world dost not revolve around thine head much as you might likest it to.

LL, you remember them dontcha Lewis , the folks who own the land the software et al, they say it its a platform. Now I know you might be ballys enough to look god him/herself in the eyes and tell god its the earth isnt a planet but hes gonna laugh in your fine face and tell you its his and it is what he says it is.

Same thing applies here, if LL says its a platfrom and yes some people play it as a game of sorts, who the bloddy hell are you, to tell them your right and they are wrong.

If you want a game thats ONLY a game so bloody badly, raise a million hire the right people and build the bloody thing!

There are a few definitions of a land Baron:
Definitions of Land baron on the Web:

A landlord is the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, or land which is rented or leased to an individual or business, who is called the tenant. In the United Kingdom the manager of a Public house is also called the landlord. A female landlord can either be called a landlady or simply landlord. When a legal person is in the same position the term landlord is used.

bar·on (băr'ən)
n.

A British nobleman of the lowest rank.
A nobleman of continental Europe, ranked differently in various countries.
A Japanese nobleman of the lowest rank.
(Abbr. Bn.) Used as the title for such a nobleman.

A feudal tenant holding his rights and title directly from a king or another feudal superior.
A lord or nobleman; a peer.
One having great wealth, power, and influence in a specified sphere of activity: an oil baron.
A cut of beef consisting of a double sirloin.

There are a few differn't degree's of being a barron, but evil always seems to be implied here in SL when refering to a land barron, the next definition is the one you seem to put the most stock into:

Robber Barons
A disparaging term dating back to the 12th century which refers to:

1. Unscrupulous feudal lords who amassed personal fortunes by using illegal and immoral business practices, such as illegally charging tolls to passing merchant ships.

2. Modern-day businesspeople who allegedly engage in unethical business tactics and questionable stock market transactions to build large personal fortunes.

Investopedia Says: Due to the robber barons' unethical business practices, such as the exploitation of labor, the general public typically regards these aggressive capitalists with disdain. However, some historians argue that the late-19th century entrepreneurs usually referred to as "robber barons" - including Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller - are responsible for building a large portion of the U.S.'s current economic clout, because of their large investments in burgeoning American industries. Many also went on to become high-profile philanthropists.

Note the names who are reffered to as these types of Barons, these people did alot for the country and the world.....dosn't sound like all "Barons" are evil and deserving of being lumped into one discriminating stereotype



Actually this is more of an Anarchist style of Capitalism if you ask me, since I consider myself a capitalist, but don't feel the need to screw everyone in the process. There also seems to be an Anarcist version of Socialism in here too, both sides are very loud claiming the other is the minority. (Both are probably right about the minority)



Any form of government without a careful balance of differn't views won't be sustaining, I don't know exactly how this should be done, but I do know rather then finger pointing and name calling (Not meant to offend anyone here) we need to find a neautraul ground someplace in the middle, other wise our voices will just cancell each other out.

IMHO

If I had the chance to talk face to face with Phillip Linden, I would most definitely explain how they are under-selling Second Life with all this "platform" crap, and alienating the majority of their playerbase by continually beating on about this capitalism stuff that most people want to leave in the real world and actually get on and have fun here instead.

Lewis