News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Anttech]

How many particular societies were there on the continental U.S. at the year 1775?

The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!

 

[Smurf]

It's an example of where I think inequality is a good thing. Students who learn faster and better grasp the material should be able to obtain a better education. That's why we have honors classes and things like that. How would you like it you had no choice in school but to progress at the rate of the slowest learner in the class?
Maybe it would be best if I can better clarify the positive claim that I am making. I said it in my response to Anttech:
I think that the primary goal of any economic system should be universal prosperity.
Several qualifications:

• "Prosperity" is not being treated here as a relative thing. That is, you are not prosperous because you are either equal or unequal to your neighbor financially. If everyone lives above the poverty line, then everybody is prosperous, even if some are way more prosperous than others.
• I'm only talking about economic systems, which is what capitalism is. The nature of inequality in political power is another matter, one that should be addressed separately from economics. That is, money does not have to equal political power. The only reason it does now is the need to finance political campaigns.

'What is your "poverty line"? I don't see how this isn't a relative thing. A thousand years ago prosperity meant as little as owning your own house. You need a far more precise definition than that if its not going to be relative.

I am contrasting this with the claim that the goal should be universal equality. Equality can mean that everyone is in equally bad condition. This might mean that no one has any means to assert power over another and so we may very eliminate a lot of conflict, but so what? I'd also rather have a world in which everyone is prosperous, but there is conflict, than in a world where there is no conflict, but also no prosperity.

I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.

Now before you jump in with "equality does not have to mean universal lack of prosperity," I know.

No, not only does it not have to mean that, it can not. Unless you believe humanity to be inherently self-destructive. As illustrated above.

The point is only that universal lack of prosperity would qualify as equality, and would be bad, therefore equality is not necessarily a good thing. There are situations in which equality can be a bad thing. Therefore, it should not be the primary thing that an economic system strives for.

I disagree. Take your university example. The only reason that institution (let's ignore the structure of the institution it's self) would be forced to pick people at random, instead of the ones it wanted would be if there was someone with power over it aside from it's self. Therefore, it would be within an inequal society. If it were in an equal society, it would not have anyone telling it what to do, so would be free (emphasis on free, as in freedom) to admit whoever it wants.

I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.

 

[jimmie]

The world doesn't and will never end in the US of A!

Anntech, I do not 'think' you understood the intended meaning of that post.

Prior to the USA becoming the WHOLE USA, it was only particular states. The states understood that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and thus, formed "one nation under God".

Get it?

 

[Pengwuino]

What I don't understand is why people have a problem with capitalism? It is one of the great freedoms we enjoy in America.

Well basically because there are a few problems that come out of it when placed into the real world. Just like every economic system, it has its ups and its down. If you want to live the "big time" and work your way to a great life, capitalism is for you but of course you can fail and end up poor. Things like socialism don't really let normal people make it to the "big time" and you really don't have popel with many aspirations or dreams of making a lot of wealth. The upside of that is that you never really worry about becoming poor or, as is most commonly tossed around in idiotic ideolog debates, face huge medical debts for when you drive into a parked car (as all socialists are too busy looking stupid and asking advice for if they should grow a beard... like smurf). And yes, there are already threads on this, don't make penguins cry.

 

[Smurf]

(as all socialists are too busy looking stupid and asking advice for if they should grow a beard... like smurf).

I'm an anarchist

 

[Anttech]

Well basically because there are a few problems that come out of it when placed into the real world.

*cleans ears out* ehhh? what? anyone know a good optician, zI have something bluring my sight!

 

[Anttech]

yeh a ****ING ANARCHIST ok not a ****ING SOCIALIST...

But Smurf you know you still love me don't you? :-) haha

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Smurf, you are just an Anarchist, or are you an Anarcho-Communist? To my knowledge, Anarcho-Communism is the only form of Anarchy that, in theory, would result in complete equalty.

Also, as governments eventually arise out of anarchy, I find it difficult to believe anarchy could be implemented. If it occured, further governments that would arise would require a government-like body of anarchists to eliminate them again.

You would, in fact, need a government commited to propogating a pro-anarchy message, perhaps?

I'd be interested in knowing more. I've never understood Anarchism fully. It seems to me that a responsible body looking out for the best interests of the people will always be necessary. While that body may or may not have control over the people, they will take action to promote a proper lifestyle according to their political philosophy.

Stable anarchy would require a continuous commitment to anarchy because government continually form when people wish to meet each others needs. Furthermore, human nature has negative characteristics which would result in inequality coming from anarchy.

A government or organisation is necessary to be monitored by the people to protect the people. Democracy and government emerged from intellectual though. Idealist anarchism requires the most powerful intellectuals and thinkers to be everyone, in my opinion.

Again, I'm a bit confused on the issue. So if you could elaborate?

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, you are just an Anarchist, or are you an Anarcho-Communist? To my knowledge, Anarcho-Communism is the only form of Anarchy that, in theory, would result in complete equalty.

I think I identify most with Anarcho-Syndicalism. But I agree with most of the Social Anarchist theories. I don't really care about the specifics, or how we get there.

All you need is a good theory, the rest are details!


Regarding the stability of Anarchism:
I don't see the relevance of claiming that government with rise out of Anarchism. When Anarchism does develeop it will be because society has collectively decided they no longer need government, and so any attempt to set one up with ultimately fail because the people will not accept it. If the people regress a state could very well be established, until a time as the people decide they no longer need it (again).

There's an anarchist colony in Copenhagen, known as Christiania. They've been like that for decades, and no biker gang, no crime lord, no body has tried to set up any for of hierarchial control over it. Or at least no one has ever succeeded. The biggest threat to christiania comes from the Danish government that may attempt to impose their laws on Christiania again soon (I hope to visit christiania sometime before that happens).

In this example I'm forced to conclude that the only thing threatening Anarchism is outside, pre-existing governments. And if one society decides they don't want government, I don't see why the ones next door won't either. So it's really just a matter of time and numbers.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm an anarchist

Do you even have a job

All you need is a good theory, the rest are details!

The details are almost ALWAYS the problem when it comes to anything and everything.

 

[Smurf]

Do you even have a job

Why would I want a job?

 

[jimmie]

the only thing threatening Anarchism is outside, pre-existing governments.

Smurf, let's go out on a limb and say that the current governments promote anarchy by competing with each other and reeking havoc on the planet, and that prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.

What then?

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, let's go out on a limb and say that the current governments promote anarchy by competing with each other and reeking havoc on the planet, and that prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.
What then?

1. I don't see how governments promote anarchy any more than christianity was promoting atheism by crusading against islam.

2. What on Earth are you talking about "prior to the current governments, is an outside, pre-existing government.". Prior to what? outside what? If ít's pre-existing why doens't it exist now? if it does why can't you just say what it's called.

In short: what are you talking about?

 

[russ_watters]

And I disagree. I don't see equality as limiting freedom at all. It's a matter of definition.

Well whatever - either way, you want to change what we consider freedom today. And that's the point: I submit that the principle of equality of outcome is diametrically opposed to the idea of freedom as defined today. You're talking about switching the definitions of "round" and "flat" - but that isn't going to change the fact that flying south makes the sun rise higher in the sky. It isn't going to change the fact that never in human history has a people revolted based on the principle of equality of outcome (contrary to Marx's prediction). But people do, all the time, revolt based on the current principle of freedom and equality of opportunity.

It's already been fathomed by countless people before us and among us. Right now it's a matter of culture and society evolving enough to allow it to be implimented.

"Fathoming" is what writers of fiction do. Just because you can fathom it does not mean it is possible. But that's kinda a moot point, isn't it? Either way, it doesn't work and never has and as a result cannot be implimented today.

 

[Smurf]

I'm not a marxist. I havn't said a thing about "equality of outcome". In fact I havn't said the word "outcome" once in this entire thread. I'm talking about equal power and anarchism. I've listed anachist colonies before and I'll list them again if you want, but despite any feelings you have about Marxist, anarchism is very possible and has been proven so on small scales worldwide. And I don't really care if you think it can be implimented, I believe it will inevitably be implimented on a large scale too (unless capitalism kills us all first).

 

[Pengwuino]

Why would I want a job?

Wow, for someone with no job, you make a lot of comments about economics

 

[russ_watters]

then I am a lesser man, sorry Russ.. but so are you! And it is pure arrogance that makes you think that your ideals are not BASED on your predecessors

Huh? What are you talking about?? I never said my ideas were not based on my predicessors. They most certainly are! My idea of a good government and good economic system comes from the US Constitution its bases in political theory (Locke, Rousseau, etc.).

I can't think of any man in science that hasnt used what humans have learned to build there own ideas

That's true and I never said otherwise! Its like your own point went over your head!

 

[Smurf]

Wow, for someone with no job, you make a lot of comments about economics

I never said I didn't have a job.

P.S. Ad hominem

 

[Pengwuino]

I never said I didn't have a job.
P.S. Ad hominem

Only idiots don't answer questions, get a job

 

[Smurf]

Only idiots don't answer questions, get a job

Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriend

 

[jimmie]

What on earth

"I" am not talking about "on" earth.

"I" am talking about that which connects the planet, bodies, with all other planets, bodies.

"I" am talking about "God in the flesh", living amongst you.

"I" am talking about a once-in-history event that is bigger than any particular individual or government.

That is what "I" am talking about. That is what "I" always talk about.

And I don't like talking.

Too much information?

 

[Pengwuino]

Only dumbasses make assumptions, get a girlfriend

Get a job sony!

 

[Smurf]

Too much information?

Oh yeah. Waay to much. In fact right now I'm being overwhelmed by mind-bogging clarity and insight. I don't know how much more of this I can take.

... make it stop...

... make it stop...

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.

Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).

Again (loseyourname's point), why can't you have inequality where everyone is prosperous? If on a scale of 1 to 10, poverty is below a 2 and everyone is distributed between 3 and 10, then no one is poor, but there is great inequality.

I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.

Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equal in financial, political, and economic status.

 

[Smurf]

Get a job sony!

Get laid oldy

 

[jimmie]

... make it stop...

... make it stop...

You awe huuumawiss.

You make me waaaff.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not a marxist. I havn't said a thing about "equality of outcome". In fact I havn't said the word "outcome" once in this entire thread.

You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.

Regardless of whether or not you are a strict Marxist, you share a lot of ideas. Marx theorized that people would revolt because of the lack of equality of status.

I'm talking about equal power and anarchism. I've listed anachist colonies before and I'll list them again if you want, but despite any feelings you have about Marxist, anarchism is very possible and has been proven so on small scales worldwide.

Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will.

And I don't really care if you think it can be implimented, I believe it will inevitably be implimented on a large scale too (unless capitalism kills us all first).

I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.

 

[Smurf]

Since when is what you want automatically a reality? See, that's the problem with Marxists - they think that they can make something a reality simply by wishing it. No, people don't want to be poor - in your mind, everyone being equal means everyone is prosperous, but every time that has been tried it has resulted in equality of poverty. In North Korea, for example, everyone not directly involved in the government had a very high level of equality - and the result was a relatively uniform chance of dying of starvation over the past 10 years (roughly 10%).

1. An-ar-ch-ist

2. Every time it has actually been tried (in my definitions (anarchism), not korea's (dictatorship)), it has resulted in great happiness, and varying degrees of prosperity. Like I said, equality can not be imposed. Because to impose something you must first have greater power over the person you're imposing on. Therefore, you will not be equal.

Again (loseyourname's point), why can't you have inequality where everyone is prosperous? If on a scale of 1 to 10, poverty is below a 2 and everyone is distributed between 3 and 10, then no one is poor, but there is great inequality.

If I ever said you couldn't, I retract that statement. Prosperity, in the definition that it is above "2" is quite possible with inequality. Prosperity only does so much though. The inequality would still lead to large conflicts and thus, the society would be less healthy and less happy than a society with more equality.

Perhaps, then, you should tell us what you think equality is, instead of just what it isn't. At face value, "equality" seems to mean that everyone is equal in financial, political, and economic status.

I don't want to explain it again, I really don't like having to come up with different ways to say everything.

Russ, I honestly believe that I've written everything I need to for you to understand what I mean. I don't think you're trying to understand. So me saying it again won't help. If you have any questions please ask and by all means make counter-arguments, but don't ask me to re state the entire thread again.

 

[jimmie]

Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive.

Believing that the "system" was illusion and placing my faith in me to 'perfect' my character to become a "true" humble human being was constructive, because I am no longer affected by the "system".

However, it is possible that "I" will affect the "system".

Catalyst.

 

[Smurf]

You are looking for equality of state/status. Status is outcome.
Regardless of whether or not you are a strict Marxist, you share a lot of ideas. Marx theorized that people would revolt because of the lack of equality of status.

Marx said it would happen through imposed government. I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation. Me and Marx don't agree as often as you think.

Small scales, yes. Any system can work if the people involved agree in advance to the conditions of it. Again, that's a basic problem with your ideas. You said it yourself: you will never get a large group of people to agree unless the nature of what it means to be human "evolves" to something that it is not today. You do know that evolution requires many, many generations to happen - and even then, you can't be sure evolution is going to proceed the way you hope it will

Not genetic evolution, silly. Society evolving. It's like a couple hundred years ago democracy was a pretty far out idea. Now? It's the most common types of government (with varying degrees of success) in the world. This wasn't caused because people developed a 'democracy' gene. This happened because society evolved to the point people decided they wanted more control over their government. Societal evolution. Argue the terminology if you want, I'll use whatever word for it you want me to use.

I know you don't care, and that saddens me. Fighting against a system you can't change is self-destructive

Me? Fighting? God no. I don't think humanity is anywhere near a point where we're ready for anarchism. Maybe when I'm old and grey colonies will be more common, but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.

 

[jimmie]

but I don't expect any major revolutions in my life time.

You are witnessing the greatest revolution of human history, and it has not yet come full-circle.

You are IN it.

Birth-pangs.

 

[Smurf]

You are witnessing the greatest revolution of human history, and it has not yet come full-circle.
You are IN it.
Birth-pangs.

how do you mean?

 

[jimmie]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.

There have been many signs, natural and otherwise.

No one is sure what, or when, but deep down they know something has to "give".

Let's face it, the world can't go on forever the way it is. The scientists say it is not possible.

I believe them.

 

[Smurf]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.
There have been many signs, natural and otherwise.
No one is sure what, or when, but deep down they know something has to "give".
Let's face it, the world can't go on forever the way it is. The scientists say it is not possible.
I believe them.

That's a nice thought. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

 

[jimmie]

Yes it was; maybe you're just cynical.

 

[Pengwuino]

I believe that there is a prevailing feeling worldwide that something "BIG" is about to happen.

Every generation feels there is something "BIG" about to happen. Rarely are they ever right.

Pff, scientists. Who are the scientists and what EXACTLY are they saying. You're probably watching too much CNN. I mean wasnt Yellowstone suppose to blow up and kill everyone? Of course not, the media got something up their butt and decided to go wild off of some report that's probably not much above normal. We always have a meteor or asteroid or something ready to destroy us as well...

And find out what they are actually saying. Some scientist might say "There is a 0.000005% chance of X meteor whiping out mankind" and the news might say "Theres a chance this meteor will kill us all! Say your prayers!". Ya know, crap like that.

 

[Smurf]

Or an alkadian death cruiser?

 

[Pengwuino]

Or an alkadian death cruiser?

Theres a 0.0035% chance...

 

[jimmie]

Every generation feels there is something "BIG" about to happen. Rarely are they ever right.

I believe that statement is correct.

However, when I say something "BIG", I am not referring to 'natural events'. I am referring to the appearance of a particular individual that many individuals expect to appear: the biblical messiah.

That long-awaited event may or may not materialize as soon as expected, but, so long as the Presidential Inauguration includes the President swearing on a stack of bibles, the hope that he acknowledges with that oath is real.

 

[loseyourname]

Believing that the "system" was illusion and placing my faith in me to 'perfect' my character to become a "true" humble human being was constructive, because I am no longer affected by the "system".
However, it is possible that "I" will affect the "system".
Catalyst.

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what you mean (ever, not just here), but I think I agree. As far as I'm concerned, no government, and no system, can ever take away from me my freedom to self-realize. That is, I can realize my spiritual potential (and I don't mean anything religious or dualistic by this) and be a happy person with everything that I need and everything that I want, whether I'm living in a world that calls itself capitalistic, socialistic, anarchistic, or whatever.

Nonetheless, we are holding an academic discussion here, with the idea simply being to ask what consequences would result given the system we institute.

 

[loseyourname]

'What is your "poverty line"? I don't see how this isn't a relative thing. A thousand years ago prosperity meant as little as owning your own house. You need a far more precise definition than that if its not going to be relative.

I'm only speaking theoretically. There does exist some absolute standard of living above which every person is able to take care of his physical needs. Poverty, as defined in the USA, is actually not a relative thing. They define it according to how much money a person/family would have to make to be able to purchase the food necessary to meet the USDA's minimum nutritional guidelines and still be able to pay the average rent. It's not the perfect definition, but it gives you some idea of what I have in mind.

I don't really see how someone can believe that. Why would a society want to live in horrendous conditions? I believe humanity will always try to pick itself up. If it can not do that, it is because someone is pushing it down. And if someone has power enough to push it down, they are not equal. This argument is flawed.

If you idealize the situation to imagine a world where every single person in the world had both equal power and equal access to resources, sure. But how on Earth are we going to do that? You're talking about a fundamental re-working of human nature, and possibly a great reducing of the world population as well.

Note: I'm not saying that human nature is necessarily nasty and that someone will always want to take what another has, but let's be real here. As far as I know, there is no social animal on the planet that exists without heirarchy of any kind.

Take your university example. The only reason that institution (let's ignore the structure of the institution it's self) would be forced to pick people at random, instead of the ones it wanted would be if there was someone with power over it aside from it's self. Therefore, it would be within an inequal society. If it were in an equal society, it would not have anyone telling it what to do, so would be free (emphasis on free, as in freedom) to admit whoever it wants.

If it's free to admit whoever it wants, but doesn't have any admission standards (which would inherently give some a better chance than others), how could it do anything other than admit people at random? I suppose theoretically a university could admit every single student that applied, but then it would not have the resources to actually handle all of its students, which wouldn't exactly be fair to them either.

I think this is a common misconception among westerners is to equate equality with what happened in the USSR and Maoist China. Equality can not be imposed, because to impose is to destroy equality.

I'm not equating equality with any historical situation. I'm just saying that the concept of equality allows room for people to not prosper (you can argue endlessly about whether or not this would be realized in your ideal society, but you cannot change this fact). Universal prosperity, on the other hand, does not. As such, universal prosperity is a better goal for an economic system (anarchy, by the way, is not an economic system). Equality does not seem to me to be an end in and of itself. People that push for equality really just want everybody to prosper - in fact, I think that your assertion that equality would entail universal prosperity is evidence that you, in fact, actually want everyone to prosper.

 

[Smurf]

Universal prosperity, on the other hand, does not. As such, universal prosperity is a better goal for an economic system (anarchy, by the way, is not an economic system). Equality does not seem to me to be an end in and of itself. People that push for equality really just want everybody to prosper - in fact, I think that your assertion that equality would entail universal prosperity is evidence that you, in fact, actually want everyone to prosper.

Perhapse not an end in it's self, it is the means in which to accomplish the most pleasant . My end goals differ significantly from yours though, I think. It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?

 

[Townsend]

It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?

If everyone is a King who will they rule?

 

[loseyourname]

Perhapse not an end in it's self, it is the means in which to accomplish the most pleasant . My end goals differ significantly from yours though, I think. It's a rather low goal to have everyone be able to pay average rent and buy food. Especially since I believe this will solve nothing, or very little. You must be terribly dissapointed in the current system to have failed in even this tiny goal?

Not at all. I'm disappointed in parts of our economic system, sure, but overall I can see that prosperity has risen in the first-world at least, and the lack of prosperity we see elsewhere has been more a failing of the political systems in question than the economic systems.

There is also what I said to jimmie. I don't look to systems to be the source of our salvation. I don't expect the US government, or any other government, to provide for me, or to distribute resources equally. I also don't expect this of local or international businesses. I expect businesses to attempt to profit and I expect governments to attempt to stay in power. For the most part, this is what they do.

By the way, smurf, part of the reason that all I ask of an ideal system is to keep everyone above the poverty line is that I myself exist barely above the poverty line, yet I cannot really imagine increased material prosperity making me any happier than I already am. In fact, I have been more materially prosperous in the past, and I am happier now. I don't consider this to be a "low" or "tiny" goal.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I'm starting to tire, but if I don't respond now, I won't until Sunday, so...

Marx said it would happen through imposed government.

He did? I thought he said the masses would rise up...

I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation. Me and Marx don't agree as often as you think.

Still sounds like Marx to me.

Not genetic evolution, silly. Society evolving.

How do you propose to make humans change so radically without genetic evolution? Better (worse) yet, since evolution, itself, is based on competition, how do you propose to re-calibrate evolution itself? Again, we're not just talking about redirecting human evolution: what you propose requires changing the nature of evolution itself - tossing biology out the window.

It's like a couple hundred years ago democracy was a pretty far out idea. Now? It's the most common types of government (with varying degrees of success) in the world.

"A copule hundred years"? 25+ (hundred years) is "a couple"?
Yes, the first modern democracy is the US, at a little over 200 years, but there have been various forms of democracy for more than 2500 years. There has never been a successful government/nation of the type you describe (no, Smurf: 50 people is not enough to call it a nation or, more to the point, a successful test, so please drop that 'it's been done in small groups' thing).

This wasn't caused because people developed a 'democracy' gene. This happened because society evolved to the point people decided they wanted more control over their government. Societal evolution.

The "democracy gene" (I like that - I'm going to use it) is the gene that causes people to be competitive. The one every life form in the history of the world has had - you could also call it the 'evolution gene'.

Argue the terminology if you want, I'll use whatever word for it you want me to use.

Um... you brought it up, not me. My point was that the word doesn't matter. The principles are the same either way. What is described in the Bill of Rights, whether you call it "freedom" or "Bob" is what people want. Repackaging another set of ideals under the name "freedom" is not going to make people want it. They will still want The Bill of Rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

... the reason we have this (poverty) is because of GREED...

And not laziness ?

 

[vanesch]

To come back to the OP, there are 2 ways to see capitalism: 1) as an ideology that should be strived towards/away from and 2) as a natural consequence of instoring certain principles, such as some freedom to act, and some property to have. I find 1) rather silly, while 2) rather evident. I've difficulties imagining a society where there wouldn't be the slightest bit of freedom to act and property to have, so then, "capitalism" is a "law of nature", even only in a restricted form.
I'm not particularly admirative of capitalism as an ideology (1), but I accept it as a "law of nature" and it has some good things to it (which are excessively admired by the proponents of the ideology associated with it). Market mechanisms do exist, and do some useful regulation. So it is nice to have this "law of nature", but even if it weren't "nice" we would have it anyways, unless we'd take away very elementary rights.
I don't know in what way, as is claimed by proponents of 1), if we let this "law of nature" handle *everything* we optimise TOTAL wealth. It does seem to do a good job of it, but I'm not sure it is entirely true, and moreover, * I don't think that this should be our goal*.
As discussed before, our goal should be reasonable happiness for most. This includes of course a certain level of total wealth, but it includes also a *distribution* of wealth. It includes the ability to be different from others, and also some equality, and I think it should try to avoid as much as possible such "poverty" that it leads to unhappiness.

By the way, smurf, part of the reason that all I ask of an ideal system is to keep everyone above the poverty line is that I myself exist barely above the poverty line, yet I cannot really imagine increased material prosperity making me any happier than I already am. In fact, I have been more materially prosperous in the past, and I am happier now. I don't consider this to be a "low" or "tiny" goal.

I can relate to that. I think this should be one of the "litmus tests" of a good system: to keep "everyone - or almost - above a kind of poverty line". I'm not convinced that hard-core capitalism can do that, so I think some "social redistribution" is necessary. The entire discussion is "how much", not "whether or not".
The other "litmus test" is to interfere as little as possible in people's lives (but as much as necessary).
As I argued a few times before, I don't think that any "black and white" ideology (capitalism - as an ideology ; communism ...) succeeds in doing so. It's a difficult problem to solve, which needs steering as we see how things go, and decisions should be made according to results, and not according to ideology.
Amen

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't know in what way, as is claimed by proponents of 1), if we let this "law of nature" handle *everything* we optimise TOTAL wealth. It does seem to do a good job of it, but I'm not sure it is entirely true, and moreover, * I don't think that this should be our goal*.
As discussed before, our goal should be reasonable happiness for most. This includes of course a certain level of total wealth, but it includes also a *distribution* of wealth. It includes the ability to be different from others, and also some equality, and I think it should try to avoid as much as possible such "poverty" that it leads to unhappiness.

Capitalism has a wealth-redistribution system built into it, it's called wage-labor. The more money any individual capitalist has, the more apt he is to expand his business operations. That means hiring more people, and re-distributing the wealth he has accumulated to more and more people.

Left to expand, Capitalists will employ more and more people, until there is a relatively small percentage of those who aren't employed in some way. When this situation arises, wages begin to rise substantially, as workers become more and more scarce, they become more and more valuable, and higher wages are instituted to make sure that the Capitalists will constantly have people to work for them.

I think that if you look at the situations India and China currently find themselves in (after decades of socialist/communist meddling in economic status), you'll find that increasing Capitalism in these countries has significantly helped out the situation of the populace.

 

[Smurf]

Yes, the first modern democracy is the US, at a little over 200 years, but there have been various forms of democracy for more than 2500 years. There has never been a successful government/nation of the type you describe (no, Smurf: 50 people is not enough to call it a nation or, more to the point, a successful test, so please drop that 'it's been done in small groups' thing). The "democracy gene" (I like that - I'm going to use it) is the gene that causes people to be competitive.

I didn't say it was going to happen soon.

 

[Smurf]

By the way, smurf, part of the reason that all I ask of an ideal system is to keep everyone above the poverty line is that I myself exist barely above the poverty line, yet I cannot really imagine increased material prosperity making me any happier than I already am. In fact, I have been more materially prosperous in the past, and I am happier now. I don't consider this to be a "low" or "tiny" goal.

That's a big difference between you and me. I think that an "ideal system" (although I don't think of it that way) should result in less conflict, less violence, less inequality (which should in it's self be a goal, as well as a means), and more prosperity (But by more I mean increasing, not just being able to live) and all this should lead to -> more happiness and less suffering.

All you want from an ideal system is to have the means to survive. In that sense humanity has always your idea as an ideal system and always will until it's extinction. I think that kind of defeats the point of 'ideal', doesn't it?