News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[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?

 

[Smurf]

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

No offence vanesch, but are you sure you've studied "Capitalism" and "Communism" enough to be sure of that?

 

[Smurf]

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.

To me that just further proves Capitalism is flawed. It's very solution to inequal wealth (symbolizing power) is to create power inequality in a different way: By creating and expanding social classes so that all but a very small portion of the population is either an employer or employee.

And yes russ, I know that Marxism would agree with me on this one.

 

[Townsend]

By creating and expanding social classes so that all but a very small portion of the population is either an employer or employee.

So if everyone is an employer who are the employees? You believe that everyone should be equal but you have yet to explain why anyone should ever have to work in such cases. My goal in life is to build enough wealth so that I don't have to work. Without that incentive I want nothing to do with work.

 

[Smurf]

Without that incentive I want nothing to do with work.

Okay.

 

[Townsend]

Okay.

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

The miliary works because it has a class system that allows people to gain power over other people. In fact any effective system requires that some people have POWER over other people. I have NEVER heard of any system that has worked that had all people as equals.

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...it's almost like a natural law. You don't have to like reality for it to be reality Smurf.

 

[Smurf]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

I don't see why not.

I have NEVER heard of any system that has worked that had all people as equals.

That's your own fault for not listening then, isn't it?

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...it's almost like a natural law. You don't have to like reality for it to be reality Smurf.

Don't really understand that.

 

[Townsend]

I don't see why not.

Really...you have got to be kidding me. You are a smart kid but that is simply the single stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say. In NO world with NO system would your imaginary people exist.

That's your own fault for not listening then, isn't it?

No system that has ever been mentioned by you would ever accomplish such as task so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't really understand that.

Clearly...but that IS your fault now isn't it.

 

[Anttech]

I read somewhere that if all the wealth in the world were to equally divide among all people that every person would have about 4 million dollars. Would you clean toliets if you had 4 million dollars? I don't think anyone would...and that is just the tip of the iceburg Smurf.

whats your point? By equally sharing all the "money" in the world (which would devalue it anyway)all the toilets will get dirty?

 

[Anttech]

Even if you take away government and money you still have a class system. Those that can and those that cannot...

Are you trying to say that class is based on skills, rather than power?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Are you trying to say that class is based on skills, rather than power?

Abilities or inborn talents, plus the effect of environment on motivation. That is the reason one person gets the education and rises and the other drops out and sinks.

 

[Smurf]

Really...you have got to be kidding me. You are a smart kid but that is simply the single stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say. In NO world with NO system would your imaginary people exist.

Your point is silly. Why does someone's toilet cleaning ability/motivation depend on the numerical value of the money in their pockets?

Furthermore, what relevance does that have, either way, to the discussion. If someone doesn't want to clean their toilet then they can sit on a dirty one. That's their choice. Me? I'm going to clean my toilet.

No system that has ever been mentioned by you would ever accomplish such as task so I have no idea what you're talking about.

... I kind of thought that every example I've mentioned has had that.

Clearly...but that IS your fault now isn't it.

What on Earth do you mean by those that can and those that can't? How do those constitute classes, and how does their existence prevent equal power within a society?

 

[loseyourname]

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.

Your "system" is more ambitious than the purely economic system I'm referring to. You're talking about a complete reworking of human social structure, cultural norms, and possibly genetics. Given the way social engineering projects have turned out in the past, I have no desire to touch that. I'm an individualist, and so all I ask is that our economic system keep me out of poverty. Outside of that, I do the rest myself. I strive to be the best person I can be, and as far as I'm concerned, if everyone did the same, then we could do away with all of these other things that you so badly want to do away with.

I just don't view humanity the same way you do, as a collection of inert receptacles that are acted upon and caused to behave in a certain way. Above the level of crimes of survival forced upon people by utter poverty or self-defense, I see personal responsibility for abberant behavior. I also see violence and warfare across all of human history in all cultures and even amongst other great apes and conclude that we are simply a violent species, and no matter what cultural/political system we live under, some of us are going to find an excuse to perpetuate violence. It isn't the fault of the church, or the state, or capitalism. It is simply the way that humans are. We can certainly scale down violence by making everyone equal (no one has command of an army), but all we are doing is going back to square one. All social animals are heirarchical by nature, and we will stratify again.

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?

Really, it goes back to the personal responsibility thing. The system we have in the US is hardly "ideal," to be sure. But it does have the necessary features to make a good life possible for very nearly everyone if they would simply take advantage of the opportunities available. To make the "system" ideal, all I ask is that it give everybody that opportunity. To take the step from an ideal system to an ideal world, it would necessary for everybody to take advantage of that opportunity. As such, an ideal world is not going to be accomplished by any system; it will only be accomplished by ideal people.

 

[vanesch]

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

I already suggested this: what if our technology level is high enough to produce droids that can do about what 80% of the population can do ?

 

[vanesch]

No offence vanesch, but are you sure you've studied "Capitalism" and "Communism" enough to be sure of that?

Well, you can theorise all you want, there have been "experiments", and we've all seen what communism leads to (ok, I know I know, that was not the idea, it wasn't real communism etc... but we're back to our "stability" discussion), and we also see that "capitalist" countries find it necessary to have a minimum social programme ; that even (on paper) very capitalist countries like the US do not succeed in eradicating "poverty that makes unhappy", so I observe, simply, empirically that the practical approximations of the "ideal" systems have flaws, and that things do not always turn out in practice as theory would say.
As such, my modest conclusion is that building a society that "brings reasonable happiness to most" is a difficult problem to solve, but we could hope that by letting things evolve (slowly and carefully!) we might improve things, taking theoretical suggestions, and looking empirically what it does. We've come already some way. We still have a way to go.
So I don't think that you can write down those rules on a few sheets of paper, that's too simple.

 

[vanesch]

Abilities or inborn talents, plus the effect of environment on motivation. That is the reason one person gets the education and rises and the other drops out and sinks.

Let's say that that is the "dynamical law"... but you forget the initial conditions ! Don't you think that (exceptions exist), ON AVERAGE, the level of living depends on the social status of mom and dad ?
Yes, you CAN work your way up as a poor kid, but does this happen, on average, to most poor kids ?
And yes, you CAN flunk your personal capital, even if Daddy left you his big factory, but does that happen to most rich kids, on average ?

 

[jimmie]

We still have a way to go.

Yeah, and it's one way, or the other way.

One way, human beings acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" (existence) together, and SHOULD function together as one WHOLE unit.

The other way, human beings choose to not acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" together, and continue to function independantly of each other, with no cohesion or integration.

but we could hope that by letting things evolve (slowly and carefully!) we might improve things,

"Things" have already evolved, slowly and carefully. THOUSANDS of years.

And the only conclusion that a true human being (I) can establish, based on all of the evidence, is that there are only two ways for human beings to INTEND to live, and intent to live is NOT synonymous with living.

There is always intent, but only RIGHTINTENT is RIGHT.

Humans are at a crossroads, and its time to decide which way to go.

There is ONLY one way to live.

 

[moose]

I disagree with Capitalism because it promotes inequality. That's it.

Are you saying there is no difference between me and the kids who smoke drugs all day and maybe keep a job at mcdonalds?Hard work should get you ahead, so...

 

[vanesch]

One way, human beings acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" (existence) together, and SHOULD function together as one WHOLE unit.
The other way, human beings choose to not acknowledge the fact that "we" are in "this" together, and continue to function independantly of each other, with no cohesion or integration.

Well, "l'enfer, c'est les autres"
We cannot deny living "together" in some ways (what one does, can have an influence on others), and we are both social animals, but not as social as ants, so we also need some individualism. Finding the right mix, for every aspect of life and society, is the difficult problem we should solve.
There are things we do better together, and there are things we do better as individuals. There are things that make us happier if we are together, and there are things that make us happy when we are on our own. And we're all different.

 

[jimmie]

And we're all different

That is correct.

However, PRIOR to being different, WE are all the same.

Its about order.

And that is the option that lays before all human beings: do you intend to develop your different "self", which precludes the possibility of developing your "other-than-self", or do you intend to develop your same "other-than-self", which THEN puts you in the position to develop your "self" the RIGHT way?

When the common/same becomes the priorty of the nations, the nations themselves will be ordered and integrated with each other, under the "umbrella" nation known as the UN.

However, if being different/unique remains to be the priority of the nations, they will become extinct, 'thinking' all the while they were 'different and unique', at the expense of the same/whole and ultimately, their "selves".

Something has to bind everything together. If everything is not binded together, you have one big mess, hence, the current global situation.

 

[Smurf]

Your "system" is more ambitious than the purely economic system I'm referring to. You're talking about a complete reworking of human social structure, cultural norms, and possibly genetics.

Correct. Except genetics. I don't see that as necessary or even applicable to my theory.

Given the way social engineering projects have turned out in the past, I have no desire to touch that. I'm an individualist, and so all I ask is that our economic system keep me out of poverty. Outside of that, I do the rest myself. I strive to be the best person I can be, and as far as I'm concerned, if everyone did the same, then we could do away with all of these other things that you so badly want to do away with.

Just because I'm proposing something slightly different than what you're used to all the sudden your approaching me like a mad scientist with his "social engineering project". I resent that. I've stated before that I am making absolutely no active attempt to bring this about, I consider it a natural evolution in human society, provided we live long enough. It's hardly a project, and it certainly isn't "engineering".