News Why Do People Criticize Capitalism?

[Smurf]

You refuse to see my point, Smurf.
stippish
is about.

Well adam smith didn't actually predict a whole lot. Pretty much just hammered in that perfect competition and selfish behavior leads to a rise in living standards.

I disagree. but I can't really be bothered to get into it right now. Some other time.

 

[Smurf]

I don't believe prostitution is right either...I have been married for the last 6 years. I just don't believe my values trump everyone else’s values. If someone thinks that it's cool to drink their own urine I might think it's really gross and unhealthy but hey...it's their choice.

Which is a moral belief in it's self. A belief you're trying to impose on me?

 

[Townsend]

Do not all men have the same creator?

No...I was created by the flying spaghetti monster...how about you?

 

[Smurf]

No...I was created by the flying spaghetti monster...how about you?

Telephone wire monster, actually.

Sky?

 

[Townsend]

Which is a moral belief in it's self. A belief you're trying to impose on me?

I want you to be able to live by whatever morals you want...I just don't want other people to have to agree with you. And it is not so much a moral value as it is a premise that people should be free to do something unless by doing so it infringes on others people’s rights.

 

[Townsend]

Telephone wire monster, actually.

Haven't heard about that one yet...is (s)he/it a benevolent deity?

 

[Smurf]

Haven't heard about that one yet...is (s)he/it a benevolent deity?

Yup. Free candy on new years. You should convert.

 

[Smurf]

I want you to be able to live by whatever morals you want...I just don't want other people to have to agree with you. And it is not so much a moral value as it is a premise that people should be free to do something unless by doing so it infringes on others people’s rights.

And since my morals include never imposing my power over others, that shouldn't be a problem for you. No?

 

[Townsend]

And since my morals include never imposing my power over others, that shouldn't be a problem for you. No?

So we pretty much agree about this whole thing...

From the very beginning, my point was never that prostitution is a good thing that society has to have to exist. My point is that from some people's point of view, it is a good thing and if I set my morals aside, I really can't see any reason why prostitution should be illegal.

Which is pretty much what your telling me you believe too...

that really kind of pretty much sux...we have been wasting time over bad communication...

 

[Smurf]

So we pretty much agree about this whole thing...

From the very beginning, my point was never that prostitution is a good thing that society has to have to exist. My point is that from some people's point of view, it is a good thing and if I set my morals aside, I really can't see any reason why prostitution should be illegal.

Which is pretty much what your telling me you believe too...

that really kind of pretty much sux...we have been wasting time over bad communication...

Yeah pretty much. My argument is that prostitution is harmfull, and the best way to fix that is to be in a society where it's not needed -> not one where it's unallowed. If I had my way the very idea of "buying" sex would get you laughed at.

Having said that, if an anarchist colony is set up in a way that prostitution *is* needed, even to a small degree. And the people in that colony want to forbid the practice then I would support that. Not because I have any qualms against prostitution (even though I do), but because that's the choice of the community, which should be respected.

 

[Smurf]

that really kind of pretty much sux...we have been wasting time over bad communication...

heh. I'm not really surprised. We do this all the time.

 

[pi-r8]

Because it's the American way?
Without wholesome food, clean drinking water, fresh air to breath, shelter, clothing, and I would also add, a place of dignity in society, then a person is not enjoying those inalienable rights.
Why should these self-evident truths not apply to everyone?
Do not all men have the same creator?

Regardless of whether or not people have a creator, those rights do apply to everyone. The wording here is very important, however. Thomas Jefferson did not speak of the "right to happiness", but the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. He did not speak of the right to be kept alive, only of the right to life.

You're correct that food, water, etc are necessary to live. But a person must obtain those things for himself. If you require someone else to provide those things, you've made the second person a slave to the first. In other words, taken away his right to liberty.

If a person wants to live a happy life, he must do it for himself. He cannot force anyone else to give it to him.

 

[Gokul43201]

Haven't read more than half the thread...

In a non-capitalistic society, what provides the incentive to do work ? The good of the state ? The benefit of your neighbor ? What is it ?

 

[Smurf]

In a non-capitalistic society, what provides the incentive to do work ? The good of the state ? The benefit of your neighbor ? What is it ?

Depends on the system. Workers in a worker-managed firm would have even higher morale and greater incentive to work hard compared with workers who just worked for the benefit of their employer.

 

[pattylou]

Meeting basic needs would motivate a lot of people.

Some people would want to go further, because they enjoy their work/occupation/etc.

If money was the sole motivator, you wouldn't have researchers or good teachers choosing these careers over something more lucrative. I conclude that people are motivated by personal enjoyment in their chosen profession.

 

[Smurf]

Besides townsend... our society already descriminates against ugly people.
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch15/attract.mhtml

 

[Evo]

All right, I leave you guys alone for awhile and we now have a thread on moral values.

Back to capitalism or the thread dies an ugly death.

 

[russ_watters]

Depends on the system. Workers in a worker-managed firm would have even higher morale and greater incentive to work hard compared with workers who just worked for the benefit of their employer.

That's still capitalist: Southwest Airlines (and, I believe) Hertz rent-a-car are employee owned. It works quite well, but they are still corporations and they are still profit-driven.

If money was the sole motivator, you wouldn't have researchers or good teachers choosing these careers over something more lucrative. I conclude that people are motivated by personal enjoyment in their chosen profession.

Someone who is motivated to be a teacher or researcher happens already, so that wouldn't be a difference for a non-capitalist society. What we need to know is what motivates everyone else to work. The other 90% of the population, who only works because they have to.

edit: I'm more cynical (realistic) than that: it's got to be more like 99%. A teacher who works as a teacher because enjoys it would still quit if she won the lottery. Liking a certain field mostly just effects which job a person takes.

Meeting basic needs would motivate a lot of people.

What type of system would that be? That still sounds like capitalism. It was my understanding that the entire point of finding another system would be so that you wouldn't have to work harder/better to have your basic needs provided for you: they'd be provided automatically.

Perhaps being more specific would help: In a system where a janitor and a doctor earned the same amount of money regardless of job difficulty or performanc, what is the motivation of either to work better/harder?

The above scenario is an exaggerated version of how the USSR worked - or, rather, how it didn't work.

 

[Smurf]

All right, I leave you guys alone for awhile and we now have a thread on moral values.
Back to capitalism or the thread dies an ugly death.

ITS NOT MORAL VALUES!

It's very real applications of social theory which DO relate to capitalism. We're done now anyways.

 

[Smurf]

That's still capitalist: Southwest Airlines (and, I believe) Hertz rent-a-car are employee owned. It works quite well, but they are still corporations and they are still profit-driven.

Southwest airlines are not examples of what I meant. It has a CEO, a CFO and a Chairman. The leadership controls all the power and the employees directly below them (executive management) obey those orders and give orders to those under them, ect, in a hierarchial structure.

To me, that does not sound like this:

Workers in a worker-managed firm

I was referring to socialist theory specifically, by the way.

The reason this would not be capitalist, regardless of the existence of a free market on which they may or may not distribute their goods, is because it can not be owned privately, it is managed collectively by the members of that firm. The same way any community would be managed collectively under the same theory.

However, it is unlikely that there will be a freemarket (in the current form that we know it) on which they will distribute their goods. A firm will be less likely to over-produce because profit incentive will not be as great and they will not be trying to expand. Instead, they will produce enough goods for their local community and they will give (sell) the goods to their local community in exchange for over goods produced within the community.

That's my interpretation of socialism anyways. This is the part that's very akin to my own Anarchist thought. Is Alexandra still around? You should PM her.

 

[Smurf]

edit: I'm more cynical (realistic)

Conservative

That still sounds like capitalism. It was my understanding that the entire point of finding another system would be so that you wouldn't have to work harder/better to have your basic needs provided for you: they'd be provided automatically.

What on Earth gave you that idea? The entire opposition to capitalism is because it's so destructive to the earth, humanity, and almost every other life form... not lazyness.

edit: I think I know what gave you that idea. It's all those social democratic parties that are advocating full scale welfare states and stuff, right? They're hardly anti-capitalist.

In a system where a janitor and a doctor earned the same amount of money regardless of job difficulty or performanc, what is the motivation of either to work better/harder?

What makes you say that they'd even get paid at all?

The above scenario is an exaggerated version of how the USSR worked - or, rather, how it didn't work.

Which you should know, we're all firmly opposed to.

 

[vanesch]

In a non-capitalistic society, what provides the incentive to do work ? The good of the state ? The benefit of your neighbor ? What is it ?

Fun at work Like in a capitalist society...

 

[vanesch]

Someone who is motivated to be a teacher or researcher happens already, so that wouldn't be a difference for a non-capitalist society. What we need to know is what motivates everyone else to work. The other 90% of the population, who only works because they have to.

As I pointed out already, in a not-too-distant future, apart from some intellectual jobs, there might not be any NEED for people to work, as intelligent droids could do that much better, which would put about 90% (or 99.5% whatever) out of a job with no need for it. This would be a serious problem for capitalism, no ?

 

[russ_watters]

What on Earth gave you that idea? The entire opposition to capitalism is because it's so destructive to the earth, humanity, and almost every other life form... not lazyness.

You didn't mention the part about equality there...

edit: I think I know what gave you that idea. It's all those social democratic parties that are advocating full scale welfare states and stuff, right?

You got it.

They're hardly anti-capitalist.

You lost it...

What makes you say that they'd even get paid at all?

Fair enough - I keep forgetting you want to toss out all of human social progress to date.

Which you should know, we're all firmly opposed to.

Would you support that scenario if it worked?

As I pointed out already, in a not-too-distant future, apart from some intellectual jobs, there might not be any NEED for people to work, as intelligent droids could do that much better, which would put about 90% (or 99.5% whatever) out of a job with no need for it. This would be a serious problem for capitalism, no ?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not expecting robotics to advance that much in my lifetime.

 

[Astronuc]

As I pointed out already, in a not-too-distant future, apart from some intellectual jobs, there might not be any NEED for people to work, as intelligent droids could do that much better, which would put about 90% (or 99.5% whatever) out of a job with no need for it. This would be a serious problem for capitalism, no ?

It depends on who owns the droids? Or, who owns/controls the food supply, water resources, medical care, . . . i.e. all the problems one has with capitalism.

IMO, some of the problems with capitalism are the inherent inequities and corruption, and the latter does involve morality and human nature.

 

[vanesch]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I'm not expecting robotics to advance that much in my lifetime.

We might be one of the last generations that had to/could/was motivated to work. Look where PCs were in 1975, that's only 30 years ago.

 

[Smurf]

You didn't mention the part about equality there...

Because inequality is destructive. That's what class theory is about.

You got it. You lost it...

Clarification: They're not opposed to capitalism, regardless of wether you see them as impeding laissez-faire economics.

Would you support that scenario if it worked?

Would you support Communism if it worked?

 

[Smurf]

IMO, some of the problems with capitalism are the inherent inequities and corruption, and the latter does involve morality and human nature.

Many men's corruption have been excused and passed off as faults in "human nature".

 

[vanesch]

It depends on who owns the droids? Or, who owns/controls the food supply, water resources, medical care, . . . i.e. all the problems one has with capitalism.

Yes, but the usual explanation, that this ownership is the way it is because that will give rise to the best use of ressources, doesn't hold anymore then. If you don't own anything, and nobody cares that you work for them (because droids do it better), then there's NO WAY for you to get out of your poverty! In fact, the value of labor has then dropped to 0.

IMO, some of the problems with capitalism are the inherent inequities and corruption, and the latter does involve morality and human nature.

On the other hand, capitalism is known for its low level or corruption. Corruption is the *MIS*use of power (which you were supposed to have for the greater good of many) for one's own benefit - while this is the basic axiom of capitalism, so corruption is essentially impossible: you're never supposed to have power which is not for your own benefit.

 

[vanesch]

Would you support Communism if it worked?

Of course...

but it doesn't work so well, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

IMO, some of the problems with capitalism are the inherent inequities and corruption, and the latter does involve morality and human nature.

Perhaps with morality I should have added parenthetically (work ethic).

Many men's corruption have been excused and passed off as faults in "human nature".

corruption is a fault. Whether or not it is inherently part of "human nature" is certainly debatable.

On the other hand, capitalism is known for its low level or corruption. Corruption is the *MIS*use of power (which you were supposed to have for the greater good of many) for one's own benefit - while this is the basic axiom of capitalism, so corruption is essentially impossible: you're never supposed to have power which is not for your own benefit.

Are you stating the capitalism is known for its low level of corruption. If so, I would have to disgree based on my observations.

Certainly "misuse" of power is a form of corruption. Corruption is a reality in any social, political or economic system - basic selfishness, which is a matter of choice.

As for capitalism -

"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

from dictionary.com by agreement with The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. That is a very ideal and simplistic definition, and it has little bearing on reality.

Look at "free market" - "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions." Well, what is meant by "regulated" - government regulation, i.e. regulation by some entity not directly involved in the transactions, or can it be extended to "regulation" by either party, supplier or receiever, in the market. What about manipulation or monopoly? Can a market which is manipulated be truly free? I think not.

Anyway, communism and capitalism both failed by common cause - simply greed and selfishness. Note, I do not quantify or qualify the degree of failure, however I do point out that both communism and capitalism have so far failed many people.

 

[alexandra]

Marx said it would happen through imposed government. I argue it can only happen with the complete overthrow of government. Direct confrontation.

Marx said that the transition from capitalism to socialism can only occur through a revolution which involves the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie's government. However, after a period in which the revolution (or 'the peoples' government') would be secured against its enemies (through what Marx called "the dictatorship of the proletariat"), he said the 'state would wither away' as there would no longer be any need for government. I'm just clarifying the classic Marxist theoretical position on this point...

 

[alexandra]

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.

Another way of seeing this: if we were to be honest, we would have to honestly admit that the relative prosperity enjoyed by the lucky citizens of the 'first world' comes at the direct expense of the poor unfortunates living in the 'third world', whose land has been stolen, whose resources are being stolen (right now there is a major war being fought over a key resources - we won't mention where or what the resource is; use your imaginations). The prosperity supporters of capitalism attribute to this rapacious system causes the very poverty of those who the capitalists suck dry. Of course, no supporter of capitalism will ever admit this. Nevertheless, the evidence is in all the history books (if people would care to consult them). Look up entries on 'colonialism', 'trade routes', 'imperialism', 'wars', 'slavery', 'genocide', etc. etc.

 

[alexandra]

Originally Posted by vanesch
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 ?

It's very simple. if that happens in a capitalist society then 80% of the population will automaticaly left unemployed and in poverty, and all the production of this drones will go only to 20% of the population, who will have to work just the same as they did before the drones where invented.or even more.

Agreed, Burnsys...whereas, if what vanesch suggests happened in a socialist society, the droids could do the tedious manual labour and human beings could realize their potential by studying, thinking, and generally developing to a higher level.

 

[alexandra]

The "communist" countries that have existed are really examples of capitalism at its extreme stage. An oligarcy controls all the capital, and everyone else has to obey or starve (or be killed, of course). In actual socialism, democracy is an absolute necessity. The USSR was socialist at its beginning, but it didn't have the resources to keep itself so (thanks for supporting the Whites, "freedom-lovers").

Hear, hear, Smasherman. I wish others would also make a study of history before they form opinions about these matters:-)

alex

 

[alexandra]

Southwest airlines are not examples of what I meant. It has a CEO, a CFO and a Chairman. The leadership controls all the power and the employees directly below them (executive management) obey those orders and give orders to those under them, ect, in a hierarchial structure.
To me, that does not sound like this:
I was referring to socialist theory specifically, by the way.
The reason this would not be capitalist, regardless of the existence of a free market on which they may or may not distribute their goods, is because it can not be owned privately, it is managed collectively by the members of that firm. The same way any community would be managed collectively under the same theory.
However, it is unlikely that there will be a freemarket (in the current form that we know it) on which they will distribute their goods. A firm will be less likely to over-produce because profit incentive will not be as great and they will not be trying to expand. Instead, they will produce enough goods for their local community and they will give (sell) the goods to their local community in exchange for over goods produced within the community.
That's my interpretation of socialism anyways. This is the part that's very akin to my own Anarchist thought. Is Alexandra still around? You should PM her.

Hey, Smurf - you're doing pretty well without help:-) But to add my little bit - it is possible to imagine a world socialist system, where the 'community' is global and goods are produced where it makes the most sense to produce them (because of the availability of necessary resources in those areas) and then distributed to where they are needed. In a planned economy, which would be relatively easy to organise now that we have the technology (Internet), I imagine there would be quotas to fill at the factory level in order to contribute towards meeting the overall need for whatever is being produced.

At the factory level, the people working there would run everything - they would make joint decisions based on everyone's knowledge about how the whole system works, and they would truly own their work and workplace (as opposed to the recent managerial trend to create delusions of 'ownership' by pretending to elicit workers' opinions and pretending that workers are part of the decision-making process - capitalism is full of such facades and lies that it is 'democratic'... all part of the ideology meant to obscure what's really happening).

As for the question 'what's wrong with capitalism?', many of you will know I have many gripes against capitalism. One of the things that irritate me the most about those who defend this system, especially at this point in history, is how they call capitalism 'democratic'. If this is 'democracy', then the Greek thinkers who developed this concept were wasting their time and have, in fact, done a lot of damage.

The current so-called 'democracies' are anything but, and things are deteriorating fast. As things stand, I wonder how much dissent the ruling elites in the so-called 'democratic' countries will tolerate? They've certainly set up the laws so they can silence and get rid of anyone they want to for whatever reason they want to, no explanations offered. It makes me feel sick - I make a prediction: McCarthyism was nothing compared to what's coming (and I'm not talking 'coming in the distant future'; I mean now!). But don't worry about it, everyone - after all, the politicians and all those in power *tell* us we're living in 'democracies', and who are we to question? They're the experts, aren't they?

 

[alexandra]

Clarification: They're not opposed to capitalism, regardless of wether you see them as impeding laissez-faire economics.

Quite right, Smurf - the self-professed aims of social democratic parties, are certainly not to oppose capitalism, just merely to 'reform' it in some minor ways. The overall class structure of the system is in no way challenged or threatened (nor is the ability of capitalists to continue making their huge, obscene profits). The social democratic parties want merely to implement policies designed to make the system slightly more tolerable and, therefore, more stable. The neoconservatives just don't understand how pushing people to the edge of survival (as they are doing now) threatens capitalism - they just don't have the foresight to see that if you kick people right down into the mire of poverty and take away all their rights, they may react badly (eventually) - or perhaps our neocon rulers are overconfident about their ability to deal with instability with their new draconian anti-people laws and their military might. Oh, we're in for some fun times coming up (not!)... very '1984'-ish.

 

[alexandra]

On the other hand, capitalism is known for its low level or corruption. Corruption is the *MIS*use of power (which you were supposed to have for the greater good of many) for one's own benefit - while this is the basic axiom of capitalism, so corruption is essentially impossible: you're never supposed to have power which is not for your own benefit.

What, vanesch? Capitalism is known for its low level of corruption? What an astonishing statement - just off the top of my head: Enron, Halliburton, Refco, Tyco International...

EDIT: Sorry, vanesch - I missed the sarcasm on first reading your post. I see what you meant now (good one!)

 

[loseyourname]

Another way of seeing this: if we were to be honest, we would have to honestly admit that the relative prosperity enjoyed by the lucky citizens of the 'first world' comes at the direct expense of the poor unfortunates living in the 'third world', whose land has been stolen, whose resources are being stolen (right now there is a major war being fought over a key resources - we won't mention where or what the resource is; use your imaginations). The prosperity supporters of capitalism attribute to this rapacious system causes the very poverty of those who the capitalists suck dry. Of course, no supporter of capitalism will ever admit this. Nevertheless, the evidence is in all the history books (if people would care to consult them). Look up entries on 'colonialism', 'trade routes', 'imperialism', 'wars', 'slavery', 'genocide', etc. etc.

I'm a supporter of capitalism, and I will freely admit this. The caveats I will insert are two:

1) A strong state is required to carry out these wars, colonization, and rape of resources/peoples. Capitalism, being an economic system, says nothing about what kind of state structures we should have, other than that they should be minimally involved in market regulation/business transactions. If we hold also to the small government model, with a non-expansionist, solely defensive military, that I support, we would not see this.

2) Being part of the economic periphery, in which a country serves largely as a labor base and as the seat of key resources to be used by other countries, is simply part of the cycle that just about every country goes through before becoming first-world. Even the western world, which is so prosperous today, mostly started out on this periphery (outside of England, Holland, and France) once capitalism became the prevailing economic model in the western world. Today we can see India and China starting to shift in toward the economic core, and they will each be first-world nations, probably within a few decades.

In addition to these two points, I just want to reiterate that war and exploitation are hardly hallmarks of capitalism. First, businesses do not go to war with each other. Second, nations/empires/kingdoms/what have you warred with each other and economically exploited each other well before the world ever saw any economic model even approaching modern-day capitalism. Removing capitalism isn't going to solve any problems in that arena. Removing overblown state structures that have the power to do these things, however, will.

 

[Smurf]

Marx said that the transition from capitalism to socialism can only occur through a revolution which involves the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie's government. However, after a period in which the revolution (or 'the peoples' government') would be secured against its enemies (through what Marx called "the dictatorship of the proletariat"), he said the 'state would wither away' as there would no longer be any need for government. I'm just clarifying the classic Marxist theoretical position on this point...

Indeed. A people's government is still a government and as an Anarchist I would still see that as imposing hierarchy, wether or not it will eventually dissapear.

 

[alexandra]

Indeed. A people's government is still a government and as an Anarchist I would still see that as imposing hierarchy, wether or not it will eventually dissapear.

Agreed - it's still a government and, as you pointed out earlier in the discussion, this is one of the main points on which you (as an Anarchist) differ with Marxists then. I don't know as much about anarchism as I would like to - I'll have to do some reading on the topic one day when I have more time.

 

[russ_watters]

Would you support Communism if it worked?

No. Would you?

 

[Smurf]

No. Would you?

Yes. If I thought it would work I see no reason not to. Why wouldn't you?

 

[alexandra]

I'm a supporter of capitalism, and I will freely admit this. The caveats I will insert are two:
1) A strong state is required to carry out these wars, colonization, and rape of resources/peoples. Capitalism, being an economic system, says nothing about what kind of state structures we should have, other than that they should be minimally involved in market regulation/business transactions. If we hold also to the small government model, with a non-expansionist, solely defensive military, that I support, we would not see this.
2) Being part of the economic periphery, in which a country serves largely as a labor base and as the seat of key resources to be used by other countries, is simply part of the cycle that just about every country goes through before becoming first-world. Even the western world, which is so prosperous today, mostly started out on this periphery (outside of England, Holland, and France) once capitalism became the prevailing economic model in the western world. Today we can see India and China starting to shift in toward the economic core, and they will each be first-world nations, probably within a few decades.
In addition to these two points, I just want to reiterate that war and exploitation are hardly hallmarks of capitalism. First, businesses do not go to war with each other. Second, nations/empires/kingdoms/what have you warred with each other and economically exploited each other well before the world ever saw any economic model even approaching modern-day capitalism. Removing capitalism isn't going to solve any problems in that arena. Removing overblown state structures that have the power to do these things, however, will.

Ok, LYN - granted, those are your views; mine differ as follows:

The brand of capitalism you support in point 1 is not the capitalism we have now (or can ever have again - if ever it existed). You cannot separate economics and politics like that - they are intricately connected. Capitalist societies, from the advent of modern capitalism, have used their armies to further the interests of their capitalist elites - plain and simple (eg. the 'British Empire' was forged to service British capitalism, WW1 and WW2 were imperialist wars, etc). I am sure you are aware of the economic interests in whose service the current conflict is being waged - this has been discussed many times already, and I don't imagine I need to present evidence or argue this point further. Your ideal brand of capitalism is just that: an ideal. It has not existed historically, nor can it.

Point 2: India and China are possibly exceptions (though I don't think China was ever periphery in the true sense of the word - serving the interests of international capital, I mean; India was); however, most third world countries in Africa and in South America have been on the periphery for years, and are *still* on the periphery, and still show no prospect of getting anywhere near 'first world' development levels. For some to be rich, others must be poor. This holds as much for individuals as it does for entire societies. A minimal amount of research will reveal how much the advanced capitalist societies have historically (and still do now) sucked resources and riches out of the impoverished nations. There is a great redistribution of wealth underway - from the world's poor to the world's rich, and this redistribution is thinly disguised as 'development plans' initiated and extorted by institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Organisation, etc. This is the capitalism we have, and there is no way to see it any differently unless one doesn't look properly.

My reading of history tells me that war and exploitation are indeed the hallmarks of capitalism - it is, after all, a system based on greed and on maximising profits, and this is done by whatever means necessary. War is often necessary (most recent example - Saddam would not comply and bow and serve the master; look what's happened; watch what's going to happen to Iran shortly). In my opinion, removing capitalism is our only hope (have I ever mentioned the environmental implications of unfettered greed for profits?).

 

[vanesch]

What, vanesch? Capitalism is known for its low level of corruption? What an astonishing statement - just off the top of my head: Enron, Halliburton, Refco, Tyco International...
EDIT: Sorry, vanesch - I missed the sarcasm on first reading your post. I see what you meant now (good one!)

It wasn't even sarcastic (ok, a bit ironic maybe ). A long time ago, somebody here posted some statistics about corruption, showing that the higher the "capitalist" level was, the lower the "corruption level" was (with some suitable definitions of both numbers) - I don't remember the poster's name (seems to have disappeared from PF). But that is not surprising. The more "socialist" an organisation is, the more people are controlling a money flow which is supposed to be for "the common good" ; so the bigger the temptation to tap into that for a few personal benefits. In a capitalist system, there is no such money flow. All money flows for personal benefit. So you cannot tap into that for personal benefit ! So let us say that capitalism has the great benefit of not being hypocritical in this respect.
It is a bit like claiming that the number of murder cases in a war zone is lower than when there's peace... That's simply because "killing" in a war zone is not considered murder (ok, I'm a bit ironic again).

 

[loseyourname]

I think you're probably referring to Aquamarine. That guy must have posted a thousand links to statistics showing the good effects of capitalism in his time.

 

[vanesch]

I'm a supporter of capitalism, and I will freely admit this. The caveats I will insert are two:
1) A strong state is required to carry out these wars, colonization, and rape of resources/peoples. Capitalism, being an economic system, says nothing about what kind of state structures we should have, other than that they should be minimally involved in market regulation/business transactions. If we hold also to the small government model, with a non-expansionist, solely defensive military, that I support, we would not see this.

The problem I see with wanting to have 1) an ideal economic system and 2) an unrelated political system is that these are often not compatible. A democracy for instance is never compatible with an ideal economic system, because if people VOTE to change that ideal system (for better or for worse) you cannot avoid that.
You cannot have an ideal communist democracy, but you cannot have an ideal capitalist democracy either. Any ideal economic system requires an absolute dictatorship of a dictator devoted to the cause of the ideal system.

 

[vanesch]

I think you're probably referring to Aquamarine. That guy must have posted a thousand links to statistics showing the good effects of capitalism in his time.

Yes, that was him.

 

[vanesch]

No. Would you?

I find this strange, Russ. Wouldn't you support a system that works ?
Where "works" means: does what you want of a system (in my case, which I think is pretty universal, it means that it brings reasonable happiness to most).
I'm against a system when I'm convinced that it will NOT work (that it will NOT do what I expect of a good system to do) - and I can find that as the only justification of "being against something". I would think that any other reason for being "against a system" is only prejudice, no ?

For instance, I'm also against communism, but that's because I'm convinced (I can be wrong) that it will always lead to what it has led before, USSR-like systems. It is not because a-priori, communism is a dirty word. If it could be shown (not just in theory, but by empirical evidence too) that it would bring happiness to people, then why on Earth would I be against it ? And why would you ?

 

[Smurf]

if we're going to say that we want to stick to one specific system for ever and ever then we have to prove 1 of 2 things:
1. That any system advocated is beyond betterment. That it is ideal. That it can not be improved upon.
OR
2. That that specific system advocated is favorable "enough", and that continued change is redundant. But then you must also make an argument why that system is enough, but the current is not -> otherwise why change in the first place.

I don't think the goal is ever to achieve anything specific, but rather a constant betterment of conditions. I'm fairly confident that, if we lived in the system LYN advocats, he'd have different things to say to further improve the system.