Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

OxfordComma

Winston Churchill once said something to the effect of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all of the other ones" (if my memory serves me correctly) and I think capitalism can be described similarly. I'm no expert in politics or economics, but capitalism has always seemed to me be the only truly viable form of social system (nowadays, in any case), despite its many, many failings.

I've always thought that there was something very unnatural about the whole idea of communism (although it is a very nice theoretical concept). It's based around the assumption that people are equal in all respects, when in reality the opposite is the case. That's not to say that some people are "better" than others in a general sense, but there is no question that some people are, for example, more hard-working, more innovative, more intelligent or more talented than others. Some people benefit society more than others. People don't all deserve the same (monetary) rewards regardless of what they do - that doesn't make any sense at all, and in a way it's not hard to understand why communism, broadly speaking, has to be enforced by totalitarian regimes. People need incentives, and people who work harder, train/study for longer etc, deserve to be rewarded for it.

To be honest, I can't see any viable alternative to the capitalist system in operation now, despite its huge flaws.

Rothmans

Deleted User wrote: »

My original title is called "Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?" What are you on about?
That was my point, at the moment, it's all gravy but in the future, it might not be..

The second paragraph is about capitalism continuing to work.
With regard to the second question, are you familiar with John Maynard Keynes?

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

No. Farmer consumes his own produce, travels with grazing livestock, labours in kind for his feudal lord, meets his needs by barter many centuries before he trades labour for monied wage

Yes. And if he didn't grow crops?

Liam Byrne

The issue with capitalism is the greed and profit.

If someone creates something and charges a fair price to cover costs and some overheads and R&D and a bit extra for a rainy day, then fair enough.

People suggest that socialism creates laziness, but so does capitalism once you reach a certain income....you don't contribute and you sit back and get "profits" that you don't need, created by charging the end-user and consumer more than they needed to pay, so that you can accumulate more money than you will ever need.

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

Yes. And if he didn't grow crops?

He hunted, gathered, foraged or engaged in animal husbandry

landsleaving

Rothmans wrote: »

Fuedilism is capitalism, only in smaller circles (again, please forgive the poor phrasing-im very tired)

While similarties technically exist, the ideals of coapitalism are not present in pre-capitalist society. The ruling classses could not be challenged, the poor simply 'rented' the land of the Lord, in exchange for their labour. They could not rise above their position and could not own land. The gap between the wealthy aristocracy and the poor serfs was enormous and unquestioned, as the aristocracy were 'chosen by god'

Capitalism, in its purest form, should allow anyone to become wealthy and own land, through their labour, which was directly remunerated. This is really quite different. Working for a wage, which can be used to improve your position in life, the idea that you can rise to the top of society in monetary terms, these are relatively new concepts and are the foundation of modern capitalism.

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

He hunted, gathered, foraged or engaged in animal husbandry

No thats not what I meant. I meant that by growing crops, hunting etc he was maiking a living for himself which, I'm afeared to inform you my dear, is capitalism.

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

No thats not what I meant. I meant that by growing crops, hunting etc he was maiking a living for himself which, I'm afeared to inform you my dear, is capitalism.

No, it isnt. The mode of production is not determined by the mere act of cultivation. Honestly, even wikipedia would clear up the basics.

Rothmans

landsleaving wrote: »

While similarties technically exist, the ideals of coapitalism are not present in pre-capitalist society. The ruling classses could not be challenged, the poor simply 'rented' the land of the Lord, in exchange for their labour. They could not rise above their position and could not own land

Not necessarrilly- (this is a bit OT but) could they not become a knight?

landsleaving wrote: »

The gap between the wealthy aristocracy and the poor serfs was enormous and unquestioned, as the aristocracy were 'chosen by god'

Capitalism, in its purest form, should allow anyone to become wealthy and own land, through their labour, which was directly remunerated. This is really quite different. Working for a wage, which can be used to improve your position in life, the idea that you can rise to the top of society in monetary terms, these are relatively new concepts and are the foundation of modern capitalism.

You are talking about what I would refer to as 'pure capitalism'. However, if that was the point of this thread then this thread would be moot as Ireland, the UK, the U.S ( all Eu countries) etc are not technically 'capitalist' in the purest sense. If this was the case would we be providing social welfare, rent allowance etc? Is that not a socialist policy?

El Siglo

Capitalism would work if a government had a transparent operation, if taxes were collected proportionally and spent better on services. Seriously, I don't like capitalism as this monolith juxtaposed to socialism. However, no one would complain if taxes were appropriated and spent properly. If health care was either universal like the NHS or insurance based like Holland. If education was better provided, like that of Finland, if infrastructure like roads and rail etc... was similar to that of Holland etc... The point is capitalism doesn't necessarily have to be about inequality or social darwinism, if the wealth produced by the richest was taxed accordingly and fairly by a state and spent appropriately, then we'd hit the nail on the head. What's mad is, we're talking like its a zero-sum game and that inevitably there's winners and losers. If we developed and implemented an economic and social model like this, I'd be very happy.

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

No, it isnt. The mode of production is not determined by the mere act of cultivation. Honestly, even wikipedia would clear up the basics.

I'm not talking about cultivation or any other technical aspects of providing said produce, I'm talking about providing a living for oneself whether that be through farming, jousting, being a soldier or any other occupation of the time

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

I'm not talking about cultivation or any other technical aspects of providing said produce, I'm talking about providing a living for oneself whether that be through farming, jousting, being a soldier or any other occupation of the time

As people have always done, you're right - the specific action is irrelevant. But people make their living under historically differing social conditions. Without money to allow accumulation of wealth beyond 'things', without private ownership and wage labour. It is these aspects (and many others i am ignoring) that determine a capitalist mode of production, not the simple act of making a living.

landsleaving

Rothmans wrote: »

You are talking about what I would refer to as 'pure capitalism'. However, if that was the point of this thread then this thread would be moot as Ireland, the UK, the U.S ( all Eu countries) etc are not technically 'capitalist' in the purest sense. If this was the case would we be providing social welfare, rent allowance etc? Is that not a socialist policy?

That wasn't really my point, I was just saying that capitalism isn't that old and what you say there doesn't really address what I said... it's a totally new point. What I'm saying is that what makes capitalism what it is, hasn't existed very long. The fundamental concept that you are the owner of your labour is a relatively new one.

And knights were a seperate class, the average peasant couldn't become one, they were generally the sons of the Lords.

Back on topic, what were you getting at when you mentioned Keynes, out of interest? (Is that even on topic?)

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

As people have always done, you're right - the specific action is irrelevant. But people make their living under historically differing social conditions. Without money to allow accumulation of wealth beyond 'things', without private ownership and wage labour. It is these aspects (and many others i am ignoring) that determine a capitalist mode of production, not the simple act of making a living.

Ok, I think its closer to the basics capitalism (monetarily speaking that is).
In any case I think it would be ideal to live in the society similer to that envisaged by Karl Marx ( with exceptions of course, such as freedom of religion and so on) where everyone was equal but its just not possible methinks. It has elementary flaws- it just does not reward hard work.Thus I would prefer the capitalistic models.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree . . . . time for bed for me anyway

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

Ok, I think its closer to the basics capitalism (monetarily speaking that is).
In any case I think it would be ideal to live in the society similer to that envisaged by Karl Marx ( with exceptions of course, such as freedom of religion and so on) where everyone was equal but its just not possible methinks. It has elementary flaws- it just does not reward hard work.Thus I would prefer the capitalistic models.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree . . . . time for bed for me anyway

Then to speak monetarily is to exclude a great proportion of human history, we have not always laboured and traded as such. I wouldn't depend on Marx for the answer, but his writings on precapitalist modes of production are a good place to start making distinctions. If youre looking for policy and direction i'd probably go a bit more liberal though...

Rothmans

landsleaving wrote: »

That wasn't really my point, I was just saying that capitalism isn't that old and what you say there doesn't really address what I said... it's a totally new point. What I'm saying is that what makes capitalism what it is, hasn't existed very long. The fundamental concept that you are the owner of your labour is a relatively new one.

And knights were a seperate class, the average peasant couldn't become one, they were generally the sons of the Lords.

Back on topic, what were you getting at when you mentioned Keynes, out of interest? (Is that even on topic?)

This is my last post then bed.
It's just that I used to be a bit more socialist a few years ago until we studied Keynes in History at second level. Then when I went to uni i learned even more about his economic theory and it just clicked. when we were talking about loans i thought of his theory of spreading the wealth so to speak, by basically talking out loans and then repaying in the oncoming expansion. It makes perfect sense to me -if there's one thing econ and history have thoght me is that every recession is invariably followed by an expansion. Unfortunately we are in a reccession right now but it must be followed by a boom.

Rothmans

efla wrote: »

I wouldn't depend on Marx for the answer

Oh no neither would I that's why I highlighted the word similer and illustrated that there should be many exceptions. But his ideal of social equality should be the cornerstone of any society. Unfortunately, as we know all too well, it isn't .

Anyhow, it was good talkin to ya,
good night.:)

landsleaving

Rothmans wrote: »

This is my last post then bed.
It's just that I used to be a bit more socialist a few years ago until we studied Keynes in History at second level. Then when I went to uni i learned even more about his economic theory and it just clicked. when we were talking about loans i thought of his theory of spreading the wealth so to speak, by basically talking out loans and then repaying in the oncoming expansion. It makes perfect sense to me -if there's one thing econ and history have thoght me is that every recession is invariably followed by an expansion. Unfortunately we are in a reccession right now but it must be followed by a boom.

Now I see where you're coming from when you say loans create wealth. Keynes has some good ideas, better to let governments intervene when necessary than to let the free market just collaspse. History counts for nothing though when greed gets in the way. Maybe if the government actually learned some basic economic theory... :rolleyes:

Anyways, good talking to you too, twas fun

Rothmans

landsleaving wrote: »

Now I see where you're coming from when you say loans create wealth. Keynes has some good ideas, better to let governments intervene when necessary than to let the free market just collaspse. History counts for nothing though when greed gets in the way. Maybe if the government actually learned some basic economic theory... :rolleyes:

Anyways, good talking to you too, twas fun

same here budy,
night:)

Ostrom

Rothmans wrote: »

Oh no neither would I that's why I highlighted the word similer and illustrated that there should be many exceptions. But his ideal of social equality should be the cornerstone of any society. Unfortunately, as we know all too well, it isn't .

Anyhow, it was good talkin to ya,
good night.:)

Thanks, goodnight!

Tar.Aldarion

It's a bad system, we just haven't come along enough as a species to adopt another one so it's here to stay for a while

Xluna

No. The rich poor divide will exponentially increase. Eventually there will be another revolution.

dlofnep

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Communism and socialism have the potential to make people lazy and create a bland society. Capitalism is different. It makes people ambitious and willing to fight. Take Britain at the end of the 80's :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Yes, let's take Britain under the rule of Thatcher. It saw mass inequality, with more and more people under the poverty line. Thatcher embodied a all for one attitude, that allowed the wealthy to become wealthier, and the poor become poorer.

She's hardly an example of the merits of capitalism.

Rothmans wrote: »

Its amazing how socialist societies seem to crumble within decades of their establishment whilst capitalist countries last for centuries (if not millenia!) - eg the United Kingdom

No it's not. It's amazing how many socialist or communist nations the United States has tried to, or have been successful with a coup d'etat.

DazMarz wrote: »

Capitalism is unfortunately the only system that will work, due to providing the right incentives to people (ie: work hard and rewards will come; if you create something important, you will reap bigger rewards etc.)

Under Communism et al, these incentives were not there, and people had no reason to be creative or innovative. So it did not work.

Alot of people claim that community or socialist policies do not inspire drive or creativity. Ever hear of Sputnik?

BluePlanet

Interesting article at the Pew Research Center
End of Communism Cheered but Now with More Reservations
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=267

Have a look at this graph:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/267-09.gif

A few former communist countries saying people were better off under communism.

PeterIanStaker

It will continue to exist because it is a juggernaut.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.

Chiorino

I think capitalism, in some form at least will continue indefinately. People, generally speaking, are a greedy species and this does'nt look like changing anytime soon. Communism, despite its original principles, mostly descended into a system where a small elite controlled the masses and gained at their expense.
Slightly OT, I don't know enough about communist economics but were communist countries subject to the boom-bust cycles that are so common in capitalist societies?

Michaelrsh

efla wrote: »

You're missing a few millenia of pastoralism and subsistence agriculture

Capital evolved from Capitale, a late Latin word based on proto-Indo-European kaput, meaning "head"—also the origin of chattel and cattle in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money, or money carrying interest.[9][19][20] By 1283 it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm. It was frequently interchanged with a number of other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, principal, assets, property, patrimony.[9]

- wikipedia.


Capitalism nowadays is far more advanced than capitalism was 2000 years ago, yet it still had the same principles. Nowadays we use coins, bank notes or bonds instead of sheep or cattle as money. Capitalism is the oldest and most understood form of economic system.

Iwasfrozen

Michaelrsh wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI

^^^^^
Did these guys last?

Either way I sure love this song.

Michaelrsh

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Either way I sure love this song.

Without the lyrics, of course.

D

I think capitalism will, simply because it is the only system that evolves naturally from a barter system.

sron

Why do some people refuse to separate Marx's criticisms of Capitalism from his ideas on Communism? You'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist today who thinks his ideal society is the best way to go, but his analysis in Das Kapital is the best analysis of Capitalism ever conceived.

Also, not every Socialistic or Marxist state has been disastrous. Cuba's healthcare system is better than America's, and the Paris Commune didn't fare too badly (until the French government slaughtered them). Besides, for every bad Marxist or Socialist state there is a Capitalist equivalent: for every China and Soviet Union, there's a fascist Italy and Germany or an imperialistic US or Britain.