Capitalism and Democracy. What do YOU think?

Éomer of Rohan

Since there has been so much dispute with regard to the two majr systems economy, one unpractised, the other failed (in my opinion) I am starting a post to see what you all really think. Please keep to the topic of the question.

Is Capitalism a viable system to live under in its present condition (ie Reaganomics or Free Market Trade depending on what you like to call it) and since we live in a democracy, does Capitalism look after the interests of the people who empower the government that runs the system?

mike65

I think one really needs the other, China is trying to prove otherwise but something will have to give sooner or later I suspect. God only knows what'll happen then.

Does capitalism look after the interests of the people....?

Yes insofar as capitalism as practiced
by most provides a safety net, while
providing the people with a chance of becoming wealthier with effort and skill. (expecting socialist reposte to that!)

Anyway the system we live with now sure beats the main alternative.

Mike.

Manach

For the short-to medium term nothing seems to work as well for the creation of wealth as Capitialism. What capitalism trives on is access to markets and a class of entrepeurs to risk money for futher profit and the expectation that the government will cnot ome along and take all this profit away from them.
Historically though there would be a danger too much wealth would corrupt a democracy and move it to an oligarcy-type ruling state, ie ancient Athens.

Éomer of Rohan

Let me clarify the Ancient History reference which is incorrect. Athens was a democracy insofar as (with the exclusion of women and slaves) the people had the greatest say. Wealth did not corrupt this democracy; in fact in 411BC there was an Oligarchic revolt which was put down by the thetes, the lowest class of Athenian citizen who were at this stag very powerful politically. Athenian democracy only fell after the Peloponesian War (431 - 404 BC) because the Spartans disbanded it. After this it was reformed and eventually was permanently disbanded by the Macedonians since famous speakers of the democracy like Deomsthenes kept inciting the people to war.

Anyway, back to the main point. Consider Germany. During the 1990's, there were attempts to level heavier taxes against Deutschebank, one of the largest banking cartels in the world. The bank threatened to leave Germany (it is an international cartel) and the German equivalent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to resign. Is that democracy in action?

In the US we see oil companies exploit places of natural beauty in order to get money. The people in the US have made it clear they are not in favour of this; there are marches regularly across the nation against it yet neither political party opposes it in their manifestos; since the US is effectively a two party system, is it democracy that there is not a viable alternative?

Capitalism in its present incarnation is very harmful both to the people and to the system of democracy. Consider the socialist (whether you like to admit it or not) dream of the welfare state. Up until the Thatcher years, the British health system was one of the foremost in the world - the quote from Aneurin (Nye) Bevan "From the cradle to the grave" - the people's reward for the suffering of World War II still was held as a cornerstone of internal policy. But the complete decentralisation of national economies (psuedo liberal laissez faire a.k.a. free market economics) placed such a strain on systems such as the NHS as governments curtailed public spending. Privatisation became the order of the day and we have seen the disasters caused by this: Paddington Green rail disaster etc etc. How does this help our people? Look at the system in the UK as it presently stands. We have a government willing to pour billions (latest figure of immediate investment was 750million in straight up cash - this is not the cost of the war, just the latest addition to pay the bill) into a relatively pointless war when in fact they are not prepared to pay more for the badly needed nursing staff for the NHS or for Firefighters with a genuine claim for a payrise.

As to making money, it has been widely recognised that the policies of the WTO/IMF/World Bank are creating a widening gap between rich and poor, in terms of national economies as well as individuals. It is all very well to say 'well Ireland has worked the system, why can't others?' Ireland, just like every other booming economy in the world is riding on the back of the poverty of other countries; it is logic that not everyone can be rich at once and just so, the far eastern economies, once thought of 'tigers' as ours is now, are on the point of collapse; the Japanese stock market has one quarter the value it had in the 1980's.

Gearoid

The present situation is that capitalisim is working for a select few, of upper class people and middle classes citizens. But the negative sides of it are that it destroys the enviorenment and eats up resources at an incredible rate. It is responsible for pollution also. this is all because capitalism has the tendency to make people think" When we get rich and succesful we will save the enviornment and help the disadvantaged people"

Victor

Originally posted by Gearoid
But the negative sides of it are that it destroys the enviorenment and eats up resources at an incredible rate.

And Soviet style communism was better for the environment?

SloanerF1

If the alternative to capitlism is communism, democracy can only thrive under capitalism, because communism seems to result in dictatorship (whether or not that is the intention, DS!).

Éomer of Rohan

Capitalism has been worse for the environment than Stalinism was (and I am not a fan of Stalinism as practised as I tire of pointing out by the USSR et al - which is unrelated to true socialism).

To back this up; look at the capitalist treatment of the Kyoto protocol and the 'gas guzzlers' of the US that the gov't refuses to restrict.

Look at the dumping of waste and armament materiel in the Irish and North Seas.

Look at the Capitalist over fishing of vital areas that now have important ramifications for ecosystems worldwide.

Need I go on?

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Capitalism has been worse for the environment than Stalinism was (and I am not a fan of Stalinism as practised as I tire of pointing out by the USSR et al - which is unrelated to true socialism).

You could ask the ppl of Germany about that, West Germany capitalist and pretty clean, East Germany
Socialist and very, very, dirty.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Look at the Capitalist over fishing....

That should be a quote of the week!
Don't socialists eat fish?

Mike.

Jes'Shout!

RE:......Is Capitalism a viable system to live under in its present condition...............

"viable" is an interesting choice of words but I think perhaps a very good choice. Anyway......

As I see it, any political/economic system that is devoid of concerns for humanity and is lacking in compassion will, eventually, become an instrument of destruction and a vehicle to its own destruction.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

http://nailaokda.8m.com/

for everything on the Aral sea area.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PH01

Capitalism and democrazy is without question the only game in town. A great idea.
And this subject is so 1980's

BattleBoar

Eomer, I noticed you quoted Marx both in your signature and in the links you directed me to in the previous post. Let us be clear; Marx was a visionary, but he was also a zealot blinded by his unabashed hatred of the bourgeoisie and the class system.

Only a fool would believe that the communist vision, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is a tenable philosophy upon which to build a society. I hope you can see the fallacy in this statement, Eomer. The Marxist philosophy assumes that each person *will* work to the fullest of his abilities if the need is not there. The Marxist philosophy assumes that each person in a society is of equal worth to that society, which is clearly not the case.

Were this taken to a limit, one could see a case developing in Ireland, for example, where the points system becomes the inverse of what it currently is. Why should a person slave away in a course such as physics or engineering when one could take far easier courses such as psychology or political science? What motivation would there be to truly apply themselves if no incentive is offered? Why should one work harder than someone who won’t work at all when there is nothing to be gained in terms of a more comfortable lifestyle? No, it is far easier to have as little ambition as it takes to get by and have as much fun while as you can.

Furthermore, your assertion that true communists/socialists are wholeheartedly democratic is fundamentally flawed. The words free market economy and free enterprise are inseparably interwoven with the philosophy of capitalism. It should not require pointing out that the communist system in which ownership of all is by the state (or commune) is a system in which the idea is that the individual’s good is placed after the needs of the community’s. A capitalist system provides the distinction of allowing the possibility for a person to improve their lifestyle through working harder. Like animals, mankind's most powerful instinct is survival. And, modern capitalism, even with all its westernized societal safety nets, provides a kind of artificial survival instinct.

Is a physicist worth more to a society than a janitor? Is a doctor worth more to a society than a car park attendant? The reason capitalism has been successful is precisely because, ideally, is a system whereby the people in a society are afforded lifestyles according to their WORTH to that society, NOT according to their needs. Is it perfect? Certainly not. One might say capitalism is, in a sense, the best of a bad bunch. However, while it may not be perfect, it’s the best system anyone has ever come up with. The challenge lies with bringing this system to the third world and eliminating the corruption that often goes with capitalism (as with any system I might add). Eliminate third world debt and phase out food and medical aid. Instead provide aid in the form of tractors and factories, educate engineers and scientists for the third world - things the third world can use to sustain itself and lift itself into a free market economy…something from which the entire world would no doubt benefit. Of course, much government corruption must be eliminated for this to take place as well...all part of the process, however. Nothing happens overnight. As you have mentioned many times, capitalist systems suffer primarily from greed. Contrary to your assertion, greed is not inherently a bad thing. It can provide a powerful motivation for some. The real problem is when that greed stands in the way of societal and technological development. A Marxist system, however, would surely suffer from something far worse: apathy.

Additionally, I note that the links on your page are mired in revisionist history. For example, among your the links I noted this quote lifted from the heading What Will Socialist Society Look Like:

For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing and horse drawn carriages to landing men on the moon, nothing short of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. Above and beyond that we have made enormous strides in medicine (penicillin anyone?) and developed the microcomputer and internet which are enabling you and I to have this very discussion. The practice of institutionalized slavery was eliminated in all but a select few places on earth, such as Sudan. Women have attained more rights in the last 100 years than at any time in history. I believe one could make a very strong case that more positive technological and societal gains have been made in the last 100 years than were made in all of the previous history of mankind combined. Whether you believe that or not, if you are even still reading at this point, to say that there has been no progress for the last 100 years because of capitalism is a patently ridiculous and wholly underwhelming argument for the merits of marxism.

Lennoxschips

Strange poll. I don't agree with #1, but I agree with options 2,3 and 4.

DadaKopf

The reason capitalism has been successful is precisely because, ideally, is a system whereby the people in a society are afforded lifestyles according to their WORTH to that society, NOT according to their needs.

It depends what you mean by worth. 'Worth' for a capitalist means 'productivity' - those who work become instruments. Lifestyle value becomes the amount possessions you can accumulate as a proof of your worth. Marx's point is that the capitalist way of doing stuff is self-alienating and denies every human being his intrinsic value: freedom, which arises out of his ability to act on the world and change it meaningfully, as part of a community (which is a precondition for freedom). For Marx, even the business owner is alienated: if he wanted anything to be done, he had to hire someone. Why do we find DIY so liberating? We certainly don't get paid for it in money. The capitalist and the worker both only live half-lives. There's no dignity in that - but there's dignity in DIY.

On a personal level: just imagine how unfair it is to work really hard at something and to have your work, your effort (your labour value) taken away from you and all you get back is money, which simply means that you have the ability to rip someone else off. "Well, as long as I can rip other people off and they can rip me off, isn't that at least alright?" Yeah sure, we're all equal under capitalism 'cos we can all screw each other over. Nice one.

I can't speak for the ins and outs of Marxist economics which probably doesn't work. I do however agree with Marx's initial claim about the value of labour and its effects on human value - which capitalism denies.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing

Billions of people in the world still don't have indoor plumbing and adequate sanitation. I agree many technological advances have been made as a result of the moonshot but NASA was actually set up as a public front for the Cold War, as was the Russian equivalent, which diverted funds necessary for social development into areas that tried to find ways to blow us all up quicker.

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On a personal level: just imagine how unfair it is to work really hard at something and to have your work, your effort (your labour value) taken away from you and all you get back is money

...which I can then exchange for things that I do value, such as food, shelter, clothes, beer and CDs.

which simply means that you have the ability to rip someone else off. "Well, as long as I can rip other people off and they can rip me off, isn't that at least alright?"

Why do you assume that every economic transaction involves someone being "ripped off"? That's the exception rather than the rule.

Éomer of Rohan

No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses. You mentioned exchanging money for CD's. You are getting ripped off there for a start; actually go and check how much a CD costs to make and measure that against the price and come back and tell me you are not getting ripped off.

More importantly, at an international level, the trend is disturbingly worse. There are new economies emerging from the stupefyingly incompetent 'command' style of economy which the Soviets and Chinese and other stalinist states use/d. These economies are being milked for all they are worth. If they refuse to allow an MNE (Multi National Enterpise) to invest in their nation, they are immediately hit with trade bans, even though there may be an excellent reason for such a restriction. For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.' Look at the growth of the 'big' economies since the introduction of neo liberalism; the US's growth has increased near enough exponentially whereas the growth of some African nations has nearly halted altogether - not relevent in itself but then look at the major trading partner of such nations.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Meh
...which I can then exchange for things that I do value, such as food, shelter, clothes, beer and CDs.

Left-wing politics places basic needs above desire as a starting point. Capitalism uses modes of production and exchange to exploit needs as a way of making people rich, hence perpetuating the problem at its heart. Sure, I won't deny it's a system of exchange that at least tries to distribute resources optimally - but it fails us. Yes, Soviet Communism failed, too. There are other variants, though, that could succeed it given the chance.

Éomer of Rohan

Please excuse the length of this but I am finally fed up with BattleBore.

Marx was a visionary, but he was also a zealot blinded by his unabashed hatred of the bourgeoisie and the class system.

Need I point out that Marx himself was in fact a member of the bourgeois class?As was Engels for that matter. And he did not hate that class. In fact I am convinced that you have not read Marx or else you would understand that Marx 'turned Hegelianism on it's head' to quote a philospher when he stated that the new 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be carved from 'petit - bourgeois' and the working classes.

Were this taken to a limit, one could see a case developing in Ireland, for example, where the points system becomes the inverse of what it currently is. Why should a person slave away in a course such as physics or engineering when one could take far easier courses such as psychology or political science?

Having consulted Dr Cormac Hamill on this subject, a research scientist on the cutting edge of physics earns only £30,000 a year. Consider then why did they not take up professional football or acting at which they could earn more. Could it be a love of what they do? For my part I intend to become a University lecturer, something woefully paid. I want to because I love my subject and I am possessed of the drive to help people. Why do people become nurses or teachers or civil servants? It is certainly not for the money and these underlying reasons annihilate your semblance of an argument.

Furthermore, your assertion that true communists/socialists are wholeheartedly democratic is fundamentally flawed

How many communists/socialists do you speak for? I speak for about ten thousand north of the border alone.

The words free market economy and free enterprise are inseparably interwoven with the philosophy of capitalism

As you go on to point out these systems provide a feeling of the survival instinct. That means that ultimately, some don't survive. Thus you expose the flaw in your own argument. Just because these ideas include the word free, doesn't mean they are. Consider the IMF/WB/WTC which supersede the democratic right of any state to impose import restrictions. Why should these faceless non-elected bodies have the right to dictate to an elected government? They should NOT.

Instead provide aid in the form of tractors and factories, educate engineers and scientists for the third world - things the third world can use to sustain itself and lift itself into a free market economy…something from which the entire world would no doubt benefit

Every nation bar two at the African Trade Convention last year disagreed with you on that.

Contrary to your assertion, greed is not inherently a bad thing. It can provide a powerful motivation for some.

A powerful motivation to war, steal, rape, pillage, loot et cetera.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing and horse drawn carriages to landing men on the moon, nothing short of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind

Surely the resources would have been better diverted to pay for education or the libraries that the present US administration is so fond of cutting back on instead of sending 17 people (right figure anyone? Apollo, Challenger and Columbia.) to their deaths and wasting countless amounts of money ($2bn per shuttlecraft).

Above and beyond that we have made enormous strides in medicine (penicillin anyone?)

Oh have we really? Did no one tell you that Fleming, Lister, Pasteur &c were working as employees of universties and not as part of any capitalist enterprise. Oh yes, and those universities were subsidised by the socialising reforms of the British and French and German governments.

and developed the microcomputer and internet which are enabling you and I to have this very discussion

The man who invented the internet did not get a penny as he was ripped off by the predatory nature of capitalism - and someone else got the patent in.

The practice of institutionalized slavery was eliminated in all but a select few places on earth, such as Sudan. Women have attained more rights in the last 100 years than at any time in history

Please explain how in hell you understand these to be capitalist reforms when in fact the former was invented by the very system you so (mal?)adroitly defend. Many developments in social reform post 1848 were as results of pressure from growing socialist tendencies - these pressures were thus dispelled and threat of socialist rebellion eliminated. Remember that the reason for the welfare state in Britain and the Marshall Plan were to prevent the increasingly important political and social reformers from undertaking to create socialist states in Britain and France.

Whether you believe that or not, if you are even still reading at this point, to say that there has been no progress for the last 100 years because of capitalism

You neglect to mention one thing; the words you quoted were not mine.

In conclusion, I will reiterate this point; read Marx and when you have then come back and tell me what you think the merits of a marxist system are rather than relying on the popular cliches that we so often here in anti-marxist arguments.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses.

You're falling into the classic Marxist fallacy of treating value as an absolute. Value is different for everyone, and varies with time. I "sell" my time to my employer for (let's say) €10 an hour. My work there earns more than that for my employer, so they're happy with the bargain. My time is worth less than that to me, so I'm happy with the situation too. We both win.

You mentioned exchanging money for CD's. You are getting ripped off there for a start; actually go and check how much a CD costs to make and measure that against the price and come back and tell me you are not getting ripped off.

I haven't bought a CD in years. But obviously, people who do buy CDs at these inflated prices feel that it's worth paying €20 to have Britney Spears' greatest hits. Otherwise why would they buy it? In any case, the record example is hardly the best example to use in an argument about free market capitalism, with the artificial monopoly created by copyright and restrictive record contracts.

For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.'

You'd prefer that consumers were ripped off through not being allowed access to cheaper imports?

DadaKopf

the record example is hardly the best example to use in an argument about free market capitalism, with the artificial monopoly created by copyright and restrictive record contracts.

On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly. Since capitalism thrives on competition, as the means to optimally distribute goods and services at optimal price, its tendancy towards monopoly subverts that logic, leading it to internal contradiction and failure. Put simply: it can't live up to its own standards.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly. Since capitalism thrives on competition, as the means to optimally distribute goods and services at optimal price, its tendancy towards monopoly subverts that logic, leading it to internal contradiction and failure. Put simply: it can't live up to its own standards.

Thing is, though in the U.S, that bastion of capitalism, the price of Cd's is
up to €10 cheaper than in Britain or Ireland.
That makes it easier to justify the various takes of those involved in bringing us the product.
It also suggests that a €20 price tag is more of a localised regulatory problem than a critisim of capitalism.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly.

But monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Abusive monopolies are a bad thing, and we are supposed to have laws to prevent that sort of thing. I fully accept that these do not work well in practice, but that implies that the problem is with the implementation and execution of law, rather than with capitalism itself.

Regardless, do you not think that its a bit disingenuous to talk about a better socialist ideal whilst knocking a capitalist reality.

Compare like with like - capitalism can be restructured into many far more fair and balanced structures. Its current implementation (for lack of a better term) is far from the ideal, and its not entirely fair to say that results of this implementation are inherent flaws in capitalism as a concept, but then refuse to address issues in previous attempts at socialism because, well, that wasnt really an ideal form of socialism.

Hardly fair...surely the argument that the flaws in capitalism are because it is not an ideal form of capitalism are equally valid.

Another example would be Eomer's argument about the willingness of some people to work hard for the love of what they do, and how the ecistence of thse people shows how your model can work. Great for them, but what about those who do not do this? How will they work in a system which does not supply them with an incentive and just tells them they have to do it? What about the jobs which no-one (or insufficient numbers) of people dont really want to do? How do you decide who gets to follow their dreams, and who gets told to stuff it and do something menial but necessary?

Capitalism and democracy can work together, and can produce an excellent framework for a society, just as socialism or communism can. However, in all of these cases, we typically need to ignore how the system will respond to those who wish to abuse it, and instead assume that everyone will play fair.

When we look at the real world, where we have every class of character and personality, every prejudice and corruption, it is then we see the real problem.

It is not capitalism's fault, it is the fault of those who would cheat the system to their own benefit. Would any other system fare as well or better given that it too will suffer those who would cheat to get ahead? I dont think thats anywhere near a clear answer, and I am wary of any conceptual "better society" which does not have a long-term real-world example of that system to refer to.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly.

On the contrary, pure capitalism actually has a tendency away from monopoly. The monopoly is an unnatural state for a free market economy, and wherever it occurs, it must be sustained by external forces such as government regulation or high entry costs (the so-called "natural monopolies"). In the CD example, it's the government's enforcement of the record companies' copyright monopoly that leads to the situation Eomer described.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
The monopoly is an unnatural state for a free market economy, and wherever it occurs, it must be sustained by external forces such as government regulation ...

Or the absence of government regulation, allowing a few giants to dominate an entire sector in a cartel that might as well be a monopoly.

Capitalism does not equate to fair or free market activity, rather capitalist activity distorts markets because it involves unequal market powers. In the absence of public intervention, the private inequalities accumulate, and power uses its power to get more power. That's why societies that have most succesfully employed capitalist policies have done so by tempering them with effective regulation and intervention.

I'm not sure there's much of a universal positive relationship between capitalism and democracy, though the democratic institutions of the west often had their historical roots in the capitalist classes pushing for autonomy and self-determination. There is plainly a relationship between 'too much' capitalism, ie the free play of capitalist market forces, and the erosion of real democracy, because democratic processes and institutions can be distorted by very large amounts of money being thrown at them. There is also plainly a relationship between too much communism and a lack of democracy.

So far as I can see, socialism is merely the philosophy that says there should be social responses to social problems. Insofar as capitalism translates into a political philosophy, it often denies the very existence of social problems and undermines the social responses to them. In fact capitalism is like communism in that they are both economic ideal types that can never and should never be fully implemented since people will always react against them and because well-being in the present is constantly being sacrificed in the name of some far-off future utopia that never arrives.

The best approach, as every decent government since WWII has realised, will be a mix of socialist and market policies. It's just a question of deciding the right mixture.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
But monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Abusive monopolies are a bad thing, and we are supposed to have laws to prevent that sort of thing.

The objective should be minimum infrastructure (inbuilt redundancy notwithstanding) with competition in service.

Competition in infrastructure is what killed the canals, the railways and more recently a bunch of phone companies.

Sand

Competition kills off the over charging and unsustainable. Why do you think Eircom is so terrified of it?

earns only £30,000 a year.

Only 30000? Thats what? 44000 euro or so. Thats how many multiples of the average industrial wage? Only? BTW with how much experience is that wage? Does it matter if youre a good or bad researcher?

Why do people become nurses or teachers or civil servants? It is certainly not for the money and these underlying reasons annihilate your semblance of an argument.

Actually it most definitly is for the money - hence the wage demands, strikes and so on. Some people just lack the ambition, application or qualifications to do much better and so settle for that. Why do some people sweep the streets? Because they simply love chipping bubblegum off the sidewalks?

Surely the resources would have been better diverted to pay for education or the libraries that the present US administration is so fond of cutting back on instead of sending 17 people (right figure anyone? Apollo, Challenger and Columbia.) to their deaths and wasting countless amounts of money ($2bn per shuttlecraft).

While were cost cutting lets get rid of them damn physics research scientists too. Damn waste of money. No, the space program hasnt achieved anything or led to any benefit whatsoever. Better to have thrown the money into education. Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

Many developments in social reform post 1848 were as results of pressure from growing socialist tendencies - these pressures were thus dispelled and threat of socialist rebellion eliminated.

Womens rights makes complete and total sense from a capitialist viewpoint. More workers, more educated workers, greater pool of cheaper ( more supply of workers- clearly less wages can be demanded) workforce. The same for any other discriminated against ethnic group. I know, I know - capitalism demands scapegoats to do all the crappy jobs like working at McDonalds but dont worry, there will always be enough arts graduates for that.

For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.'

Or to look at it another way, Eastern Europes people now get access to cheaper quality foodstuffs rather than being held to ransom by a cartel of inefficent, overcharging producers. The only losers here are the people charging too much for goods that can be made cheaper and better else where. Unless you want to throw in some Nationalist with your Socialist Workers Party and prattle on about self sufficency I dont see that as a terrible thing.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand

BTW with how much experience is that wage? Does it matter if youre a good or bad researcher?

He has had his doctorate for thirty years and did pioneering research into lasers so pretty cutting edge and good research.

Quoted from Sand

Actually it most definitly is for the money - hence the wage demands, strikes and so on. Some people just lack the ambition, application or qualifications to do much better and so settle for that. Why do some people sweep the streets? Because they simply love chipping bubblegum off the sidewalks?

The wage demands and strikes etc are because not enough is being paid and work conditions and hours are long; in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it.

With regard to people having no ambition / no qualifications / no application (by which I assume you mean they are lazy?). Everyone has some goal in life - that goal may not be much to you, for example if your goal was to make pots of cash but it is their goal and so we should not denigrate it. As to qualifications...from each according to their ability...
Finally with regard to 'application,' I think proper education would solve that, especially in a world where to be academically gifted is seen as something to be jested about and attacked - ever read anything about the 'dumbing down of society'?

Quoted from Sand

I know, I know - capitalism demands scapegoats to do all the crappy jobs like working at McDonalds but dont worry, there will always be enough arts graduates for that.

I am going to be an arts graduate. What is your point? Academic snobbery perchance? From someone with an interest in politics? Do I detect hypocrisy?

Quoted from Sand

Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

Which is why the UK government is so interested in PPP and PFI to finance education is it? And as to your pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a system, well, I'll be charitable - you cannot say that it is not viable since you have no evidence. Granted nor do I that it would. However I will say this, Capitalism has failed. Why not try something untried? A real attempt.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
However I will say this, Capitalism has failed.

It has? Seems to me it's had some remarkable successes, (as well as its fair share of failures, of course). Development fuelled by capitalism has made even the poorest in Western societies better off than the richest of previous generations. Improved nutrition, better healthcare, better education, more disposable income -- all directly attributable to the growth in our economy due to free-market capitalist principles. Interesting perspective here:

the richest man in the early 19th century, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, died in his fifties of an infected abscess that we can now cure with $5 of over-the-counter antibiotics. Was Rothschild really "richer" than a guy today in his fifties working behind the meat counter of Safeway and making $15 an hour?

I know capitalism isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's better than any of the alternatives. And government intervention/unions can at least moderate the worst of capitalism's failings.

Why not try something untried?

I believe socialism has already been tried several times. The trouble is that any centrally planned economy appears to have a tendency towards stagnation and totalitarianism. I'm not aware of any socialist ecomomies that have managed to avoid these problems.