What's wrong with Capitalism?

[Terminus]

A few days ago, I was arguing with a friend of mine over the merits of capitalism over socialism. Being a fan of Keynes, I argued that while socialist policies in certain areas can be useful, capitalism was the most efficient and just system for distributing wealth. My friend argued that capitalism unfairly concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, which made capitalism inherent unjust and inefficient. After a few hours, we weren't able to convince each other either way.

This made me wonder: What, in your opinion, is (or isn't) wrong with capitalism?

[vindicatedxjin]

Well the majority of people would consider capitalism a good thing, especially those here in the US. Technically yes, there are pros....considering that the main reason why the standard of living in the US is better than in most countries is because of capitalism...since it gives everyone a chance to succeed financially...the harder you work, the better your reward, it also encourages competition. But the downside though...is it lets people get left behind to fall through the cracks of life without government assistance, it exploits the underpriviledged, and it promotes greed. Over all I don't really know where I stand on it all...I need to read into it more.

[diean]

Everything.

[JCC]

You came to the wrong forum.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by JCC

You came to the wrong forum.

How so?

Originally Posted by diean

Everything.

Anything more specific?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Terminus

How so?

Virtually everyone on this board holds socialist sentiments of some sort, to varying lengths of extremity, many of us as far left as you can get.

[vindicatedxjin]

Found this quote...

“If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” Thomas Jefferson


Privatized currency which is obvously opposed even to Jefferson^^ is the basis of capitalism...Hmm...I call No bueno!

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by JCC

Virtually everyone on this board holds socialist sentiments of some sort, to varying lengths of extremity, many of us as far left as you can get.

Good. I want to know why everyone holds socialist views. I figure the best way to learn is by people who hold opposing views to me. This quote, by Nietzsche, best sums up my view: "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Privatized currency which is obvously opposed even to Jefferson^^ is the basis of capitalism...Hmm...I call No bueno!

That isn't a quote by Thomas Jefferson, as far as I know. For more information, read this: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki...nks_(Quotation)

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Terminus

This made me wonder: What, in your opinion, is (or isn't) wrong with capitalism?

The problem with capitalism is its basis upon the flawed idea that, in a system within which the acquisition of currency serves the singular impetus to work, individuals will continue to undertake such work for the benefit of society rather than to secure fiscal assets for themselves. Under capitalism, movies don't have to be good as long as people will watch them, news doesn't have to be true as long as people will read it, no one has to create anything as long as to profit from the labor of others is possible. Though to participate in these socially poisonous enterprises is far from fulfilling, the sole impetus to work, as previously stated, is capital, and so, in order to survive, the average man must toil away, steadily dehumanized, until his intellect atrophies completely and he returns home from an 8 hour work day believing that his brain needs rest rather than resuscitation, cracking open Twilight or turning on Fox.
An ideal capitalism, wherein every person produces and is compensated to a degree proportionate to their product's quality, would rule. Human nature, however, pollutes the system. The only reason for which capitalism generally receives more flak than say, communism, is that a totally compromised communism can no longer really be called communism, whereas a totally compromised capitalism is still fundamentally capitalism.

Some of the posts in this thread infuriate me, by the way. You people have an opportunity to educate someone, and instead you just come off like pricks who subscribe to leftist philosophies for no reason beyond that to do so is rebellious, and allows you to answer questions like "What's wrong with capitalism?" with stoic Clint Eastwood answers.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Terminus

Good. I want to know why everyone holds socialist views. I figure the best way to learn is by people who hold opposing views to me. This quote, by Nietzsche, best sums up my view: "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."



That isn't a quote by Thomas Jefferson, as far as I know. For more information, read this: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437

[Konstantin]

It's not hard to align yourself with socialism - like almost every other form of economic organisation, in theory it sounds appealing, and works. It's easy to poke holes in capitalism, because it's right there in front of us.

Me? I think socialism, when implemented, isn't all that good. I was born in what was the USSR; my family has fully experienced living in a communist state. Yes, there were certain benefits; some things were done right, national pride was at an all-time high... but, as usual, the human element brought with it greed, corruption, lies, unfair distribution of wealth and blatant favouritism which, in the end, brought the country to ruin. Hmm, that sounds somehow familiar...

I like the idea of capitalism. I like the idea that those who work harder, or are more innovative, get paid more. For example, I was never down with the fact that doctors in the USSR were piss-poor despite being maybe just a tiny bit more important than the kid flipping burgers. And as for that whole rich-poor gap, well, that's what the different taxation brackets are for - those who earn more pay more in taxes to help redistribute the wealth. Then there are all the freedoms. Say what you will, but having lived on both sides, I'm rather partial to this one. That said, I try to remain more or less apolitical, because any system is bound to have more than a handful of flaws.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Konstantin

It's not hard to align yourself with socialism - like almost every other form of economic organisation, in theory it sounds appealing, and works. It's easy to poke holes in capitalism, because it's right there in front of us.

Me? I think socialism, when implemented, isn't all that good. I was born in what was the USSR; my family has fully experienced living in a communist state. Yes, there were certain benefits; some things were done right, national pride was at an all-time high... but, as usual, the human element brought with it greed, corruption, lies, unfair distribution of wealth and blatant favouritism which, in the end, brought the country to ruin. Hmm, that sounds somehow familiar...

I like the idea of capitalism. I like the idea that those who work harder, or are more innovative, get paid more. For example, I was never down with the fact that doctors in the USSR were piss-poor despite being maybe just a tiny bit more important than the kid flipping burgers. And as for that whole rich-poor gap, well, that's what the different taxation brackets are for - those who earn more pay more in taxes to help redistribute the wealth. Then there are all the freedoms. Say what you will, but having lived on both sides, I'm rather partial to this one. That said, I try to remain more or less apolitical, because any system is bound to have more than a handful of flaws.

Nice insight...I think its always an eye opener to hear what the opinions are of those who have lived the other way of life....

[Alan]

For starters, almost all cases of socialism in a third-world country have experienced astounding economic production.
So, who would have thought so? The conservative nightmare of "redistributing the wealth" has jack to do with Churchill's claim that it only "shares the misery", but all the contrary, and economic equality and collectivist tendencies DO raise the standard of living in much more efficient ways than capitalism does.
The Soviet Union is actually the greatest example of this, I won't even say "just ignore Russia." Russia was the retarded cousin of the European family, with a predominantly agricultural population that were still serfs. SERFS!
In less than half a century, they became the second power of the world, and the first nation to go to space.

If you were to argue about the human rights issues in the Soviet Union, then I'll just point out the bigger human rights violations all around the free market world. I am NOT justifying Stalinism, but it's pretty stupid to complain about certain human rights violations when we make even bigger ones and don't give a fuck about them. Besides, more humane socialist parties, such as the Sandinistas, have had an even bigger degree of progress in even more little time, so it wouldn't even be true that the Soviet Union HAD to be that brutal to reach that level of production. Socialism just works, plain and simple.

[Konstantin]

Originally Posted by Alan

economic equality and collectivist tendencies DO raise the standard of living in much more efficient ways than capitalism does.

No argument there. Socialism may very well be the best system for nations that are struggling. On the other hand, for advanced, first-world nations, I can see socialism being a proverbial step back rather than a viable alternative.

In less than half a century, they became the second power of the world, and the first nation to go to space.

True. In fact, Stalin may have been nothing short of a psychopath, but he rebuilt a country that was completely devastated by war in under 10 years (and the cult of personality that replaced state religion was pretty amazing, too). That's pretty astounding, even if his methods were highly immoral. However, the monarchic rule of Peter the First, and Catherine the Great, similarly brought Russia out of the Dark Ages, and made her a major player in Europe and Asia in a similarly short term.

Socialism just works, plain and simple.

What I'm getting at is, so does just about everything else, under the right circumstances. Consider this: any legitimate system of government will work if it has intelligent, organised leadership, and the support of the people. There's a reason the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Alan]

But look at the last things you said. Organization, intelligence, and democracy. None of these are capitalist ideals. Each works out for their own self-interest, completely alienated from anyone else, everyone else seen as a consumer at best and an enemy at worst.

Socialism, on the other hand, has economic and political flexibility based on the needs of the community. So long as production is owned by the workers and the state represents the interests of the producers, whatever government it is, it's socialist. As an anarchosyndicalist I'd wish that this means organization through a state that is nothing but a big trade union, but that's a personal preference to a socialist society.
I think it's sensible to believe that this economic flexibility based on real social demand rather than shallow consumer demand, would be all the better in first-world nations. Hell, remember that Marx thought communism could only happen in an industrialized country.
The only thing that can't be achieved in an industrialized nation if we implemented socialism is centralism. But who wants centralism? It stifles the same flexibility I'm talking about.

[Terminus]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

The problem with capitalism is its basis upon the flawed idea that, in a system within which the acquisition of currency serves the singular impetus to work, individuals will continue to undertake such work for the benefit of society rather than to secure fiscal assets for themselves.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I just want to clarify: Are you saying that capitalism is bad because individuals will tend to work for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of society, and (I'm assuming you're implying this) an economic system should work to the benefit of society?

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Under capitalism, movies don't have to be good as long as people will watch them

What's the objective standard for "good", in this case?

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

An ideal capitalism, wherein every person produces and is compensated to a degree proportionate to their product's quality, would rule. Human nature, however, pollutes the system.

I understand that capitalism can suffer from human nature, but what would then make socialism less impervious to this (or is it)?

Originally Posted by Alan

For starters, almost all cases of socialism in a third-world country have experienced astounding economic production.

I'm unfamiliar with socialism in the third world. Could you give me a few examples so I could start researching?

Originally Posted by Alan

The Soviet Union is actually the greatest example of this, I won't even say "just ignore Russia." Russia was the retarded cousin of the European family, with a predominantly agricultural population that were still serfs. SERFS!
In less than half a century, they became the second power of the world, and the first nation to go to space.

If you were to argue about the human rights issues in the Soviet Union, then I'll just point out the bigger human rights violations all around the free market world. I am NOT justifying Stalinism, but it's pretty stupid to complain about certain human rights violations when we make even bigger ones and don't give a fuck about them.

What are the bigger human rights violations in the free market world?

[Alan]

Chile and Nicaragua are both excellent examples of a burgeoning socialist economy that was only stopped through right-wing violence.

As for human rights violations, it all depends on what context you give them. I'm too used to hearing the words "well that's different" when referring to capitalism, so I'll mention them in parallels.
If you consider communism as responsible for the massive famines in China, then you also have to blame capitalism in India for an average of four million deaths more per year than in China since the fifties to the present.
If you consider Castro's trials against counterrevolutionaries as brutal, then you should wonder why you don't find a problem with the Nuremberg Trials when both were almost identical in praxis.
If you complain about the FMLN's attack on 800 Miskito prisoners, why not raise an eyebrow to Somoza's systematic genocide to these same people?
Hell, why would one even complain about Hitler's concentration camps when we see no problem with the United states having put four and a half million people in strategic hamlets with no sanitation and rations much lower than the absolute minimum to stay alive? They didn't even force them to work; the Vietnamese only became lumbering masses, wasting away until the war ended. Of course, this last one has nothing to do with communist atrocities; it was a fascist atrocity, but America's strategic hamlets are another example of human rights violations by the nations that lead the free market.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Terminus

What's wrong with Capitalism?

In a nut-shell, nothing. It's when a few grow so wealthy and decide to abuse their wealth to gain even more wealth and deprive others of it that it goes wrong. But even then, that's a fault of those few, not of capitalism itself. Any economic system can be similarly abused.

[Alan]

I completely disagree. Blaming individuals instead of the system just perpetuates the system that causes the problems.
Under Stalin, any problem within the Soviet Union was blamed on 'corrupt' administrators and politicians, and they were promptly removed from their position. There was nothing wrong with the system; the system was perfect! You just have to get rid of the bad apples.

This mentality rationalizes the existence of institutionalized injustice and oppression, and makes people disillusioned but merely apathetic of the only logical conclusion to that system.
EVERYTHING is wrong under capitalism because it's based on arbitrary guidelines and proclaims ideals contradictory to their praxis.
EVERYTHING is wrong with centralism because it's based on the distrust of the people it claims are good enough to maintain it.

[Beneath the Shadows]

So if a few use the wealth they have acquired for the good of others, whether it be through expanding and creating more jobs, investing in beneficial technologies and/or medicines, or simply through providing through charities, they are the exception, but when another few use the wealth they have acquired to keep others down and only increase their own wealth, that's the norm of the system? That's bullshit, plain and simple. You can't honestly point at a few bad individuals and say "this is what capitalism is." In this system there are people who use what they have acquired for numerous different things. Some abuse what they gain. Some do not. When those some do abuse it, you can't blame the entire system, because the very existence of those who do not abuse it serve to blatantly contradict the claim that the system is bad.

[Solumina]

No BS that isn't what anyone is saying, the norm of the system is working to gain capital. Working to gain capital fosters greed and even in the best of conditions the system does not make it easy to work for the benefit of society because even if you want to make things better you also have to ensure that you are making enough capital to support yourself, which in many cases makes it very difficult, if not impossible to help others.

[Beneath the Shadows]

That's true, but then again, if you're barely making enough to support yourself, then you're not among those few who make so much that they can abuse the system.

I'm not saying that capitalism is a perfect system. There are far too many ways to abuse it and exploit it. But the basis of the system (as you just said, to gain capital, though that is an over-simplified definition) is not inherently bad. There's nothing wrong with wanting to gain capital.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

So if a few use the wealth they have acquired for the good of others, whether it be through expanding and creating more jobs, investing in beneficial technologies and/or medicines, or simply through providing through charities, they are the exception, but when another few use the wealth they have acquired to keep others down and only increase their own wealth, that's the norm of the system? That's bullshit, plain and simple.

Think of it this way. Some slave owners can be very decent to their slaves. The slaves may have cozy quarters in the manor itself; they may eat at his table; they might not be submitted to physical violence and they might only work ten hours a day. Hell, imagine half of the slave owners are this way.
Does that justify slavery?

[Beneath the Shadows]

I could use the same analogy to argue against socialism. Slavery isn't comparable to either capitalism or socialism.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

I could use the same analogy to argue against socialism. Slavery isn't comparable to either capitalism or socialism.

It's not? The poor either work for the rich's profit or we starve, we are all bound to 'masters', they privatise land, the means to production and have enslaved the workforce as a result. If a rich man uses the profit that poor people have created for him out of their necessity for the scraps that he throws down for good, it doesn't change the fact that his wealth is illegitimate and his workers are slaves to him, having to accept whatever he feels is adequate to give. And you can say things like that we have minimum wage now, but we wouldn't have that if it wasn't for socialism. Everything that makes capitalism approach legitimacy is rooted in socialist reform.