I'd most definitely prefer to live in a truly capitalist system but I think its current implementation in the developed world is very flawed. What would you suggest as an alternative?
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the potential for change. Very few people foresaw the French Revolution more than a few years in advance. And in 1916 no-one expected that there would be a popularly supported war of independence just a few short years later.
I'd most definitely prefer to live in a truly capitalist system but I think its current implementation in the developed world is very flawed. What would you suggest as an alternative?
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the potential for change. Very few people foresaw the French Revolution more than a few years in advance. And in 1916 no-one expected that there would be a popularly supported war of independence just a few short years later.
I'm an anarchist so I'm interested in what people think about capitalism and why. Most people who express a desire to live in a real or true capitalist system would be fans of American influenced schools of libertarianism which don't really exist this side of the pond. It usually boils down to a belief that capitalism=evolution=strongest should survive=richest are the strongest therefore... I've never met anyone who considered themselves to be 'weak' and who supported 'real' capitalism. It's usually espoused by young men who consider themselves to be strong enough to be the winners of that contest. And to be immortal naturally.... It's a point of view very influenced by American evangelicalism, which in turn gets its beliefs about wealth from Calvinist pre-destination ideas. I.e. that basically wealth is a sign that you were chosen by God.
Note: I'm not assuming the above applies to you. Just that it is my experience. And that those are the kind of viewpoints that people who argue for 'real' capitalism are normally influenced by.
Representitive democracy will never allow unadulterated capitalism. Survival of the fittest is an instinct that we have evolved with and will never die, but the concept no longer applies in the west. In fact the poorer you are, the more offspring you are more likely to have who in general have no problem living to reproductive age. If you are a true anarchist, you will not tolerate a parasitic element to society born and bred off the welfare state over generations, you only give to those in need who are willing to contribute. Anarchism may be a viable third option, but society is currently not up to it, much more is needed in the way of intellectual maturity. In the future, when populations, (sustainable) resources, and technology stabilizes, continued growth will be limited and capitalism in its current form will be impossible. Unboubtably socialism will come to the fore, and hopefully to the tune of the black and red. In the meantime its a capitalist / socialist mongerel all the way..
I'd understand the concept of 'survival of the fittest' a little differently I think. It doesn't really make sense to say that that is how we evolved without qualification. Fitness really meant adaptation to the environment and in many situations that meant cooperation between individuals and groups rather than competition. Also, you're implying that poverty means parasitism and dependence. It's true that dependence on the state often causes a culture of dependence, but it's not genetically passed on.
Capitalism has always required a pool of labour which is unemployed to use as a threat to those in work to keep their pay claims in check. As, for example, at present the demand that the minimum wage be reduced to 'allow' some of the unemployed to get back to work. That's a structural function of the unemployed. Also, there are those in need who can't 'contribute' in the sense of providing some useful and quantifiable service to society. For example the severely disabled. That doesn't mean that an anarchist society would not provide for their needs though. I do agree with your assessment of how society may change in terms of resources. But there's a danger that whatever ideas are foremost in society at a time when it goes into crisis are those which will survive. Like in the French revolution it was the ideals of the bourgeoisie which made it through to the other end, rather than the more revolutionary ideas of the poorer classes.
It was not capitalism or the free markets that got us into this mess, it has been government interference, in particular American administrations that have interfered with the markets and now we're paying for it. Dearly.
This recession is the correction that the market needs.
The American government has been interfering with the markets for decades. Especially since they dropped the gold standard backing their currency. They've allowed the Fed to fiddle with the interest rate, they've also allowed the Fed to print as much money as they want. Devaluing the currency and causing massive deficits.
This recession would have been sharp and severe but it would still have remained that, a recession. By interfering with the markets, stimulus and bail out packages this recession will turn into a depression. It will even be worst than the 1930's depression which was caused by the government interfering again.
I think it's strange that whilst many will cite what they see as the conceptual and practical evils of capitalism, not only will they not offer a viable alternative but they are quite happy to be a capitalist in their own private way - property ladder exploitation, buying and selling on eBay etc.
It was not capitalism or the free markets that got us into this mess, it has been government interference, in particular American administrations that have interfered with the markets and now we're paying for it. Dearly.
This recession is the correction that the market needs.
Relax mallow.
Who said I was directing the post at anyone on this thread let alone you?
It was a general comment. Anyway, for the record, I didn't say that buying selling or renting houses makes you a capitalist.
I've never met an anti-capitalist who was in fact a capitalist and had no ideas about an alternative. And I know an awful lot of anti-capitalists so I'm curious.
Well for example I've come across quite a few people who have done well for themselves in , say, construction and who proudly describe themselves as "working class", campaign on local community issues, still drink in their local and are known as a great employer in the area and "never forget where they came from" but think nothing of exploiting their own workers, ruthlessly squeezing suppliers, and will do any dodgy deal re planning etc even if it is to the detriment of the society they came from.
On the other hand there are academic, upper middle class intellectual objectors to capitalism who idly jump on a 'funky alternative' bandwagon - having as they often do the inheritance or solvency not to have to worry about the practicalities of the system - it has already worked for them.
Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of attempting to run a country using an alternative to liberal economics we've had totalitarianism, mass murder, impoverishment, starvation, suppression, etc. regardless of which regime was in power or which policies they adopted?Isn't it peculiar that over the entire history of capitalism we've had a cycle of boom and bust, in every single country which has adopted it, over about two centuries, regardless of which government was in power or which policies they adopted.