Capitalism . . . Is it a failure, or is this just a blip!


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?
 
zephyro said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

Good stuff, fair points. However, I feel capitalism won't be overthrown in the same manner. Capitalism now has a global reach. Revolutions in the past were mainly contained within a region or country, usually where a majority was directly affected. Capitalism may be overthrown in a specific region or country in the future, but I can't see it being diminished globally. There are too many beneficiaries and advocators of capitalism and these groups will not be convinced it is flawed.

This poses an interesting question; how would a revolution against capitalism occur, and what form would it take??
 

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.
 

Yes fitness to pass on your genes can involve cooperation, however, there is also an element of passing your genes on at the expense of your competition, so you cooperate when it is beneficial and you are selfish when beneficial also. This will produce the best results for you, of maximise your 'fitness yo your environment.

I agree with most of your points, but you have taken me wrong on implying that poverty means parasitism and dependence. I was implying that the welfare state when not properly managed (and its very difficult to manage) creates this parasitism.

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. This is true. I should have said, those who were able BUT unwilling.

Your comments about the necessity to keep a certain amount on the dole appears to have validity among econimists, a rule of thumb being below 6% is inflationary.

To clarify your point on the revolutions, yes in these times there will be a struggle between those appearing to be on the same side for superiority with those with more money coming out on top. At this point we will see highly leveraged individuals and companies getting destroyed, and those who just about managing to survive getting stronger and more powerful. So its bye bye Sean Dunne et al, to be replaced by a new class of despot!
 
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.
 
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.
 

What market interference by the American Government? They have reacted to the financial crisis but they didn't cause it (except for any blame that can be attached for flawed monetary policy and lack of regulatory oversight in financial services). If the Governments hadn't responded, the recession wouldn't have been a correction, it would have been economic armageddan. Might still be.
 
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 am not sure what you mean about 'fiddle' with the interest rate. Also the Fed aren't allowed to print as much money as they want. Are you actually saying dropping the gold standard was a mistake?
 
Oh they fiddle with the interest rate when it suited them. They drove it down to encourage cheaper credit when they should of let it well enough alone. They are not accountable to anyone and can print as much money as they want.

Sooner or later the Americans will have to go back to the gold standard.
 

Any chance you could specify who you're talking about? I've made pretty clearly what my alternative is. Whether or not any alternative system is viable is a matter of opinion. And buying and selling on Ebay does not make you a capitalist, nor does buying or selling a house or renting one.
 
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.
 

The neoliberals arrive... How about 1837, 1870, 1907, 1929, the 1970's? Damn governments at it again eh? 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. Laissez-faire had its heyday in the 19th century. It's extraordinary to me that any Irish person should now consider it to be legitimate, however carefully it is re-branded as neo-liberalism or anything else. It was laissex-faire economics which provided the ideological foundation for English government policies towards Ireland in the 1840's. They refused to interfere with the free market in grain. Because vast number of Irish people could not afford to buy at any price, they starved. Honest neoliberals have no real problem with that. Ireland was overpopulated and the weak died off and left room for the strong to thrive in their absence.

Does it not strike you that a system which has proved incapable of stability over several centuries may in fact be structurally unsound? The capitalist system has been both left entirely alone and thoroughly tinkered with over the course of those centuries. Neither extreme nor anything in between them has prevented the cycle from recurring. Your solution has been tried and at some length. I often think it would be more intellectually honest of neoliberals to admit that they consider recession to be natural and normal and the pain suffered by any human being during it to be healthy and cleansing. It's based on the usual skewed pseudo-Darwinian notion that those who survive recessions in a free market are the strong and those who die are the weak. I'd love to find a neoliberal who numbered themselves among the weak. Never have yet funnily enough....
 
Caveat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes I realize you didn't. I was worried by your description of both property ladder exploitation and buying and selling on eBay as being capitalist.
That's why I asked who you were talking about. I can't really understand your comment unless you explain in some way who you're referring to. 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.
 
mallow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Yes I know what you mean particularly in relation to the first. There's a common misconception that if you come from a sociologically 'working class' background then you are working class. It's a misunderstanding of the term. If you have to work for wages for a living then you're working class. The employer you described above is a capitalist. That's a very good example of why working class doesn't mean poor, and it has nothing to do with your childhood or your parents income or where you came from. That man doesn't live on wages, he lives on the profits generated by his employees. It's really frustrating to see people accept men like him as one of their own, as working class. But it's understandable since there's huge confusion between the political term and the socio-economic one. The first describes your position in a hierarchy and the second describes your social status or income. Men like that rely on their constituents identifying themselves and him first and foremost as belonging to the same particular downtrodden community. Rather than noticing that his interests are now in opposition to theirs.

The second is also a common sight, most often in environmentalist circles. They are commonly made up of 'liberals' who are happy to lecture those worse off than them about their bad eating habits/wasteful use of energy/whatever it is this week... They wilfully ignore the reality of the cost of solar panels, organic fair trade food and all the rest of it. You'll usually find that that kind of person would like to reform capitalism, to make it a bit nicer and a bit greener. They're not actually anti-capitalists at all. On the other hand some of the most famous anti-capitalists were born aristocrats, Prince Peter Kropotkin for example was a famous anarchist. Tolstoy was a Christian anarchist and he was also from an aristocratic Russian family.
 
I think the real issue is short term thinking vs long term thinking. The current crisis is caused by people trying to make big gains on short term strategies without thinking about the long term consequences. (e.g. creating a property bubble which will eventually have to burst)
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register