General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould we admit that capitalism does not work?
Can we objectively question the effectiveness of our form of capitalism given the results on most? This article does just that.
https://egbertowillies.com/2017/11/13/admit-capitalism-failed-many/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
greeny2323
(590 posts)But we need more highly regulated capitalism instead of the unfettered crony capitalism brought on by the Reagan revolution.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)The issue is all about regulation.
Amishman
(5,559 posts)As others have said, there just needs to be adequate controls to even the playing field and ensure people are not left behind. We don't haven't gotten that part right yet.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Our grandparents put a leash on it, our generations set it loose. But that's not capitalism's fault.
Self interest is a magnificent economic engine. Even China with its powerfully centralized authoritarian leadership has harnessed it to help pull a billion people out of the 18th century.
egbertowillies
(4,058 posts)indoctrinating reasons. Capitalism allows those who produce nothing of value to get wealthy off of those who actually work. Free enterprise more closely gives one the fruits of their labor.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)free en·ter·prise
ˌfrē ˈen(t)ərˌprīz/
noun
an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.
shanny
(6,709 posts)In a closed system (like one planet) it is lethal.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Capitalism is not sustainable, regardless of one's feelings toward it as an economic system. Some sort of democratic, cooperative economy should ultimately take its place.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)Sooner or later, the system will kill itself. I see a lot of posts about "It's fine! Just needs more regulation". Well, eventually you will regulate yourself into Socialism.
I could, go on about how we don't really capture true costs, such as the toll on environment, etc. But I won't.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Capitalism and Socialism do not conflict. See, to wit: All modern Socialist countries.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)They don't conflict, this economists see's it as more of an economic evolutionary process, if you will. Just as feudalism evolved to mercantilism, mercantilism to capitalism, capitalism will evolve to socialism.
I even propose something radical that will get me in trouble with others and perhaps condemned as a economic heretic... Let's place value on not producing goods and services. I feudal Europe they would leave land fallow roughly every seven years, even they recognized that extracting everything you possibly can from it is like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Long term gain for nothing gained that year.
If people can't tell the difference between an iPhone 4 vs 10...as seen on the Jimmy Kimmel show, then is the iPhone 10 a good use of scarce resources?
HoustonDave
(60 posts)Look up the term "crop rotation". Then ask people in successful socialist states like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba etc. what their opinions are. Socialist countries are some of the poorest nations on the planet and most formerly were economically far better off formerly than they are now.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)They are centralized command economies, also known as communism. Socialism is not Communism...to say they are is an old right wing talking point that should have died with the Soviet Union. I suggest you do some homework.
If you want to use countries that are socialist as an example, then I suggest you study up on the Scandinavian nations. And to call them poor nations is laughable. Now some would just call them "well regulated capitalism"...its the same difference. The government doesn't outright own the factors of production but they do effect control over them, so ownership is implied.
Top that off, communism has proven effective on a local scale, such as communal farms (a lot of Republican farmers don't realize they are practicing a form of communism). But when taken to a large scale, failed every time, of course, being under a dictatorship doesn't help matters. But no matter, centralized command economies to create a utopia in my view a pipe dream.
As for crop rotation....my point obviously went right over your head.
EX500rider
(10,856 posts)The Scandinavian countries aren't socialists at all, they are capitalists countries with a strong social safety net, not the same thing at all.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)..ownership of the factors of production. Oh, that's right, I did say that.
You and others, argue that the government must outright own the companies. Such as the government owing a controlling interest in GM. It does not have to own a controlling interest. It only has to effect control. Such as make gasoline vehicles illegal and requiring them to produce only electric vehicles. Sure if it owned a controlling interest it could make the same requirement...but the result is the same. Now how much a government decides to effect control, that's up to them. They very well may decide, the market is working fine by itself and won't intervene...but when it doesn't work, they can.
You also defeated your own argument, "strong social safety net"? At one time those safety nets were in the private market. The government decided it was in the public interest to control those industries directly. Those are socialist policies.
And yes, in the Nordic Model you are allowed to have private property, its preposterous to think Socialism outlaws private property. Outlawing private property is a feature of Communism. And yes they use a corporatism model on labor, however, again the government mediates the negotiations at the national level and to say they don't influence this, is silly.
Now, if you want to say free market capitalism within a welfare state, were just splicing hairs. Not to mention an oxymoron.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism...although the GOP is trying desperately to march that way. There is no such thing as pure socialism either but often the pure definition is applied erroneously when the pure version of capitalism would also fail. And attempts at communism on a centralized national scale have failed, spectacularly.
The Nordic Model is form of Socialism, now if you want continuously want to argue that it isn't. It's well within your right to do so, even economists still argue over this. In my view, the government effects enough control over the economy, thus socialism. Others will say there are still enough free market systems in place to call it capitalism, I disagree with this.
Then of course, "socialism" has a negative stigma so many don't like using the term, but that's a whole different story.
EX500rider
(10,856 posts)Just making laws and regulations for companies to follow does not count.
GM still gets to decide how many and what type of cars to built when.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)What you are arguing is communism. A command economy, in that, a command economy decides how many and what type. Socialism still allows for market forces to work, it just controls the factors of production when needed and can intervene when markets fail, whereas in a capitalist system, market forces control it...and when it fails, market forces are responsible for correcting it...which it may or may not do. Today, when that happens, our government attempts to influence the market, but not control it.
You are confusing the two systems of communism and socialism, they are not the same. Karl Marx stated clearly in the Communist Manifesto that the next economic system was socialism after of which, the next system to evolve from there would be communism (which I disagree with).
And yes, regulations with enough control over the the economy is socialism. The end result is the same, where be it by actual ownership or regulation. Your making a distinction via method and incorrectly equivocating that socialism = communism.
EX500rider
(10,856 posts)In communism you get that plus the govt owns everything.
Xolodno
(6,401 posts)There is nothing in the definition that concludes, be it by Marx or anyone else, government ownership or effective control of the factors of production implies a command economy. I can go to my home library right now and pull up several economic textbooks that all state the same thing, communism is a command economy. Not socialism. Socialism is often refereed to be a mix of communism and capitalism. That being direct government involvement in natural monopolies, industries that have a national concern, etc. But at the end of the day, it doesn't exercise full control, it intervenes during for the public good.
In fact, market socialism requires free market systems. You can have planned economies in socialism (of which I'm not a fan of), but that has never been attempted....nor is there a viable blue print to accomplish it.
Again, you want to call it well regulated capitalism or liberalized communism...or whatever, its your choice.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)and it has come to fruition.
Time frames are important... that is like saying "our star will nova" without mentioning it may take another three billion years or so. Sometimes an interim solution can be so long-running that it is adequate for the (pardon the phrase) immediate long term.
shanny
(6,709 posts)We already "spend" more in natural resources than can be replenished in a year (i.e. we are spending the principal instead of living on the interest). It would take the resources of more than one planet to bring everyone's standard of living up to Western (admittedly wasteful) norms. Innovation and tightening our belts can change the equation of course: if everybody is willing to eat paste we can probably support 50 billion.
And that leaves out ecosystem collapse. We are well down that road:
Earth has lost 80% of her old-growth forests, 50% of her soil, 90% of the big fish – and many water, land, and ocean ecosystems, as well as atmospheric stability, as human population has soared more than sevenfold.* The human family is living far beyond its means, devouring natural capital principal and ravaging its own ecosystem habitats, which can only end in ecological, social and economic collapse. Earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded, and we must equitably and justly bring down human population and consumption inequity or else face global ecosystem collapse. We can start the necessary social change or an angry Earth will sort it out herself by killing billions; as we possibly pull down the biosphere with us, ending most or even all life, during a prolonged collapse.
Earth is not designed for 7 billion people (and growing), some of them destroying ecosystems globally as they live in opulence, others more locally through their grinding poverty and need to survive. Overpopulated, inequitable, unjust human industrial growth ravages ecosystems; destroying all that is natural, indigenous and good, heralding a brief era of opulence for some and abject misery for many, before collapsing the biosphere and causing the end of being for all.
http://ecointernet.org/2014/05/17/on-overpopulation-and-ecosystem-collapse/
The extractive / exploitative nature of capitalism makes all this worse. Personally I find it amusing when people wonder if we will have a country, the Constitution, or even a civilization in 100 years. If we do, it is going to be very different.
* our population has grown from 1 billion to more than 7 in 135 years
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
betsuni
(25,615 posts)Posting the content here wouldn't bring in any revenue, too democratic, socialistic, commie even. But we should admit that capitalism does not work.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)“The problem with Capitalism is that there are not enough capitalists.”
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)One was about "capitalism" and one was about "our form of capitalism".
I'm going to say, broadly, that it does.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Unbound capitalism is a recipe for our current mess and leads to ever increasing income inequality along with prices on certain things like pharma drugs/healthcare going out of control.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)...it takes strong leadership to make it happen.
Fait Accompli
(40 posts)Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell...
marybourg
(12,634 posts)by government, but it's the only system that does work, given the imperfection of the human psyche. I wish it were different, but it's not.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)and a strong safety net.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)The Pigs always win.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and then they act like they deserve it and we are "stealing" from them to make them pay the costs that result from that.
louis c
(8,652 posts)The increasing strength of unions, through the years, has improved the standard of living of the middle class. The decreasing strength of unions has caused the weakening of the same group of Americans.
It's just a fact.
<snip>Put these two economic trends together, and a striking image appears:
unions middle income<snip>
Link;
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html
DrDan
(20,411 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)Even thinking that is a crime in the USA. Mostly because you're all too busy 'working for your self' to consider the question.
.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Short and to the point.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)In both substance and thought process.
Then again, I don't read articles by people who truly believe that Trump will be pushing for single payer healthcare. Fake news.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)WillowTree
(5,325 posts)
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)In order for Socialism to work, humans need to evolve beyond their innate tribal instincts and see each other as one tribe. As long as people see themselves as White, Black, male, female, Christian, Muslim, etc., Socialism won't ever work.
dawg
(10,624 posts)"Socialism" only works when it is really just a misnomer for well-regulated capitalism. None of the "Socialist" countries in the EU are actually socialist.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)It is plutocracy.
It is cronyism.
It isn't "capitalism"... at least not completely.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)So is a hammer, a chainsaw, blowtorch, etc
It's all in how you use it: regulate it, control it, etc.
Also in defining what "works" means. Works for who? For how long? To what ends?
Ditto socialism, etc.
A blowtorch "works" - but I don't want to use it to eat breakfast with or comb my hair with it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But that's why we need socialism.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)The system is working exactly as intended. The misery and suffering of the working class is necessary to keep the bourgeoisie in control. The problems with capitalism aren’t things we can regulate out of existence.
The problem is capitalism, and it’s gonna keep getting worse.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Or...
“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.”
― Voltaire
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Unfortunately, most people do not hold the wealth/power. Those who do are doing quite well under capitalism, thank you very much. And it's not just the Republican Party's leaders, elected officials, and their wealthy donors who fall into the latter category.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
VOX
(22,976 posts)In the hands of adults, who have a strong moral center and a sense of fair play, and who believe in the ideal of a greater good, capitalism can’t be beat.
But in the hands of greedy, ideological assholes, any system (including socialism) will drift way off course.