Support NeoGAF

[Pamplemousse]

Capitalism is deeply flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that everyone is only interested in maximizing their own self-interest. This is false. True, everyone wants the basics to survive, but surviving isn't happiness. To find happiness, we need others. Having a talent or passion that you give to others is how you find happiness. Capitalism robs most people from doing this.

It's also built on a monetary system that's out of tune with the natural world, and climate change shows us this. Nothing else makes sense to hoard except money because we've given it unnatural properties. If you think humans naturally want to hoard, I suggest looking at human history and so-called "primitive" tribes today. Do any of them hoard food or other necessities? Of course not because hoarding doesn't make sense in nature. If those in your tribe have less, you'll have less too because you depend on them for survival.

Embracing a false notion of individualism, Capitalism tells you that you get/do everything on your own, illustrated in the "self-made" millionaire lie. No one is "self-made," but money obfuscates this and leads people to think that they're somehow independent of others.

In short, nay. We need an economic system that accepts that we don't exist outside of nature, but instead participate in it. End the need for perpetual growth, something that doesn't exist in nature, and adopt a new monetary system that does not incentivize hoarding. Deep down, I think we all know how unfulfilling and wrong Capitalism is, but we act like it's something the earth thrust upon us, a fact of life. Let's realize we created it and the monetary system that it uses and change it! Life could be so much better if we stop it from being a race to see who can hoard the most money.

 

[boiled goose]

Capitalism yay.

Unregulated capitalism nay.

Societies are not purely capitalistic or socialistic, you need to find a balance. Humans have a sense of fairness and selfishness (capitalism) and a sense of fairness and empathy (socialism). A system skewed too much to one side will not work. Unregulated capitalism leaves people behind and too much socialism means people will work outside the system.

 

[Griss]

I'd love to see what pure capitalism looks like. I imagine it might work very well as the risks involved in investing capital are as extreme as the rewards.

Unfortunately, the US has capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. If you bail out the banks when they destroy the economy you've removed the moral hazard that is essential to prevent those who hold capital from exploiting the system. You've removed the 'risk' factor for the biggest owners of capital, who can then exploit labour and legislation to whatever extent they see fit, taking outrageous risks, knowing that if it all goes tits up they can go to government and say 'Give us money or everyone starves'.

It's not capitalism.

Anyway, I'm a far-left anti-inequality socialist myself. I believe in three basic things:
1. There needs to be a difference in income between humans of different capabilities and rates of success in life in order to spark invention and competition, which leads to better conditions for everybody (this is the core basis of capitalism), but
2. There needs to be checks and balances to ensure that those who succeed in that system do not hoard wealth at the expense of those who are not equipped to succeed, and
3. The best way to do that is a system of social welfare, progressive taxation, and extreme taxation of gifts of wealth, particularly estate tax.

That's my philosophy right there, pretty much. The strong should do better than the weak, but not ludicrously better, because there's nothing morally wrong with being weak and we have a moral obligation to protect the weak - we're not animals.

 

[entremet]

Capitalism is deeply flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that everyone is only interested in maximizing their own self-interest. This is false. True, everyone wants the basics to survive, but surviving isn't happiness. To find happiness, we need others. Having a talent or passion that you give to others is how you find happiness. Capitalism robs most people from doing this.

It's also built on a monetary system that's out of tune with the natural world, and climate change shows us this. Nothing else makes sense to hoard except money because we've given it unnatural properties. If you think humans naturally want to hoard, I suggest looking at human history and so-called "primitive" tribes today. Do any of them hoard food or other necessities? Of course not because hoarding doesn't make sense in nature. If those in your tribe have less, you'll have less too because you depend on them for survival.

Embracing a false notion of individualism, Capitalism tells you that you get/do everything on your own, illustrated in the "self-made" millionaire lie. No one is "self-made," but money obfuscates this and leads people to think that they're somehow independent of others.

In short, nay. We need an economic system that accepts that we don't exist outside of nature, but instead participate in it. End the need for perpetual growth, something that doesn't exist in nature, and adopt a new monetary system that does not incentivize hoarding. Deep down, I think we all know how unfulfilling and wrong Capitalism is, but we act like it's something the earth thrust upon us, a fact of life. Let's realize we created it and the monetary system that it uses and change it! Life could be so much better if we stop it from being a race to see who can hoard the most money.

Adam Smith was pretty keen in mentioning that Capitalism should be focused on mutual benefit or Win/Win Agreements.

But he didn't think that Capitalism was amoral, but also had a strong moral backbone.

Funnily enough Adam Smith was philosopher as well. David Hume was one of his best friends.

 

[Maxim726X]

Free markets gave us things like child labor, slavery, and events like the potato famine. Fuck free markets. Regulate the shit out of capitalism.

It has also given rise to the most prosperous period in human history, and unprecedented innovation.

Ultimately, there is no system that can completely negate human greed and ambition. Even in a completely socialist society there is some controlling body that is responsible for ensuring that everything is shared equally- A powerful body that likely has it's own interests at heart.

The best answer is Capitalism with proper government restriction and oversight. You would think that Democracy would offer this system, but sadly it requires an educated populace which we are not. So now that money has completely corrupted the political system it may never act the way that it should to ensure that we're on a level playing field.

 

[The Albatross]

Yay, particularly democratic capitalism.

*or republicanism, whatever, some system of legitimate representation.

Free markets gave us things like child labor, slavery, and events like the potato famine. Fuck free markets. Regulate the shit out of capitalism.

You can't have free markets without free peoples. Child labor, slavery, and English imperialism that led to the potato famine weren't societies of free peoples. When a European slaver took someone by force in Africa and then sold them as their property in South America, the Caribbean, or the American South, that's not a society of free peoples. Enfranchisement and capitalism must go hand in hand.

 

[brawly]

Things like "62 richest people have as much money as half the world" should not be possible.

Having a business, making a lot of money, living a nice lifestyle - all good and well. But such a disparity isn't.

 

[kavanf1]

Communism doesn't work *because* it doesn't have the mechanisms of capitalism. But since people like empirics around here, I figured I would focus on the fact that, yeah, pretty much every single government that has eliminated private ownership of the means of production was a dismal economic failure. Sweeping conclusions are warranted when communism's real-world track record is that bad, and that consistently bad.

That's the thing that surprises me reading this thread. Communism and variations on it have been tried; they have proven repeatedly to result in disastrous failures that leave their populations far worse off. How much more evidence do people need than to see it's a far less appealing option than capitalism?

 

[Tigress]

Pure 100 percent capitalism for everything? Fuck no. A mix of capitalism and socialism and maybe sprinkles of other models would be ideal.

Exactly this. Capitalism works for some things and socialism is best for others. And capitalism does need oversight cause it won't always keep itself in check like it's supposed to.

 

[The Albatross]

Communism doesn't work *because* it doesn't have the mechanisms of capitalism. But since people like empirics around here, I figured I would focus on the fact that, yeah, pretty much every single government that has eliminated private ownership of the means of production was a dismal economic failure. Sweeping conclusions are warranted when communism's real-world track record is that bad, and that consistently bad.

Let's not restrict this to just dismal economic failure. I don't think that there is a single example in modern history of a country or government eliminating private ownership and having that country not fall into utter social ruin as well. Of the great famines of the 20th century, all of them were tied to a dissolution of ownership and state-controlled production... The Great Chinese Famine for Mao's GReat Leap Forward, the Povolyhze famine of post-civil war Russia/USSR, the Holodomor in 1930s Soviet Union, the Great March in North Korea, the Labor Camps of Mao's China. In all of these, people resorted to cannibalism, where parents had to eat their own children or their elderly to stay alive. Even despite that, they were the greatest unnecessary loss of human life in centuries, perhaps in all of human history.

I'm always entertained when somebody criticizes capitalism for arguments of social injustice and then ascends to something like Communism or non-market Socialism. There is no greater injustice than having to eat your own children because your government puts your family in jail for not producing enough grain.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

That's the thing that surprises me reading this thread. Communism and variations on it have been tried; they have proven repeatedly to result in disastrous failures that leave their populations far worse off. How much more evidence do people need than to see it's a far less appealing option than capitalism?

I think it's the idea they are in love with. It does sound good on paper. When I was in college I probably did have some views that skewed towards communism. But I started reading about history and started seeing that things are not so black and white all the time.

Honest question to the people who want communism. Do you like owning stuff?

 

[BrokenIcarus]

Things like "62 richest people have as much money as half the world" should not be possible.

Having a business, making a lot of money, living a nice lifestyle - all good and well. But such a disparity isn't.

This is the thing that bothers me the most. These people are making millions of dollars without lifting a finger simply by having money to invest. They will never be able to spend all of it. Meanwhile we have over 3 billion people living in absolute poverty, living on less than $2.50 a day.

And this doesn't even start the massive exploitation of people, animals and the environment, to make a profit. Capitalism is very deeply flawed and needs a lot of work.

Not sure about any real alternatives though.

 

[Griss]

One law I'd always like to see brought in would be the following:
If a company makes more than a certain set amount of Net Profit (and already has a certain amount of cash reserves), everything beyond that is
a) Either taxed at 100% - the government takes it all, OR
b) Shared equally between their entire labour force.

You'd keep the level high enough to allow companies to build up reasonable reserves and capital for investing, but not high enough that they can hoard wealth, Apple-style. The best part of the plan is that either society in general or basic labour succeeds when the company wildly succeeds. Everyone would want a company to do great under this rule. It introduces reasons for labour to work, for capital to invest (they still get to keep net profit up to a point and do whatever they like with it - reinvest, dividends etc) and for government to encourage company success.

The amount of Net Profit would probably have to be linked to Revenue in order to get an appropriate amount for the size of the company. I'm not an economist, I'm just spit-balling.

As always, though, the lack of standardised global laws would just send companies running to countries where this rule wasn't in place. But it's nice to dream.

Let's not restrict this to just dismal economic failure. I don't think that there is a single example in modern history of a country or government eliminating private ownership and having that country not fall into utter social ruin as well.

Eliminating private ownership altogether is communism. I don't think there are more than a handful of people who still think that's a good idea. Private ownership and competition have been proven to be good for society, but have also proven to need to be controlled and regulated.

 

[diffusionx]

Capitalism works, but capitalism also needs a strong regulatory system to keep the excesses of capitalism in check. When we have figured this out, it's been proven to be the best way to raise living standards, get people out of poverty, produce innovative products, and grow wealth for everybody.

Unregulated capitalism inhibits all of those things. It's odd that a little bit of capitalism is great and a lot of capitalism is bad, but so it is.

 

[Maxim726X]

I think it's the idea they are in love with. It does sound good on paper. When I was in college I probably did have some views that skewed towards communism. But I started reading about history and started seeing that things are not so black and white all the time.

Honest question to the people who want communism. Do you like owning stuff?

Even if certain individuals would prefer such a system, I would imagine quite a few would not. Enough to ruin the system for everyone else...

That, or a corrupt government screws everyone.

 

[BrokenIcarus]

That's the thing that surprises me reading this thread. Communism and variations on it have been tried; they have proven repeatedly to result in disastrous failures that leave their populations far worse off. How much more evidence do people need than to see it's a far less appealing option than capitalism?

While I'm not exactly an advocate of communism, this isn't a great argument.
People used to say the same thing of democracy, saying it was unfeasible and what not.
The only real communist states, where basically totalitarian governments, with no real democracy.

 

[Carcetti]

Capitalism works, but capitalism also needs a strong regulatory system to keep the excesses of capitalism in check. When we have figured this out, it's been proven to be the best way to raise living standards, get people out of poverty, produce innovative products, and grow wealth for everybody.

Unregulated capitalism inhibits all of those things. It's odd that a little bit of capitalism is great and a lot of capitalism is bad, but so it is.

Basically this. Unregulated capitalism has proven to be self-destructive. It makes people strip mine everything for short term profit.

 

[The Albatross]

Eliminating private ownership altogether is communism. I don't think there are more than a handful of people who still think that's a good idea. Private ownership and competition have been proven to be good for society, but have also proven to need to be controlled and regulated.

Yes? I was replying to someone who explicitly brought up Communism?

 

[Griss]

Yes? I was replying to someone who explicitly brought up Communism?

Sorry, my bad. I'm just trying to steer the conversation away from that because it's clearly an awful alternative to capitalism, but capitalists tend to portray any kind of socialism as communism or 'communism-lite' to scare people into thinking there are no other options.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I'm pretty passionately against capitalism and believe in abolishing private property, money, wage labor, and markets. I identify as an anarchist communist. Unfortunately, I think I'm in the extreme minority on that both on GAF and elsewhere.

We'd probably need some kind of superintelligent and near-perfectly moral computer to handle the wealth redistribution or something.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Demonizing systems other than capitalism as failures, while noting that the alternatives were essentially unfettered, and championing regulated capitalism isn't an honest argument.

An economy is not a religion in that it fails without stringent ideology, economies should take pieces that work and eschew those that do not.

 

[Zelias]

Uncertain, leaning towards yay with extremely heavy regulation and a basic 'safety net' standard of living and healthcare for all, provided by the government.

 

[Tigress]

And you can't have capitalism and socialism. They're inherently opposed - either the bourgeoisie owns the means of production or the proletariat does.

And I think this is a very wrong ideology... That it has to be all or nothing. Pure capitalism is bad but so is pure socialism. Different systems work best for different things. All of them have flaws and you have to look at the strengths and flaws to figure out what best fits where. We already have a mix of socialist and capitalist systems so that already proves you wrong that you can't have both.

 

[Mecha]

A "What-if" isn't necessary since we have quite a few recent examples of communist states. Communist states have been some of the most top-down, oppressive, and authoritarian regimes in recent history. Possibly in all history. Even more so than the Fascist governments. Now you can say that's not true communism or it's a different flavor but in practice that's how it has shaken out so far.

There haven't been any communist states, there have been socialist states in the transition into communism. The 20th century socialist states weren't perfect or ideal, but Marx isn't a perfect profit and neither were the rulers at the time. You can find successes and failures in most 20th century socialist countries, but the best thing society can do is to learn from them. Humanity didn't give up on democracy because the Greek city-states fell, we learned from the mistakes and updated it. Marxism is not a dogma, you can use what works, don't use what doesn't, and even try something new. Anyways, I would like to see some examples for your claims, as it would be easier to pick those apart than to generalize. Saying any 20th century socialist country is as bad as something like the Nazi's is pretty funny though.

And how would the workers enforce things? How would we handle groups of workers enforcing their ideas? How would we keep it democratic? In all the socialist and communist societies we had figureheads dominating everything. And these figureheads always live by different rules than the rest of the population.


I don't know, comparing to the amount of people that died from hunger and lived in complete poverty under socialist and communist regimes, I think we're doing ok. Sure, things needs to change, specially in the most poor countries, but we're improving.

We would handle groups of workers through a democratic process. Society would keep it democratic, if someone tried to make their vote count more or something they could be easily snuffed out. You don't seem to understand that there's a transitional period in some lines of Marxist thinking. In this line of thinking the government is an apprentice to transition the country towards communism, but with the onslaught of various factors like imperialism disturbing progress it's pretty hard for there not to be mistakes made.

As for hunger and poverty, it's funny when people bring up famines in socialist countries as a reason why communism doesn't work, but then when it happens in a capitalist country it isn't at the fault of the capitalist system. Famines happen, especially in third world countries that are cut off from the rest of the world due to embargoes. Same goes for poverty, there are extraordinarily impoverished capitalist countries, yet any sort of poverty in developing socialist countries is a fault of the system. The USSR, Cuba, and a variety of other socialist countries saw and have seen great GDP growth.

Edit: Heading out for a while, if this thread is still active by the time I get back I'll keep responding.

 

[Orthogonal]

I see a lot of comments about needing checks against "unregulated Capitalism" and wonder what that means. This is either a disingenuous representation or they are ignorant of the facts. Can someone provide an example of what they say is a detriment to true free markets?

Whenever a scenario of a company doing something that harms others in Capitalism is presented, it is blamed on deregulation etc, but is usually always within some goverment sanctioned space. Either explicitly through monopoly/oligopoly mandate over a specific area or industry or implicitly through the regulation of competition and artificially mitigating risk factors.

Negative consequences of "Unregulated Capitalism" is usually just do to actual regulation creating a space where shit happens that otherwise wouldnt.

 

[jkanownik]

All economic systems are inefficient. I think capitalism has proven the most efficient but the current implementation still has a long way to go to achieve maximum efficiency. There are 4 major challenges with maintaining a capitalistic system that are creating problems currently:

1) Measuring value. There are many proxies for value. Money is one. GDP is another. As are a multitude of GDP alternatives that are fighting for viability right now.

2) Stopping the transfer of wealth without value creation.

3) Controlling externalities. It is especially hard to proactively address externalities.

4) Maintaining balance between long vs short term value.

I do not think the challenges are unsolvable. Most of the solutions people propose are treating symptoms versus the disease though. They also don't see that progress is being made and things will get better. Here is what I think is needed to address the disease currently:

1) We need to do a better job of measuring value and getting people to think in terms of value over money. I think the best way to fix the value measurement problems are to create redundancy in accounting systems. Rather than replace GDP it should be supplemented by an alternate system. Essentially you need to take the current number of economists employed by the government and double it. In the private world there is a big problem in the business world today with people that can't get beyond money to really understand value. I'm not sure if it is possible to get enough of these people to get beyond the abstraction of money. The long term trend definitely indicates that we can't and many middle management position will be eliminated as a result. On the high end I think people underestimate top business leaders. The great ones are unquestionably focused on value creation.

2) Inheritances, high frequency trading and corruption are examples of the transfer of wealth without value creation. They are all being looked at and I'm confident progress is coming on addressing these. Smart people are talking about and looking at this and recommending change. Many high net worth individuals are tackling this on their own instead of trusting government to solve it.

3) As the pace of progress increases there is a greater and greater disconnect between the need to control for externalities and out government's ability to address them.There are two solutions needed here. There needs to be an "insurance" fund created to improve our ability to react to externalities once they are identified. There also needs to be more proactive monitoring for future externalities.

4) There is long term value in raising the living standards for everyone. Our current measurement systems do not properly take into account this long term value. I see this as an accounting problem. Fixing this will create short term pain

To sum it up I think most of the current counter-capitalism thinking is flawed. Our greatest needs aren't for transfer of wealth between people right now. Our greatest needs are to fix the accounting systems governing wealth and to do a better job of maximizing long term value creation. This will transfer wealth from everyone now to everyone in the future. In the short term everyone would feel a little more pain until the long term benefits start to offset the short term costs.

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

<---

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

I think something that would be useful for this thread is to actually define socialism, communism and capitalism, because I think a lot of people's thoughts of what constitutes each can vary massively.

I would give my definitions but I am busy atm

 

[BrokenIcarus]

I see a lot of comments about needing checks against "unregulated Capitalism" and wonder what that means. This is either a disingenuous representation or they are ignorant of the facts. Can someone provide an example of what they say is a detriment to true free markets?

Whenever a scenario of a company doing something that harms others in Capitalism is presented, it is blamed on deregulation etc, but is usually always within some goverment sanctioned space. Either explicitly through monopoly/oligopoly mandate over a specific area or industry or implicitly through the regulation of competition and artificially mitigating risk factors.

Negative consequences of "Unregulated Capitalism" is usually just do to actual regulation creating a space where shit happens that otherwise wouldnt.

How about not damaging the environment, other people or animals?

 

[justjustin]

Capitalism without policies that deliberately favor the super rich would be nice. I'm not against the basic principle of individuals selling their labor/skills/time.

 

[Giant Panda]

Yay. But workers (especially really productive ones) should get bigger slice of the business owners' pie.

The especially productive ones are already getting high pay. The main source of inequality in developed countries these days are those with degrees and PhDs in the right fields that make a ton of money compared to those without college education. Go look at the Silicon valley workers who are making bank right now.

There are countries other than the United States in the world and some of them are also free and prosperous.

Generally the more capitalistic these countries are, the more prosperous they are as well.

I'm pretty passionately against capitalism and believe in abolishing private property, money, wage labor, and markets. I identify as an anarchist communist. Unfortunately, I think I'm in the extreme minority on that both on GAF and elsewhere.

There hasn't been a single case in history where attempts at a system like that have been anywhere close to successful. Your preferred system has only caused poverty and death. Also, there is no good theoretical basis for how such a system would function properly. If you follow the scientific method, I hope you can see why your views are flawed.

My basic view is that capitalism is inherently wasteful and inefficient. Inefficient systems bothers me. What should be its replacement, I'm not sure yet.

Capitalism is by far the most efficient economic system. The way to increase economic efficiency is to improve the functioning of markets. In some cases limited intervention by governments can improve market functioning, but you still have to have the underlying thoroughly capitalist system.

There are an endless supply of academic fields that disagree with you, so I would hope you aren't accepting that idea as a necessarily axiomatic. In any case, it's fine if you believe that.

It just doesn't make sense to use a socialist (Orwell) to argue against a socialist.

What? I haven't come across any non-laughable theory of how communism could ever work in a world of economic scarcity.

 

[Iorv3th]

A lot of people misunderstand Capitalism.

It is the most fair system currently. And there are problems with the way it's implemented when government gets involved and gives large companies money through bailouts or tax cuts without giving them to others creates an unfair advantage and that is not true capitalism. I also am willing to bet that most people that are for a pure socialism are from urban areas where the cost of living is so high that even at a good wage you aren't really moving up in the world.

A see people that want humans to work and live together in a socialist environment so that everyone is 'taken care of', but capitalism allows this too. The only difference is that in one the government takes care of everyone. While the other allows individuals and organizations to help each other out.

I know earlier a guy said that in ideal socialism there is no government and just everyone taking care of each other.

The fact is you are never going to have Socialism, Marxism, or Capitalism without people abusing the system or breaking the rules to their benefit and the detriment of others. A lot of people that want pure socialism or marxism want it to be their ideal version of it and not what is in reality going to happen because of the human factor.

We should at the very least democratize the economy, with employees having a say in how the business they work at is run. A basic principle of socialism.

Don't unions already do this? And it's going to depend on the company you work for. Local telephone company here the owners turned control over and split it among employees. So it isn't something that is not allowed in capitalism.

 

[Orthogonal]

How about not damaging the environment, other people or animals?

Environmental externalities is a complex subject. I would be more than happy to dig into it, but would rather not derail the thread. We can discuss by PM if you like, but the cliff notes version is essentially that a lack of clearly defined property rights encourages bad behavior. To make matters worse, large companies successfully lobby the governments for waste and pollution benefits.

Not sure what you mean about "damaging" people and animals.

 

[Condom]

Nay, IMO capitalism will always need band-aid rules to keep it in check.
Those rules then get inefficient and removed, bringing us back to a shitty system.
It's also failing in many countries but because it is not communism, we don't see it as failing but as a result of free competition.

We should at the very least democratize the economy, with employees having a say in how the business they work at is run. A basic principle of socialism.

The rest will mostly be trial and error until we have a nice working alternative.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Herbert Hoover was right about one thing, the only things wrong with capitalism are capitalists

I'm fine with capitalism in principle, in practice it needs regulation.

Also, I think it's supposed to be "yea"

 

[PeskyToaster]

There haven't been any communist states, there have been socialist states in the transition into communism. The 20th century socialist states weren't perfect or ideal, but Marx isn't a perfect profit and neither were the rulers at the time. You can find successes and failures in most 20th century socialist countries, but the best thing society can do is to learn from them. Humanity didn't give up on democracy because the Greek city-states fell, we learned from the mistakes and updated it. Marxism is not a dogma, you can use what works, don't use what doesn't, and even try something new. Anyways, I would like to see some examples for your claims, as it would be easier to pick those apart than to generalize. Saying any 20th century socialist country is as bad as something like the Nazi's is pretty funny though.

I see similar claims a lot and I don't find them valid. You're never going to get a perfect communist state or a communist state that fits everybody's differing definitions.

Also I'm not saying as bad. I'm saying they were more authoritarian and top-down, notable examples being the Soviet Union and East Germany. And not every state was equally as authoritarian but there was an obvious trend since a large majority of communist states have since abandoned it. None of the countries that kept it are what I would call huge successes, the exception being China but they have also moved towards a more capitalistic economy. We shouldn't abandon all the ideas associated with communism but I think capitalism is a better framework from which to work through than communism. I believe the ideal economic system is closer to capitalism than to communism as far as you can measure such things. Unless there's a third option completely unexplored but I can't speculate on that.

 

[BrokenIcarus]

Environmental externalities is a complex subject. I would be more than happy to dig into it, but would rather not derail the thread. We can discuss by PM if you like, but the cliff notes version is essentially that a lack of clearly defined property rights encourages bad behavior. To make matters worse, large companies successfully lobby the governments for waste and pollution benefits.

Not sure what you mean about "damaging" people and animals.

I'm talking about animal abuse and abusing workers in horrible conditions.

 

[Orthogonal]

For those who are against Capitalism. Would you prefer we went back to pre-Industrial Revolution times?

You would not be here debating the merits of Capitalism on the Internet were it not for Capitalism.

 

[Orthogonal]

I'm talking about animal abuse and abusing workers in horrible conditions.

Ah, I see. I would say that technically doesnt fall under "regulation". We have laws against harming people and animals, we just need to enforce them. These laws apply to companies and individuals alike since they arent about markets.

 

[Ogodei]

It's better than other systems for promoting prosperity and development (and, importantly, human dignity). It just needs to be managed so that the incentives for exploitation and destruction (less dignity) are minimized. Progressive capital taxation is the way forward. In the very long window, such taxation should be global, to ensure equitable wealth distribution not only within nations but amongst them, however that dream is very far off.

 

[BrokenIcarus]

Ah, I see. I would say that technically doesnt fall under "regulation". We have laws against harming people and animals, we just need to enforce them. These laws apply to companies and individuals alike since they arent about markets.

I'm not sure, if you have no regulations like in the time of the industrial revolution, capitalists don't pay their workers their fair share, the government needs to intervene to give the workers a living minimum wage. Is that not regulation?

 

[Giant Panda]

I'm talking about animal abuse and abusing workers in horrible conditions.

If the workers are free people, then they are working in those conditions voluntarily. If they thought they could get a better job elsewhere they would. Most capitalist economies have a minimum standard for conditions, which I think is good, but it would be a mistake to set really high working conditions standards.

 

[jackissocool]

And I think this is a very wrong ideology... That it has to be all or nothing. Pure capitalism is bad but so is pure socialism. Different systems work best for different things. All of them have flaws and you have to look at the strengths and flaws to figure out what best fits where. We already have a mix of socialist and capitalist systems so that already proves you wrong that you can't have both.

Really? In what way do we have a mix of both systems? The means of production are privately owned and used to extract profit from the working class. That's capitalism pure and simple. Where does worker ownership of the means of production fit into that? They are inherently contradictory.

Welfare is not socialism. Government utilities are not socialism. Universal healthcare and free college are not socialism.

If the workers are free people, then they are working in those conditions voluntarily. If they thought they could get a better job elsewhere they would. Most capitalist economies have a minimum standard for conditions, which I think is good, but it would be a mistake to set really high working conditions standards.

Go ahead and tell all the suffering workers all over the world to get a better job and that we shouldn't value their safety too highly. If all of their options are bad, what choice do they have? Especially when you consider the process of enclosure, where people have their property taken from them by governments and private companies and are then forced to work for the people who took their land for the profit of the thieves.

 

[Shalashaska161]

Capitalism is fine, I think it's proven to be an amazing way to get humanity to keep pushing itself forward. However, capitalism without regulation for those at the top and a solid social safety net for those at the bottom however is not good. There is a balancing act that needs to be maintained, which, at least here in North America, we haven't been particularly good at IMO.

 

[Orthogonal]

I'm not sure, if you have no regulations like in the time of the industrial revolution, capitalists don't pay their workers their fair share, the government needs to intervene to give the workers a living minimum wage. Is that not regulation?

Your comment was about "abusing" workers, not their wages. Different subjects.

If people feel they arent getting a fair wage, they can quit. The factory offers a choice that wasnt there before. They can choose to work there or do whatever else they would have had a factory not come into existence.

 

[br3wnor]

Capitalism really is the only system we've used so far that for the most part will reward hard work over not working. Granted I'm saying this as a white guy who grew up lower-middle class, and I understand some people in the US are basically fucked from birth when it comes to earnings potential and getting themselves out of poverty, but socialism isn't the answer. A more balanced, regulated capitalism I think would be my ideal. Reward hard work, have social safety nets in place and programs to help disenfranchised populations get out of their cycle of poverty, but I can't support the idea of pure socialism like I used to where everyone gets a similar share of the pie no matter their output, just isn't fair.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Heavily regulated capitalism is a necessary evil until we reach a point where there is no longer any value in labor.

We should be transitioning to a more planned economy at this point in preparation for the end of labor and the market.

 

[Giant Panda]

Go ahead and tell all the suffering workers all over the world to get a better job and that we shouldn't value their safety too highly. If all of their options are bad, what choice do they have? Especially when you consider the process of enclosure, where people have their property taken from them by governments and private companies and are then forced to work for the people who took their land for the profit of the thieves.

Not sure what the bolded has to do with capitalism, that sounds like a corrupt and cruel government. As to your other point, even if all of their options are considered bad, the only way the set of options could be improved is if they become more valuable as a worker or if they hurt others to improve their own conditions. Excessive working conditions create higher costs for employers, which results in them hiring less, which would cause other workers to suffer. This is the same reason why the minimum wage is bad at reducing poverty compared to some other options like wage subsidies or tax credits.

 

[Orthogonal]

Really? In what way do we have a mix of both systems? The means of production are privately owned and used to extract profit from the working class. That's capitalism pure and simple. Where does worker ownership of the means of production fit into that? They are inherently contradictory.

Welfare is not socialism. Government utilities are not socialism. Universal healthcare and free college are not socialism.

This does not make sense. Ok, we have privately owned means of production, but Welfare, Universal Healthcare, Free Education are a means of collectivizing the fruits of private ownership. How is that not Socialism?

 

[zoozilla]

I agree with most posters in this thread, I guess. I'm for capitalism that's thoroughly regulated and checked.

Competition in a marketplace can be a great thing - it drives prices down, increases the rate of technological progress, and generally increases wealth.

The problem is that unless you have strict watchdog organizations, many marketplaces will fall to a monopoly, which undoes much of the good of a capitalist system.

A bunch of drug companies competing against each other to provide the best possible drugs at the lowest possible prices? Awesome!

Drug companies using patents so they have an effective monopoly on certain drugs for decades? Severely limited competition keeping prices high? Not so awesome.

Every time a company manages to monopolize a market, consumers see less of the benefits of a free market system. Look at Intel and the way their CPUs produce smaller gains as each generation is released. Hell, look at EA and some of their sports franchises like Madden or FIFA. Not having a system in place to prevent anti-competitive practices makes capitalism a drag for everyone except the monopolizers.