Support NeoGAF

[True Savior]

Nay, nay , nay.

We, naturally, live as a community. We should have a system that takes advantage of that.

Yay. It's done a lot to reduce extreme poverty in modern history.,

Adopting a liberal, democratic, capitalistic government is almost a guarantee for success.

Extreme poverty hasn't been reduced because of capitalism. It only accentuated the enormous inequality between people.

The best countries in the world have a mix of capitalism and socialism. Socialism for basic human and societal needs, capitalism for everything else (including private "elite" alternatives to those basic human needs).

That "capitalism" is very different than the natural individualistic capitalism. The nature of the person, the education they have and their concepts and goals for personal wealth is utterly different.

 

[Rentahamster]

The most capitalist country around today - America - has produced the largest volume of poverty and inequality of the developed world. Look in its own borders. Its failure is it's only that.

I think the notion of ownership, control, and the like are all bullshit, but I'll save the meta not-self commentary for another day. Knowing getting that type of model demands the social rejection of various norms, memes, and cultural illusions, I would not mind capitalism if it had a net, not a void. I can settle for that with the various ghosts we have.

I think the social mandation of labor and how it's used as an ultimatum is one of the greatest human failures ever evocated onto this world, because it renders the "have nots" to suffer, even through no fault of their own. At the very least, the future demands redistribution of wealth as we enter the Second Machine Age, and while America will probably be the last place ever to accept this, if it does not, its society will literally burn to ashes before the end of this century.

I guess I am full blown Nay to pure Capitalism. Such a social model and its ideas produces holes and illusions, so it makes it hard to justify by itself.

If we're going to use the guilt by association argument, then what happens when I point out all the shitty things that the USSR, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea have done too? Mass starvation due to bad management of scarce resources just doesn't happen out of nowhere, too.

Even China experienced its greatest reduction in extreme poverty after Deng Xiaoping reformed the economy.

 

[Cryxo93]

Yay for free markets and self-autonomy, nay for unregulated companies creating monopolies and not paying tax etc...
Capitalist Socialism for the win?? Imagine how much could be funded/resolved if it were for major corporates paying their tax.

 

[Zaru]

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.

I'm genuinely curious what kind of living standard you expect to attain in a world like that. I guess you don't mind setting back humanity by a couple hundred years.

 

[Rentahamster]

Extreme poverty hasn't been reduced because of capitalism. It only accentuated the enormous inequality between people.

So what then, if it wasn't at least partially influenced by capitalism, changed that allowed all these countries to get out of extreme poverty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

 

[SMattera]

Extreme poverty hasn't been reduced because of capitalism. It only accentuated the enormous inequality between people.

What has reduced it then?

 

[kavanf1]

I have not, why do you ask?

I think you would enjoy it and it would give you food for thought on the dangers of subscribing too strongly to any one ideology. Not saying you are doing that, but I think it's essential reading. The animals begin to run the farm under the slogan "all animals are equal". Eventually the pigs, who control the farm's government, change the slogan to "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". It's a commentary on how power corrupts, and the hypocrisy inherent in a government telling everyone that they belong to a nation of equals while clearly favouring one particular group.

 

[SMattera]

The most capitalist country around today - America - has produced the largest volume of poverty and inequality of the developed world. Look in its own borders. Its failure is it's only that.

Poverty =/= inequality

The poor in the United States are vastly better off then the starving in North Korea.

Every developed country on earth uses capitalism (not a coincidence). Don't confuse a strong social safety net with the absence of a market based economy.

 

[Alienous]

I've said it on GAF before but I'm all for capitalism, but on a solid foundation.

Bring everyone up to a minimum acceptable standard of living. Food, housing, water, electricity, education, medical care (etc). Protect those like the human rights they are and be unwavering in enforcing them.

After that I could give a shit that people are playing the capitalism game. You want 12 Aston Martins and are willing to provide value to others to get them? Go for it, buddy. You want to live your life un-fucked by that person's pursuit of wealth? Yeah, you absolutely should be able to.

 

[kavanf1]

Animal Farm was written by a hardcore socialist who expressed admiration for anarchist-communists and the like (read Homage to Catalonia). It's an anti-Stalinist work, not anti-communist or socialist, if that's where you're aiming.

Socialism doesn't need to have anything to do with "government knowing best," by the way. It's about the social ownership of the means of production. Worker owned and run companies. Industry for use, rather than profit. Communes, unions, and the like instead of corporations and private (different from personal) ownership. Government is only an apparatus to confederate these units, and even that is theoretically made obsolete under full communism. Abolition of the state is one of the ultimate aims of most left-wing ideologies, Marxist communists and anarchists alike. Bernie Sanders and his "Nordic country" examples and aspirations aren't really under this fold. He and they are a social democrat and social democracies, which no serious socialist would really claim to be ideal.

Communism fails because people are people. Everything equal for everyone is an admirable notion, but it fails miserably in real life. Perhaps in time human beings will have evolved not to be inherently selfish, but as long as we are the way we are, communism can't work. It is too idealistic.

 

[Rentahamster]

Don't confuse a strong social safety net with the absence of a market based economy.

Yep. As I've said before, historically speaking, liberal capitalist democracy is a country's win button. The capitalism part gives the economic tools needed for anyone to create value and trade it with others, creating wealth. The liberal democracy part ensures rights for all, minority protection, equal representation, and the power to regulate that wealth.

It hasn't worked perfectly for every country due to a plethora of reasons, but in aggregate, it's been a lot better than most other systems humans have come up with in the last 2000 years.

 

[True Savior]

So what then, if it wasn't at least partially influenced by capitalism, changed that allowed all these countries to get out of extreme poverty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

What has reduced it then?

Mostly the natural evolution of our societies, the influence of power-institutions and the variation of statistical thresholds.

I recommend reading the Human Development Reports of the United Nations to understand the fucked up world we live.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2014

As for income inequality, the gap has become larger in the last 20 years. Because of capitalism. That is unacceptable.

 

[Lagunamov]

I don't give more than 5 or 10 years to the capitalism. China is crashing, the fuels too... We are gonna live a major crisis soon.

 

[kavanf1]

As for income inequality, the gap has become larger in the last 20 years. Because of capitalism. That is unacceptable.

I would like to see analysis done on the relative living standards globally. My limited understanding is that capitalism does make the rich richer, but it also has the benefit of increasing the base living standard for everyone. For example, people classed by government as living in poverty in wealthy Western countries with a foundation in capitalism have generally speaking a comparatively better standard of living than people in poverty in third world countries run as dictatorships and/or communist states.

Elimination of poverty is certainly an ideal to aim for, but in the meantime it seems like capitalism, for all its flaws, is the least worst option in terms of improving everyone's living standards. Other options have demonstrably failed to achieve better outcomes.

 

[True Savior]

Poverty =/= inequality

The poor in the United States are vastly better off then the starving in North Korea.

Every developed country on earth uses capitalism (not a coincidence). Don't confuse a strong social safety net with the absence of a market based economy.

liberal market economies =/= coordinated market economies

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The concept of capitalism has been heavily dosed with poison. The requirement that economies have to be continuously rapidly growing. Financial systems becoming too complicated and detached from the real world. The idea that capitalism is the thing that giant corporations do and that their only "moral" responsibility is to show shareholders that they are generating profits or growth.

To say that you love capitalism is to say that you love corruption and immorality. Which is fine, I guess, I don't judge. Unless you are a "fan" of Apple or something. There are limits.

 

[Malfunky]

Communism fails because people are people. Everything equal for everyone is an admirable notion, but it fails miserably in real life. Perhaps in time human beings will have evolved not to be inherently selfish, but as long as we are the way we are, communism can't work. It is too idealistic.

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.

 

[True Savior]

I would like to see analysis done on the relative living standards globally. My limited understanding is that capitalism does make the rich richer, but it also has the benefit of increasing the base living standard for everyone. For example, people classed by government as living in poverty in wealthy Western countries with a foundation in capitalism have generally speaking a comparatively better standard of living than people in poverty in third world countries run as dictatorships and/or communist states.

Elimination of poverty is certainly an ideal to aim for, but in the meantime it seems like capitalism, for all its flaws, is the least worst option in terms of improving everyone's living standards. Other options have demonstrably failed to achieve better outcomes.

Depends of the definition of living standard. Typical human development indexes can be separated in health/education/income. Science skyrocketed health indexes. We have better education. But income has a backwards trend. That is unacceptable as we developed so much as societies.

You can check correlation between inequality and social problems. It's incredible the trends. One of those is child-well being.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/SpiritLevel slides.pptx

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Businesses/Greed/Organizations need to be regulated end of story.

The free market system needs to be further scrutinised.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

Yay for lack of a better option. Once one is found ( that can actually be implemented realistically) then we should go for that instead.

 

[mrklaw]

Are you talking about Soros shorting the pound? If so can you please explain (specifically) what you find improper.

The way the bankers (inc Soros) invested against the currency, effectively fucking the exchange rate to a point where interest rates skyrocketed and forced an exit.

Now, from a purely capitalist perspective, that is the correct thing to do. You're making shitloads off the back of it. Great. But you're potentially damaging the economy of an entire country, impacting millions of lives, and causing political upheaval across an entire continent.

I cannot agree with a model that supports and even encourages that sort of action.



I also think it is entirely unsustainable. Current economic headaches are caused in part by China not growing fast enough. It was sluggish before and everyone hoped China would be the new engine that would buy all our shit. But it wasn't. Eventually we'll run out of poor countries to move our cheap production into - then what? You can't continue to grow forever.

China its fucked up - who gets to choose who has a shot at being a millionaire Vs staying in the villages farming crops for a pittance to feed those millionaires? Its a weird, fucked up capitalist/communist construct that is just odd. Are they hoping to eventually sweep across the entire country with that view or hoping the disenfranchised don't revolt?

 

[Malfunky]

So what then, if it wasn't at least partially influenced by capitalism, changed that allowed all these countries to get out of extreme poverty?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Isn't it also accurate to say that it is capitalism that created and/or exacerbated these conditions of disparity to begin with?

Also, in a world driven by capital: isn't it redundant to say that capitalism has influenced anything? Of course it has. It's inescapable. Capitalism has influenced and fostered even anti-capitalism.

Industrialization and scientific/technological advancement are large reasons for advancements in human civilization and they exist separate of any specific economic system. You can argue for their propagation under capitalism, but we have seen them exist elsewhere. Just because a system is dominant, doesn't mean it's better.

For example: slavery. It brought millions of people into civilized society. It helped civilization advance scientifically. Brought wealth to nations. The descendents of these slaves later became full-fledged members of the societies they helped build, helping to create multi-cultural, multi-ethnic communities across the globe. It was once thought necessary. It was once thought good. Like capitalism, it doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a better alternative.

 

[WinterX]

I come from a country which was "ruled" by communism once for a long time. Anyone saying 'nay' for capitalism should be punished entirely. There's no better idea for humanity at the moment. Nevertheless, corposhit should be more under controle.

1% of human population controls 99% wealth. Seems quite unfair. Redistribution is the key here.

 

[Nabbis]

Capitalism will be obsolete when advanced automation hits. Any reason to keep it at that point is comic-book villain nepotism.

 

[UberLevi]

I vote yes on capitalism, with the stipulation that it could be handled better. Regulations near the top and such.

 

[riverboatgambler]

I come from a country which was "ruled" by communism once for a long time. Anyone saying 'nay' for capitalism should be punished entirely. There's no better idea for humanity at the moment. Nevertheless, corposhit should be more under controle.

1% of human population controls 99% wealth. Seems quite unfair. Redistribution is the key here.

Trouble is power accumulates to the few in all economic systems, including feudal and tribal societies.

As for socialism, its still based on the notion that political interest is somehow more noble than economic interest. Capitalist robber barons just become corrupt bureaucrats in a socialist system.

 

[mrklaw]

I come from a country which was "ruled" by communism once for a long time. Anyone saying 'nay' for capitalism should be punished entirely. There's no better idea for humanity at the moment. Nevertheless, corposhit should be more under controle.

1% of human population controls 99% wealth. Seems quite unfair. Redistribution is the key here.

so if you had a spectrum with full on communism/marxism on the left, and full blown unrestricted capitalism on the right, the ideal spot would be somewhere closer to the middle. Some elements from capitalism, some from socialism.

 

[GeordieMark]

Yay, but with checks and balances.

 

[Razorback]

I think capitalism was a decent solution for the problems of the 20th century. I'm convinced it's becoming increasingly a worse idea as we go deeper into the 21st.

 

[Lafiel]

I'm a socialist and a marxist but I take the position on the question of Capitalism with a mixed response.

On the negative thing it is a economic system that absolutely thrives on injustice and exploitation and is the root cause of a lot of suffering in the world today. Yet on the other hand it's the prosperous economic system that has being ever devised up to this point and has increased the material wealth and our standards of living by a fifth degree.

Now the reason I call myself a socialist? I don't think the system we have is sustainable to any degree and I think there's a pressing need to build a alternative especially in light of climate change, automation and the growing concentration of wealth into the 1%. We can't live with this shit and be content that this is the best we have got.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

I'm a socialist and a marxist but I take the position on the question of Capitalism with a mixed response.

On the negative thing it is a economic system that absolutely thrives on injustice and exploitation and is the root cause of a lot of suffering in the world today. Yet on the other hand it's the prosperous economic system that has being ever devised up to this point and has increased the material wealth and our standards of living by a fifth degree.

Now the reason I call myself a socialist? I don't think the system we have is sustainable to any degree and I think there's a pressing need to build a alternative especially in light of climate change, automation and the growing concentration of wealth into the 1%. We can't live with this shit and be content that this is the best we have got.

We're not, but i can imagine the 1% are, which is really all that matters since they're also the only ones capable of changing the system

 

[Rentahamster]

Isn't it also accurate to say that it is capitalism that created and/or exacerbated these conditions of disparity to begin with?

I'd say that Europe lucked out on their starting resources and got a head start on everyone else and also exported imperialism, which pushed down other countries as well.

Laissez-faire and the concept of a free market economy were very new ideas at the start of the 19th century. While one could argue that forms of capitalism existed before then, I don't think they were very relevant until the late 18th/early 19th century. Since then, countries that have adopted liberal, capitalist, democracies, have done much better for themselves, generally speaking.

so if you had a spectrum with full on communism/marxism on the left, and full blown unrestricted capitalism on the right, the ideal spot would be somewhere closer to the middle. Some elements from capitalism, some from socialism.

I don't think the private ownership over the means of production can be reconciled, or share a spot in the middle, with the idea of the public ownership over the means of production. What you describe is probably closer to free market economies, with regulation in place to stop abuse, and programs in place to help the poor and moderate the income gap.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Capitalism will be obsolete when advanced automation hits. Any reason to keep it at that point is comic-book villain nepotism.

Pardon my ignorance, but isnt advancef automization an offshoot born from capitalism?

 

[jamesmccloud]

Nay. Obviously it's a better system then state controlled central planning, but likewise it should be obvious by now that capitalism suffers from serious problems when it comes matching supply and demand, addressing environmental problems and perhaps especially providing people with meaningful freedoms. The last bit may especially sound crazy, as it's so often repeated that that's the one thing capitalism excels at. But it all comes down to price signals and who can affect them, so what is perceived as demand can be quite arbitrary thing by few rich people.

This quite theoretic lecture still goes through examples of all of these key problems, and is definitely worth checking out:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cUlefQePAd8

The question how to improve the economy and create a viable economy that corrects flaws of capitalism structurally rather than putting band aid to singular problems is a separate one, though even that is mentioned at the end of that video.

 

[Nabbis]

Pardon my ignorance, but isnt advancef automization an offshoot born from capitalism?

As far as im aware, science predates capitalism. This is even more silly to say due to the fact that USSR did manage to compete in the space race.

 

[mellz]

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

Yay for regulated Capitalism with ideas borrowed from Socialism, such as universal healthcare and a safety net for all.

Nay for unregulated Capitalism

Pretty simple, really.

The best countries in the world have a mix of capitalism and socialism. Socialism for basic human and societal needs, capitalism for everything else (including private "elite" alternatives to those basic human needs).

I wish the whole world was Norway. So, yay (with a heavy dose of socialist health care and benefits).

Why does the world benefit from a system that allows for poverty and homelessness to be no one's problem?

More over, I don't think it is government policy that has everything to do with a kind and high-standard society, it's culture and the spread of good values.

Which, by the way, religion isn't very good at spreading.

You can't mix socialism and capitalism. Welfare isn't socialism.

 

[G.O.O.]

interestingly, fucking goldman sachs is starting to doubt capitalism

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...damentally-question-how-capitalism-is-working

 

[RoadHazard]

Yes, mixed with socialism. Too much or too little of either is not a good thing. For example, what we're doing here in Sweden (which seems to be working pretty well) is far from pure socialism like some people (main Americans) seem to think. We're a capitalist society in many ways, but with a good dose of socialism mixed in to provide safety nets for people, "free" education and healthcare, etc.

 

[Tomasoares]

Capitalism isn't something that a bunch of people reunited and said "now lets make capitalism!", it's just a consequence of people being allowed by the state to trade something they own for another. Money is just an abstraction to to make these transactions easier. If you want to kill capitalism you'll have to kill people's freedom and take away their right for private property.

In the end you can't have a system that is 0% capitalist (state owns everything you have, including your body -> North Korea is the closest) or 100% (with no state at all), it's always going to be somethng between, at least for current times. For me, I'm fine with a freer economy, with the state focusing on resource where he can be more efficient, such as social measures (far from "free" healthcare or education, though, since it is not free), ambiental environment care, safety and law/justice lol

 

[RoadHazard]

You can't mix socialism and capitalism. Welfare isn't socialism.

Guess Sweden (or any Scandinavian country) doesn't actually have socialism then. Because we sure as hell have capitalism, it just isn't what governs everything in our society.

Here's a quote which I guess sums it up rather well:

Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics and socialist values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

[mellz]

Yes, mixed with socialism. Too much or too little of either is not a good thing. For example, what we're doing here in Sweden (which seems to be working pretty well) is far from pure socialism like some people (main Americans) seem to think. We're a capitalist society in many ways, but with a good dose of socialism mixed in to provide safety nets for people, "free" education and healthcare, etc.

Explain how Sweden has socialism. The means of production are not worker owned.

 

[RoadHazard]

Explain how Sweden has socialism. The means of production are not worker owned.

Yeah, you're right, I should have said "capitalism with a good dose of socialist values". We don't have actual socialism. But Americans often sure seem to believe so!

 

[riverboatgambler]

Yes, mixed with socialism. Too much or too little of either is not a good thing. For example, what we're doing here in Sweden (which seems to be working pretty well) is far from pure socialism like some people (main Americans) seem to think. We're a capitalist society in many ways, but with a good dose of socialism mixed in to provide safety nets for people, "free" education and healthcare, etc.

Weath inequality is about as bad in Sweden as it is in the US, income inequality is better in Sweden though. The top 1% of Sweden is mostly dynastic wealth being passed through generations, in the US it's mostly self starters in the tech or extraction industries. European countries are also worse for migrants than the US when it comes to income mobility. It's a complicated picture, it's not as simple as the Nordic countries being some utopia.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Mixed. It's good that if you try hard you can make more, however, the shoe in the US is so far on the other richer person's foot, that you end up paying your employers way more than you ever get out of it.

The capitalism in America isn't capitalism at all. There's almost no way to do better by trying harder.

 

[kiguel182]

Mixed with socialism like we have in Europe: Yes.

Extreme like it is in the US: No, thanks.

 

[kiguel182]

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

If the world cup threads taught me anything is that freedom only exists in the US.

 

[mellz]

Mixed. It's good that if you try hard you can make more, however, the shoe in the US is so far on the other richer person's foot, that you end up paying your employers way more than you ever get out of it.

The capitalism in America isn't capitalism at all. There's almost no way to do better by trying harder.

Still can't be mixed really. This thread shows that a lot of people have no idea what socialism, communism, anarchism etc is.

 

[HarryHengst]

Nay, because it is simply incapable of being regulated over a long period of time, no matter how hard we try. A market economy is probably fine, but capitalism is not necessary to have it.

Capitalism is the least worst option. It can be kept in check by the government having strong social policies to look after all of its population. I think when most people talk about socialism they are talking about capitalism with a strong social element.

Socialism in isolation is an ideology based on the notion that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. If there's one thing more fucked up than people working to accumulate wealth for themselves at the expense of others, it's people who think that they know best how to spend other people's money. Both are prone to absolute corruption, because people are at their core. Socialism on its own ultimately can't work because it ends up exactly the same as the worst aspects of capitalism, only with zero accountability.

Spoiler

I doubt GAF will like this post but fuck it.

No. Socialism is about placing the means of production in the hands of the workers. And yes, this can be interpreted as a planned economy, but its not necessary. Please dont conflate the two, because socialism is an ideology which encompasses a whole lot more than just USSR-style planned economies. Laissez-faire capitalism also isnt the only form of capitalism and shouldnt be equated.

 

[Infinite]

Capitalism but heavily taxed and regulated with humane labor standards

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Capitalism is garbage full communism now

Ok that's a bit of an exaggeration but I generally don't like capitalism as a system. Exploits people's labour for the gain of others. I mean any system where you are in a position to increase what you have purely because you already own something (i.e. private rent) seems really gross to me.