What is Capitalism?

[shmogie]

capitalism is mostly gone, left overs is some small countries, it i s corporate capitalism now, different thing...

Crony capitalism, right.

 

[dfnj]

10 Tragic Times The US Government Massacred Striking Workers - Listverse

You might like this video:

The Power Principle | Metanoia Films

Of course, once you go down the rabbit hole there is no going back!

 

[dfnj]

You obviously have no understanding of the differences between crony capitalism, and true capitalism.

Obviously you did not read what I wrote. How do you stop people from gaming the system?

 

[Shad]

Wow, I never expect you to be pro-worker.

I never made that point. I am pointing out your source omits information thus is misleading.

I'm glad to see you have some shreds of humanity. You might like these op-eds on the topic of capitalism:

Capitalism Archives | Truthout

Here's a good article:

How Economists Tricked Us Into Thinking Capitalism Works

A bunch of random links means nothing. Provide a specific link to something you want to discuss.

 

[Stevicus]

According to Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

How we define capitalism tends to relate to where we are on the political spectrum. On the right, capitalism tends to be defined exclusively by the dominance of private property within our economic relations. This often comes with the assumption that property and individual freedom are directly linked and free markets are built on voluntary relations so that capitalism cannot be held responsible for the evils of slavery, colonialism or fascism. On the left, capitalism is defined as a socio-economic system in which there is class rule by a capitalist class and so is compatible with a degree of public ownership, deficit spending, government regulation and intervention. Marxists hold capitalism responsible for its actions as a class, as a socio-economic system and blame capitalists for fascism, wars of territorial expansion, the genocide and enslavement of indigenous people and the transformation of self-governing peoples in to colonial territories to control resources (including people themselves).

Often those on the right tend to say that the problem with contemporary politics is that there is too much socialism by which they mean government ownership and control. The solution they suggest is to increase the level of privatisation, deregulate markets and business and reduce both taxes and spending by government. Those of the centre-left sort of agree, but insist that there needs to be more government ownership and control to avert crises and to reduce the symptoms of decay which could ultimately causes major social conflicts and revolutionary upheaval.

By contrast, those on the far left argue that even with state intervention in the economy, it is not possible to avert crises of over production, poverty, unemployment and war. These are simply features of the capitalist mode of production which operate through objective laws in which the pursuit of profit culminates in the anarchy of competition in production between individuals, companies and ultimately (capitalist) governments competing over resources between various states in wars.

Again, how we define capitalism defines how we think about it's future. Many of the right will insist that capitalism is natural, either as a fixed product of human nature (even sanctified by god as a moral order), or else the culmination of a biological instinct towards selfishness, egotism and personal profit and the evolutionary struggle for resources. On the left however, capitalism is seen as an exploiting society riddled with class conflicts and social antagonisms, built on exploitation and destined to fail under the weight of the social conflicts it creates and the way these lead to irrational patterns of mismanagement in production, driven by profit-maximising, competition or the lack there of such as economic crises, environmental degradation and highly profitable but wasteful and destructive armaments industries. The far left argues that capitalism is but a phase of human history and that profit and private property are not the eternal products of human nature or god, but simply the most convenient arrangements within a class society on a given development of technology, science and the organisation of production.

The video below presents a Marxist position on the definition of capitalism and sets out how it affects our perceptions of the legitimacy and justness of capitalism as a socio-economic system and evaluate it's future. (it may be heavy on Marxist terminology, but it reflects such views on capitalism fairly well.)

The power of these definition is enormous. An ideological struggle is waged to define capitalism and then to determine its legitimacy and whether it is going to last forever or faces ultimate collapse. Is China a Communist State or a Capitalist one? Were the Nazis Socialist tyrants or architects of a capitalist reaction? Is America's problem that it has become too "socialist" and needs greater deregulation and privatisation or that it isn't "socialist" enough with nationalisation, regulation, central planning and even violent revolution?

What do you think? How do you define capitalism? And do you believe it matters and effects how you see the world and behave within it? Do you think capitalism is the natural order or a historical phase that is destined to be overcome by a new socio-economic system?

I think the key thing to consider first is that, regardless of whatever economic system is in place, a government can still be elected by the people and made accountable to the people - provided there is a vigilant populace and a firm commitment to human rights. There's nothing inherent in the definitions of either system which would include a commitment to human rights or any kind of constitutional protections - other than property rights, but even then, there's no guarantee that they would be equal rights. The opposite is also true. There's nothing inherent in the definition of either system which would imply "tyranny," although such is possible under either system.

One thing about capitalism is that, historically, it has had to be reined in by some sort of state authority - or directly challenged by worker strikes, revolts, or other unrest - before they would actually change their ways. It ran amok for quite some time during the colonial era - not just in America and Europe, but throughout the world. But there was also resistance and revolution, such as the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. Then there was similar resistance to slavery in the Americas, which led to the Civil War. In the industrialized world, there was more and more worker discontent and a growing call for reforms.

In the democratic societies of the West, the governments were compelled to heed the growing discontent and public opinion, so there was a greater emphasis on compromise and reform (although even that was a long and arduous struggle, as capitalists were notoriously stubborn).

When I was born and growing up, capitalism was flourishing in America, and life was overall much better than previous generations had seen - and I knew this because my grandparents told me over and over and over. But it was largely true, as America's standard of living had improved immensely than what was seen prior to WW2. Civil rights was also gaining more support, and Americans felt that they had a larger role to fulfill in defending freedom from the communists. Somehow, this also meant ardent support of capitalism as a matter of national priority.

That's the part that's always mystified me, this idea that capitalism is tied in with US patriotism. That seems antithetical to the founding principles of America, to believe that you have to think a certain way or support a specific set of economic policies - or else you're "un-American." It's that kind of thinking which has poisoned any real honest and frank discussion of economic policy in the U.S.

It's kind of absurd, when you think about it. An American citizen who's never done anything wrong in their life is suddenly associated with the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia - just because they want more affordable healthcare for all. Someone wants a better standard of living for workers, and suddenly they're associated with Chairman Mao. It's not as bad as it was under McCarthyism, but we still have that pall remaining as a kind of holdover.

I guess it all ties in to the question of "what is capitalism?" The dry definition as it might exist in a dictionary or economic textbook might say what it is, but I think it also has to be measured in terms of its political impact in whatever society it exists. Those who are staunch advocates for capitalism favor a certain set of government policies - usually lower (or no) taxes, deregulation, free trade, and little to no government intervention in the free market. There are liberals and progressives who also support capitalism, yet favor more government intervention, more of a mixed economy balancing private and public sector concerns.

But there are also global concerns, since there are still huge imbalances in wealth and standard of living. A lot of countries in this world are still in dire straits, while capitalists have profited from their cheap labor and resources. It has also weakened the bargaining power of workers in the West, since capitalists have access to a much larger pool of labor, most of whom live under governments who are ostensibly friendly to the interests of multi-national corporations.

Of course, not all of these countries are "free" by Western standards. They don't have the same kind of protections for workers or labor laws that we've grown accustomed to in the West. This is where part of the problem comes in, and frankly, neither party has really addressed this in earnest.

As for the idea of capitalism being "natural," I think that's not quite correct. I think that economics is merely a sub-set of politics, which is an essential component of any human society, even at its most primitive level. So, in any transaction or agreement, there's going to be a certain give and take with some presumption of mutual benefit. "A deal is a deal" was an idea which seemed to be common in all societies.

Of course, if that's all there was to "human nature," with humans as happy social animals working away at their craft and then selling their services on the open market for profit and mutual benefit - because everyone is expected to be honest, non-violent, decent, and ethical - then that would be wonderful. But that's certainly not "natural" by any measure of human history.

No, humans are basically just a bunch of animals who happen to be slightly smarter than most of the other animals. So, we've had to use force to protect our stuff, as well as use it to take stuff from others. That's what seems more "natural" in terms of the reality of human history, despite whatever parlor discussions there might be on capitalism being "natural." Naturally, those who provide the "force" in protecting and advancing the economic interests of their society tended to rise to the top. That's where governments, nation-states, and empires come into the equation.

If socialism is characterized as government or "state control," then socialism can be considered just as "natural" as capitalism. But then, the question is not so much a matter of "what is capitalism" or "what is socialism," but rather, "What is the State?" What is the State's role in a society? That might be a good topic for another thread.

 

[74x12]

According to Wikipedia:

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

How we define capitalism tends to relate to where we are on the political spectrum. On the right, capitalism tends to be defined exclusively by the dominance of private property within our economic relations. This often comes with the assumption that property and individual freedom are directly linked and free markets are built on voluntary relations so that capitalism cannot be held responsible for the evils of slavery, colonialism or fascism. On the left, capitalism is defined as a socio-economic system in which there is class rule by a capitalist class and so is compatible with a degree of public ownership, deficit spending, government regulation and intervention. Marxists hold capitalism responsible for its actions as a class, as a socio-economic system and blame capitalists for fascism, wars of territorial expansion, the genocide and enslavement of indigenous people and the transformation of self-governing peoples in to colonial territories to control resources (including people themselves).

Often those on the right tend to say that the problem with contemporary politics is that there is too much socialism by which they mean government ownership and control. The solution they suggest is to increase the level of privatisation, deregulate markets and business and reduce both taxes and spending by government. Those of the centre-left sort of agree, but insist that there needs to be more government ownership and control to avert crises and to reduce the symptoms of decay which could ultimately causes major social conflicts and revolutionary upheaval.

By contrast, those on the far left argue that even with state intervention in the economy, it is not possible to avert crises of over production, poverty, unemployment and war. These are simply features of the capitalist mode of production which operate through objective laws in which the pursuit of profit culminates in the anarchy of competition in production between individuals, companies and ultimately (capitalist) governments competing over resources between various states in wars.

Again, how we define capitalism defines how we think about it's future. Many of the right will insist that capitalism is natural, either as a fixed product of human nature (even sanctified by god as a moral order), or else the culmination of a biological instinct towards selfishness, egotism and personal profit and the evolutionary struggle for resources. On the left however, capitalism is seen as an exploiting society riddled with class conflicts and social antagonisms, built on exploitation and destined to fail under the weight of the social conflicts it creates and the way these lead to irrational patterns of mismanagement in production, driven by profit-maximising, competition or the lack there of such as economic crises, environmental degradation and highly profitable but wasteful and destructive armaments industries. The far left argues that capitalism is but a phase of human history and that profit and private property are not the eternal products of human nature or god, but simply the most convenient arrangements within a class society on a given development of technology, science and the organisation of production.

The video below presents a Marxist position on the definition of capitalism and sets out how it affects our perceptions of the legitimacy and justness of capitalism as a socio-economic system and evaluate it's future. (it may be heavy on Marxist terminology, but it reflects such views on capitalism fairly well.)

The power of these definition is enormous. An ideological struggle is waged to define capitalism and then to determine its legitimacy and whether it is going to last forever or faces ultimate collapse. Is China a Communist State or a Capitalist one? Were the Nazis Socialist tyrants or architects of a capitalist reaction? Is America's problem that it has become too "socialist" and needs greater deregulation and privatisation or that it isn't "socialist" enough with nationalisation, regulation, central planning and even violent revolution?

What do you think? How do you define capitalism? And do you believe it matters and effects how you see the world and behave within it? Do you think capitalism is the natural order or a historical phase that is destined to be overcome by a new socio-economic system?

Capitalism is rigged. Socialism is rigged. You can't even really depend that your sports games aren't fake, rigged show biz ...

Where is truth in the land? Everyone argues over economic models when that's not the real issue.

 

[shmogie]

Obviously you did not read what I wrote. How do you stop people from gaming the system?

Transparency and the informed market will keep the system from being gamed.

 

[leov]

Transparency and the informed market will keep the system from being gamed.

If you dumb down population no transparency helps...

 

[shmogie]

If you dumb down population no transparency helps...

Then the population is responsible for allowing itself to be dumbed down.

 

[syo]

Capitalism? No. Just no.

 

[leov]

Then the population is responsible for allowing itself to be dumbed down.

Partially, dumbing down is 'boiling the frog' process, half-truth deception.

 

[Augustus]

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

One problem with such definitions is that they don't differentiate between scales.

If we call the modern situation (for want of a better term) global corporationism, this is very different from localist market economies.

Global corporationism is certainly not a 'natural order of things' as it is the result of political institutions (globalisation is both technological and political, a distinction rarely noted).

Localised commerce, while perhaps not the natural order, might well be a natural order.

You are confused about crony capitalism, and true capitalism.

In a truly capitalist system, the market reflects the will of the people.

A truly capitalist system is without monopolies, and is truly transparent.

Private companies provide for the needs of the people. The market determines if the needs are being met, and ensures the companies are responsible to society.

Prices are based in supply and demand. Poor quality product, poor service, poor pricing are all corrected by a truly free market.

A company pollutes, and the people want it stopped, the market will speak very loudly, and stop the practice.

On and on it goes, the market can make a company successful, or cause a company to fail.

Transparency ensures that the market clearly sees what is occurring, and the market responds with what the people deem important.

Crony capitalism blocks transparency, ensures price fixing, encourages known. or unknown monopolies, and the people have little control in the market.

It's a bit like 'true communism' in that it never actually exists, but is just something that makes sense in theory, yet doesn't match the real world power dynamics and human failings that affect economic life.

Near perfect information (transparency) doesn't happen, corporations leverage their power to engage in rent seeking, CEOs engage in mergers and acquisitions as it benefits them, despite harming the consumer and often the company itself.

Scale damages everything, so you can get far closer to 'true capitalism' on a local scale than you can on a national or international. Communism also works on a small scale (although the scale it works roughly as intended on is far more sensitive to increases than capitalism: a commune can work, but not a city).

What you term crony capitalism is an unavoidable consequence of scale. What works for localism, does not survive the transition to internationalism, and certainly not globalism.

 

[dfnj]

Transparency and the informed market will keep the system from being gamed.

Which requires government to create policies of transparency and government to enforce government policies. Both of which are considered socialism bordering on communism and completely the antithesis of laissez faire capitalism. Your naivete is a bit irritating. Why would you think the leader of any international corporation is going to provide transparency or inform the market of anything? Especially if doing so would not be in the financial interests of the shareholders. The leaders of corporations are not going to volunteer any information that might result if a lawsuit unless they are compelled to do so by law.

Laissez faire capitalism always ends up with organized crime running the government shaking down the population into slavery. Socialism is the only answer to temper the excesses of capitalist greed. People are selfish and evil. Why would you ever think CEOs and board members would not be evil is beyond me.

 

[dfnj]

Again, how we define capitalism defines how we think about it's future. Many of the right will insist that capitalism is natural, either as a fixed product of human nature (even sanctified by god as a moral order), or else the culmination of a biological instinct towards selfishness, egotism and personal profit and the evolutionary struggle for resources.

What is natural is in the eye of the beholder. Many people on the right want slavery. Nothing is considered a valid justification on the right to limit profits. Maximizing profits to the shareholders is above every other consideration. Slavery is the final solution. Besides, even God and the Bible have sanctified slavery:

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)