Secret Chief
Degrow!
Rather like your American idea of what socialism is then.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Capitalism?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Capitalism is the most efficient way for resources, goods and services to be exchanged and utilized. Capitalism may be based on greed, but it also based on competition in a free market, with profit often requiring economy of scale, innovation, efficiency and customer service. You will not get any of these from government. Deficit spending is not good free market practice; the dodo bird of capitalism.
The biggest pitfall to the free market is government overreach. This where the inefficient tries to control the efficient. This will often have an adverse impact. For example, President Biden interfered in the free oil markets, to allow green energy to cheat the free markets. This created disadvantages for the free market oil, thereby causing the price to skyrocket, beyond even the wildest dreams of the greediest oil company. Almost all the down sides of Capitalism, can be traced to big inefficient government over reach. This is like having you worse worker leading the company.
As another example, many small businesses where wiped out by government, during Covid. In the end, this bonehead interference was never required. It was all about the politicians, show boating. Often what is blamed on free market, as its evil, can be traced back to government overreach and interference.
Nobody in the free market is an island. If you invent a new product that makes you money, others will copy, thereby driving the price down; supply and demand, requiring more innovation or economies of scale. With Big government, the opposite can happen, such as driving the price of oil, up, using unfair regulatory practices. The Robber Barons of old used politicians and big government to cheat the free market. The worse feature of Capitalism can be traced back to government overreach, via the bribery called campaign donations. Politicians do not have to take brides but many are corrupt.
Money and power run the world, with power not regulated like money. We tax money earned, but we do not tax power earned. Power is more under the free market rules, then is money.
When a politician takes campaign donations or agrees to a golden parachute, to vote a certain way, this is the free market of power, in action. He/she can choose which bribe to take and can negotiate cost. They will gravitate to the bribes that have the most profit for them. But those bribes are designed to buy power that can interfere in the free market of goods and services; regulatory state that can pick and chose winners. This is like sports, run by the bookies, which gives the free market a bad reputation.
The free market cannot cheat, without the help of politicians and local, state, Federal and International Governments. Tariffs and sales tax, for example, interfere with the free market and can be used to help one side cheat, within the free and open competition. It is easier for China to sell to the USA, than the other way around. It is not about quality differences, for the price, but government over reach or under reach.
The environmentalist used government and the power of the regulatory state to make nuclear power too expensive. This resulted in over dependence on oil, and now we have the fear of global warming. Nukes were around for 50-60 years ago, and if they had been more utilized, would have avoid the current fear. The same boneheads who screwed everyone, now think they have the answer to the problem they created. There is no law about interference in the free market, so they can use free market power to screw things up even worse, than the original nuke blunder. We may need to regulate the power free market.
If the oil companies had raised the price of oil, and caused a national wide inflation, we would investigate and fine people. If politicians do the same thing, they blame everyone but themselves with no investigation into themselves. They are free market.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think things becomes wrong when capitalism becomes predatory and used as a means of leverage for political and personal gains, well past the intent of providing and selling goods and services.
Scolopendra
Member
I totally agree. Sadly many jump to conclusions and equate capitalism with monopolies. A free market based on voluntary exchanges shouldn't be labeled as evil per se just like anarchy isn't simply destroying bank windows with molotovs
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Capitalism is the system by which socio-economical mobility was made possible; thereby replacing aristocracy with capitalists.
It was good then and achieved what it set out to do. It worked really rather well for approx. 200 years.
Eventually, it also led to its inevitable result: a privatised global monopoly, owned by the few, largest corporations.
Capitalism has reached its peak and it is once more time for something different to replace it with.
It will come and it too will be perfect for its time.
Humbly
Hermit
It was good then and achieved what it set out to do. It worked really rather well for approx. 200 years.
Eventually, it also led to its inevitable result: a privatised global monopoly, owned by the few, largest corporations.
Capitalism has reached its peak and it is once more time for something different to replace it with.
It will come and it too will be perfect for its time.
Humbly
Hermit
its a service to self action
I wouldn't consider it all that "voluntary," as people still have to live (unless you're saying that life itself is voluntary, which is true enough).
Various definitions have been offered thus far, but this one might be as good as any: What Is Capitalism? - Back to Basics - Finance & Development, June 2015 (imf.org)
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.
The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit. As Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher and father of modern economics, said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
In the time before industrialism, economic systems were more agrarian and feudal. Large cities like we have today were unheard of. It was commonly accepted that people were born into the class they were in, and there was very little economic mobility. As industrialism led to more machines, there became more of a need for workers in industry, while farming and agriculture started needing less workers. So, there was a slow, gradual shift from agrarianism to industrialism, as peasants started leaving the villages and found work in factories. Trouble was, the same feudal mentality still existed, as factory owners simply saw themselves as no different than feudal lords with the divine right to treat their peasants in any way they wished.
At first, it may have been difficult to fathom for many people, as they didn't know what to do or how to respond to the changes taking place. Work in factories was incredibly harsh and cruel, where it was typical to hear the sounds of screaming from children being beaten even to the late hours of the night. Machines were also replacing human muscle, which was also difficult for some people to accept, which is where the Luddites came from. People were facing a new kind of reality which had no historical precedent.
So, for the first generation or two, most people were pretty much bewildered and confused about industrialism and capitalism in general. But slowly but surely, people started to see what was going on. Also, the ideas of freedom, liberty, the rights of man, etc. were starting to gain more traction in the hearts and minds of people in more and more countries. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the leaders of Europe met and established the Metternich System, which, for all intents and purposes, was an agreement among the ruling classes of Europe to cooperate while they screw their own peasants and get even wealthier. That fell apart pretty quickly and culminated with the Revolutions of 1848 which affected numerous countries. (America took a different course at that time, as we were still involved in rapid expansionism with a growing rivalry between the industrial economy of the North and the agrarian plantation economy of the South, which was against industry in America.)
Eventually, it seemed clear to the rulers and political thinkers that capitalism couldn't operate in the same manner as feudal lords. For one thing, they were facing bigger cities and larger numbers of people concentrated in a single area. An uprising was not like some rural peasant revolt in some isolated region. More people meant bigger angry mobs outside the royal palace, and that prospect no doubt made a lot of aristocrats and nobles sit up and take notice. They realized they had to make some concessions and reforms, or else they'd be facing chaos and anarchy - and no one profits from that.
They didn't see social justice as some kind of liberal pablum, but more a matter of practical necessity. This is a key point which many modern-day neo-liberal anarch-capitalists fail to recognize, either because they haven't studied history or they simply don't understand cause and effect.
Napoleon III and Bismarck might be considered early examples of "social reformers," at least in the sense of advocating moderate reforms as a way of fending off the radicals of their time. Another interesting twist was that both were proponents and advocates of nationalism, which was also on the rise. That's been a significant key element which existed and grew alongside the growth and expansion of capitalism. The idea was to practice liberal social reform in the home country, which engenders goodwill and loyalty in the people, while simultaneously building up a sense of patriotism and nationalism to bring about a sense of unity and common purpose. They could still find greatness and increase their wealth by fighting and enslaving other nations and continents, while taking care of their own people. (In the U.S., the same basic principle was applied racially, with less of an emphasis on nationality, other than Americanism.)
Of course, capitalists and industrialists were okay with this, and in fact, industrialism was pretty neat in that factory owners and machine builders were being called upon to make better and more destructive weapons - and better ships and means to transport troops. The nations which had the industries and the know-how to do these things started to flourish beyond a level never seen before in human history, whereas those who lagged behind started to see more and more difficulty.
So, I guess the main problem is not so much the idea of "capitalism," but it's really a problem with humans and human societies. It's all in how it's used. It was far worse at first, mainly because there was still a strong legacy of old feudal mindsets who still saw people as "highborn" and "lowborn" and considered the lowborn as nothing more than animals and cattle to be abused and slaughtered at will. As those ideas fell by the wayside and there was more and more widespread rejection of the old order, the leaders of nations had to come up with something different - which is when nationalism and racism started to truly flourish, but that also obviously took a very bad course, leading to world wars and the most horrific atrocities in history.
Of course, a capitalist may argue that - all of these horrible things are not the fault of capitalism or the basic principles of free market economics. National policy is decided at the political level, and capitalists/industrialists have a different role in society which is separate and distinct from the state. But it's never really quite so simple as that.
I think a large part of the human condition is trying to find a balance between how we can be free enough to grow and progress and flourish, while restraining ourselves enough to keeping our darker impulses under control.
When you consider the progression up to the World Wars, and the tremendous loss of life - those were definitely watershed moments in world history and it caused the entire world to sit up and take notice. This also led to even more reforms and fundamental changes in how we looked at the world and our society. For the US, we also enjoyed great improvements in our standard of living - and the 50s and early 60s were viewed as some kind of golden age of the wonders of capitalism and enjoying the fruits of our labor. For most people today, this is how many of their perceptions and ideals about capitalism were formulated.
I remember growing up with these ideals myself, where people would commonly point out how great everything is, our industry, technology, superhighways from coast to coast, booming cities with skyscrapers - while people in the USSR had to stand in long lines just to buy a roll of toilet paper. So naturally, people would conclude that capitalism is better, and at that time, with unions being strong, labor reforms being enacted, civil rights laws being enforced, racial/gender equality, environmental responsibility, social programs for the poor and elderly - all of this gave the illusion that "the system works" and that capitalism and liberal/progressive democracy can exist side-by-side and build a better society for everybody.
So, when people think of a "capitalist society," they think of it in the terms described in the previous paragraph, which has been kind of the ideal that liberals and progressives (and even some conservatives) might strive for. There isn't anything wrong with that in theory, except that it isn't really like that in practice (and one wonders if it ever could be like that). But more importantly, to paraphrase Obama "they (capitalists) didn't build that." If one looks at a wealthy, liberal, democratic society like America and concludes that it's all thanks to capitalism, that isn't really accurate.
I also think that, in today's world, we have to look at things in more global terms. Capitalists have often pushed the idea of free trade and the global economy - which isn't completely out of line with many liberal and socialist ideals. Socialists have also advocated for a global economy. Ideally, all of the Workers of the World would unite under a single banner, take power, and create a better world for all humanity. What if there were no countries, nothing to kill or die for, a brotherhood of man?
But if nobody wants that, if that's too utopian or impossible to achieve because of inherent flaws in human nature, then what else will we do with ourselves? We'll just try to scratch and claw and find some way to survive as best we can. It may default to a more quasi-anarcho-capitalism and be voluntary, but there will be the usual trappings and consequences of piracy, tribalism, nationalism, racism, religious intolerance - since people involved in those things can find plenty of willing "volunteers" in a society which values volunteerism.
Just some things to consider.
does god practice capitalism in your heaven?
you can't serve love and money; if you're making a profit off of the buyer
Of course.
That's my role, not yours.
It's pretentious, especially when it's in the sky fairy field,
& not relevant to their proffering authority in economics.
One's views should be valued for cromulence, not titles.
I agree.
But recall that I castigate, not dictate.
This is just as you're not "dictating" that I cease castigation.
There is no singular "American idea" of either
socialism or capitalism.
Mine are dictionary based, which is a minority view.
(We live in a post-dictionary age.)
Last edited:
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I agree. Capitalism views resources as commodities to be exploited and economic growth as infinite despite resources being finite.
That isn't fundamental nor limited to capitalism.
It's a human nature problem that isn't solved by
an economic system. That's where government
can be useful...if it chooses.
Don't forget externalization of costs...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Depends on how it's used, because in excess it tends to lead to materialism and hedonism whereas wealth becomes more important than people.
PureX
Veteran Member
The really big blind spot with this theory is that in your "free market" of "voluntary exchange" I can sell you rat poison and call it breakfast cereal. And if I don't do it someone else, will. Which is why we cannot have "free markets'. We must have regulated markets to keep us from killing each other for profit. And then, when we can't actually kill each other for profit, we'll lie, cheat, and steal from each other for our own gain. We'll sell each other investment shares in bridges that we don't own. And rides to the Moon in spaceships that we don't have. Then, when the government outlaws that, we'll just think up some new way of cheating people out of their money. Or better still, we'll just bribe the government not to stop us from cheating people in the first place.
Human beings cannot interact with each other ungoverned. And that's as true of commercial interaction as it is of any other human interaction. Even more-so, really, now that engaging in commerce has become mandatory for human life. So the solution has to be shared protection via shared control and oversight. We cannot allow the capital investor to make all the commercial decisions because we cannot trust them not to abuse that control for their own advantage. That's the 'programmed in' failure of capitalism. We cannot allow a totalitarian dictator make all the decisions because we cannot trust him not to abuse that control for his own advantage, either. That's the programmed in failure of totalitarian dictatorships. The only way to stop whomever is in control of commerce from abusing that control to their own advantage, and at our expense, is to give everyone involved in the commercial enterprise an equal part in it's control. There are a myriad of ways and degrees to which this can be achieved, and they all generally fall under the heading of 'sociaslism'.
Scolopendra
Member
I understand what you mean but I really don't see what that has to do with the topic "capitalism being inherently evil". Nonetheless we can discuss about it. You make the assumption that a free market society is ungoverned which is a very big leap, may I ask why you thought so? Why would there be such a straight dichotomy where it's either "monopolistic lessez fair capitalist dystopia" or "socialism"?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Since profit is an inherent part of capitalism, it is uniquely susceptible to resource abuse. Consider how food is wasted in the system based on how it looks, or how supermarkets function by offering more than what can be consumed by the local population. These would not occur in a system based on resource distribution based on need and efficiency.
That's not to say I am completely against capitalism. I think fusing functional components from economic systems is key to developing something sustainable.
I agree with you that the government can choose to provide this through regulation (if they choose).
Hardly unique. Resources have a cost of extraction.
Wasting resources cuts profit. But this is a limiting factor
in all systems, even those without profit. Waste & growth
are far from unique to capitalism, as we saw in China
& USSR.
Efficiency is what led to offering such bounty. Other systems
consumed less in resources because of inefficiency, leading
to less availability, & even to mass starvation, eg, N Korea.
Alternatives to capitalism have more severe problems.
We can cut waste with useful regulation, eg, imposing a cost
on things disposable, eg, grocery bags, tires, electronics.
We can still have free markets, private businesses, & a
clean environment.
Population growth is the 1000 pound gorilla straddling the
3rd rail. (I like mixed metaphors.) It's why we have AGW
& massive loss of natural environment that's leading to
extinctions.
Criminy, I see that monarch butterflies are now considered
endangered. I've been growing milkweed at home & at my
commercial properties for them. (They never leave a tip.)
If government fails to do what you & I want,
the problem is government, not capitalism.
In my area, I watched urban sprawl blossom because
it's what the people & government wanted regulation
that imposed low density housing. We capitalists tried
to profit from higher density housing....in this way, we
were greener than our liberal government.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm not sure it's a human nature thing because for thousands and thousands of years we have lived more harmoniously and in homeostasis with the Earth. But rather it seems a problem with those who want more. Like how most Danes weren't vikings and weren't out raiding to increase their own wealth, but a small part of them were. Or how Roman emperors militarily spread Rome even at the expense of Rome. With Capitalism you don't need a larger army anymore but a larger bank account, and we see how it's become easier than ever for the greedy to get ahead and rape the Earth. The goal of resource management shifted from sustenance farming to that of an all consuming machine that is so destructive and dangerous that it became of extreme importance to limit it (and it's still not enough).