I think, then, we have two different definitions of what we're talking about in terms of 'capitalism'. To me it is: a (the) global system of production based on minority ownership and control of the means of production that is based on the accumulation of capital (note this includes state ownership or control). Whereas you're more narrowly concerned with the degree to which the state directs, intervenes, or manipulates private markets, that to my mind is a function of the same basic thing.
The dictionary definition of Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and controlled by private individuals or corporations. The difference is that Capitalism is a system based on the right of individuals to own private property and your incorporation of state ownership into your definition is simply incorrect, and seems to be an attempt to disassociate the state dictatorships of Communist Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and Eastern Europe from Socialism.
Yet I'm not sure how the argument here, at face value, squares with reality. For instance is Sweden - a Keynesian economy - capitalist or non-capitalist? Yet they're not doing too bad. In contrast to, say, Ethiopia.
Sweden is a mixed economy, like most of Europe, with a large welfare state and a rather large public sector. However, the majority of it's industry is privately owned and controlled. Sweden also respects and protects property rights. Ethiopia has very little regard for private property, Ethiopian citizens are not able to fully own their own land as stated in article 40 of the Ethiopian constitution.
Furthermore most businesses in Ethiopia are either fully state owned or state controlled.
The disparity in material conditions between the worlds people isn't basically one between nations. There is as much inequality in some of the world's richest countries as there is in some of the poorest ones. Here the extent of poverty is only a matter of degree.
Furthermore I personally consider that where there isn't 'objective' poverty there still is the poverty of life, one of its aspects being social inequality (for example, if everyone one your street had gold houses and you didn't, there is poverty there), but also myriad forms of estrangement from nature and others.
If a 'free market' is the best solution why have capitalist government consistently had to employ statist measures? The idea is clearly coming up against something, and it's not resistance on the part of the capitalist state to abnegate its economic role. If markets merely ran themselves I imagine they would.
If you compare the living standards of the poverty stricken in one of the richest, mostly Capitalist, nations with that of those in one of the poorest (non capitalist) nations, there is a significant difference. Furthermore if you look at standard of living of those in poverty in the Capitalist nations, prior to the establishment of Capitalism compared to after - up until the modern age, there is undoubtably a vast improvement. Capitalism, far from being responsible for creating poverty has historically done a vast amount to alleviate and irradiacate it.
What you call a poverty of life and social inequality sounds a hell of a lot like envy, especially with your example of Gold houses. At the end of my street there is a very large, very nice house that I cannot afford, as much as I would like to live there - does this make me poor? Is a millionaire who cannot afford a billionaire's mansion impoverished?
A free market has a habit of weeding out poor business practices in favour of good business practices and there are a vast number of companies and corporations who do not like to compete on a free market because of this and will attempt to gain government intervention. There aren't really any fully pro-Capitalist governments at the moment, but those that have got into office in the past have tended to instigate numerous economic reforms based on lower taxation and increased privitasation.
Socialism sets the bar higher than that Socialism is based on collective ownership, so money may as well be in museums. The only necessary incentive to work is to produce things we need. Others include creative endeavour and developing abilities. We will be rewarded with equal access the full benefits of the society which we pitch in in socially harmonious conditions. Egoistic 'reward' is something that is deemed necessary because of adversarial relations in capitalism.
Have you actually thought about this bromide or simply spouted it from the "party manual."
There is no such thing as a collective mind, a man is an individual, rational being and each individual will have different needs, desires, abilities and priorities. In order to implement a system of collective ownership each individual is going to have to sacrifice their freedom of individual choice to some form of central planning; either by democratic vote (mob rule) or by a ruling elite (the state). It is nothing short of the enslavement of both mans mind and body to other men and would be a society of parasites feeding off each other, until nothing is left.
Central planning will result in economic stagnation, where very little no new enterprise or endevour is persued; as no individual will have the individual freedom to decide how to use his capital and cannot then invest it into a venture that may or may not be successful, with the decision left to central planning or democratic vote, the chances of such a venture being undertaken is slim and without such enterprise the discovery of technological and social advancements would be severely retarded if not completely stagnant.
Again, the incentive of the most able to produce the most is going to be hampered by the fact that they are not rewarded according to their efforts, with everything going to a communal pot, especially as those who are less inclined to work are, when guaranteed a living are likely to produce less than they would under a Capitalist system - again parasites feeding off the efforts and ability of other men.
Anyway, ability or talent has less to do with why someone is rich than accident of birth or some stroke of luck. Besides why does anyone, whatever their lack of ability, deserve to be shelter-less while someone else has ten houses?
And here we have the resentment of a parasite for the men of ability who have the skill, determination and will to work hard and have earned and achieved great success. The paradox of the poor man who damns the wealthy as greedy whilst coveting their wealth for himself with no desire to earn it but demand it on the grounds of "social justice."
But of course an accident of birth, why what chance would the second of six children of a New York vagabond, starting his life as an assistant bookmaker, have of becoming, for instance one of the wealthiest men in history; or perhaps the son of a Dunfirmline weaver have of becoming likewise, one of the richest men in history; how about the chances of an uneducated New york ferry boy, or how about a 16 year old dislexic school leaver?
I don't talk about "redistributing" wealth since that falls well short of the aim I have in mind. If wealth had to be redistributed (by who?) something bad has already happened! So: Socialism is not redistributing wealth, but having free-access to that wealth which is already produced.
Capitalism is far in advance of every previous system in its capacity to produce, such that it's scorching the face of the earth in the process! As you suggest it has even provided the means of its own undoing.
And how would this access to "communal wealth" be managed, it is still a question of the distribution of wealth, even if every individual is taking the same amount from a communal pot they are not putting in the same amount.
Regards,
Gonzo
Topic: Capitalism and Other Kids' Stuff