If capitalism is based on the right of property ownership it begs the question: Why is capitalism called capitalism? Not because it is based on 'individual rights to own property' but because economic production is based on the expansion of capital. Every economic system so far has been based on property. Rights granted by the state are a superficial feature.
The examples of Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe differ substantially from 'liberal capitalist' economies, but the basic feature has remained, albeit merged with formal power
And who first coined the term Capitalism to describe the economic system? Funnily enough, it was not a Capitalist but an early Marxist, Sombart, with Marx and Engels, along with Proudhon all having used the term Capitalist to describe an owner of Capital.
Etymology aside, even Marx accepted that the Capitalist mode of production was a system where the means of production are privately owned and controlled and are produced for sale on a free market for profit.
One of the primary distinctions between Statism and Capitalism is that rights are not granted by the government but are protected by the government.
Again, attempting to class the regimes of Soviet Russia, Communist China, Communist North Korea, and Communist Europe as Capitalist by changing the definition of Capitalism to suit your desire to disassociate your brand of Socialism with these brutal regimes is a dishonest attempt to change the facts of reality.
Or even a free-market wet dream like somalia?
Somalia has no central government and is essentially living in anarchy. Without the legal protection and enforcement of property rights and contractual obligations, any attempt at a free-market is going to difficult in Somalia, especially during a civil war (contrary to one of Socialism?s favourite myths, war is very bad for Capitalism.) Not to mention the effect of the Islamic Courts Union's attempts to enforce elements of Shariah law.
I do make these comparisons. Even when wealth is divided per capita the correlation with standard of living is a loose (but obviously) one, never mind how economically liberal they are, which correlates negatively in notable cases.
Standard of living, it should be said, is an inexact science. I consider infant mortality rates to be the most indicative one.
The entire world is capitalist. Within a country dramatically different lives exist. It is a global system we all live in, whether we like it or not.
Let?s look at it very simply, how many American?s have no or limited access to safe drinking water? Has there ever been a widespread famine in America? (by America I am referring to the United States of America)
The entire world is far from Capitalist, despite a global market, there are still many restrictions on free trade, even in the so-called Capitalist countries, in the form of tariffs, trade restrictions (see the CAP in Europe) and protectionist policies. The global system consists of a mixture of Mercantilism, Statism, with some elements of free-market Capitalism, and much of the evidence shows that those nations which are predominately Capitalist are significantly better off in terms of wealth and quality of life. Even one of the most Capitalist nations in the world, the United States, suffers from an incredible degree of state intervention in the economy.
Well, capitalism has been around for about 400 years now. There ought to be a vast improvement. But a vast improvement of poverty doesn't mean much. Moreover, absolute poverty remains.
Firstly, Capitalism is not a magic wand that will instantly alleviate all poverty; secondly Capitalism has not been practiced to its full extent over that 400 year period. Despite this, there has been a vast improvement in the quality of life, for both the rich and the poor. Not only has life expectancy increased dramatically, but over the last 400 years famine, plague and illnesses such as cholera, typhoid and dysentery have been practically wiped out in the ?capitalist? West.
Like what? The 12 hour work day? Destruction of surplus food? Forcing peasants out of the land they live on? Sweatshop labour? The food crisis? Systematic starvation of millions per year?
The only time capitalism has even mitigated poverty is actually with statist measures, otherwise it only needs to keep enough of its toilers alive.
I?ve heard this propaganda before. Do you really consider that the working conditions of the working class, in pre-industrial Britain, were better than that of them during the industrial revolution (during which conditions continuously improved)? No doubt that if you revere Engels as much as you revere Marx you will have read his ?Conditions of the Working Class in England?. As far as work hours are concerned, despite rising in the initial stages of industrialisation ? mostly due to the technological advancement in lighting allowing factories to operate beyond daylight hours ? the general trend was a reduction in working hours as greater technological innovations allowed greater productivity from each labourer, which incidentally were funded by the profits invested by entrepreneurs, allowing each worker to produce more in a shorter space of time, and thereby freeing up more leisure time. The growth of Capitalism and expansion of the market also led to an increased demand for labour with employers effectively competing with both higher wages and reduced working hours, which is related to the charge of forcing peasants out of the land they lived on. Prior to the development of a Capitalist system ?peasants? were tied to the land as serfs owned by a feudal lord, effectively forced to remain on the land, regardless of their ability and intelligence to perform more specialised tasks. With the industrial revolution and development of the mills and factories, the poverty stricken masses were offered an opportunity to earn a higher wage than they could earn either in cottage industry or in agriculture (especially as instead of seasonal agricultural labour, the factories offered year round employment), or even as an alternative to begging, prostitution and vagrancy that was rife at the time. Factory workers freely chose, of their own volition to work in the factories, they were hardly forced into it. Furthermore, you need to consider who precisely the factories were producing for; the wealthy of the time had no need for cheap mass produced cotton clothing, they could afford hand tailored finer cloths such as linen and silk; no, the affordable goods that were mass produced by the factories were for the consumption of the less well-off masses, the factory workers themselves. As Ludwig Von Mises described the very principle of capitalist entrepreneurship
?In his capacity as consumer the common man is the sovereign whose buying or abstention from buying decides the fate of entrepreneurial activitics. There is in the market economy no other means of acquiring and preserving wealth than by supplying the masses in the best and cheapest way with all the goods they ask for.?
These toilers aren?t simply toiling for the benefit of a factory owner (or in Socialist terminology ?Child guzzling, blood drinking, bourgeois Capitalist Pig?) but as consumers of the product they produce they benefit from cheap and accessible goods and a higher standard of living.
As far as ?Sweatshop labour? is concerned; as deplorable as the wages paid to Sweatshop labourers are in comparison to wages in the west, more often than not the workers in these factories are earning more than the national average wage for the country they live in, and for many, including children, the ?sweatshops? offer an alternative to malnutrition, starvation, prostitution, begging and stealing.
The destruction of surplus food, food crisis and starvation of millions has less to do with Capitalism than it does the protectionist, mercantilist and in the case of many undeveloped nations corrupt actions of nations that restrict these goods to be freely traded. The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe, restricts imports from third world farmers and growers in order to protect the interests of its less productive farmers, a move that is detrimental to both producers and consumers. Likewise many EU restrictions on goods (the recently lifted legislation prohibiting the sale of vegetables that did not meet specific requirements ? despite being perfectly edible) either within or from outside the EU not only cuts off a market to producers from outside the EU but also artificially increases the prices of such produce.
That is one aspect, for its sake. Our poverty of living occurs in many ways including individuation, destruction of natural beauty, estrangement etc..
For your millionaire, however, it depends how many loafs of bread his million can buy. The point still being actual poverty is the condition of 80% of the world's people.
I don?t see individuation as an inherently bad thing, especially if you are referring to the work of Stiegler and collective individuation. As far as natural beauty and estrangement, each of them is subjective and not really reliable means of measuring poverty.
So what about the man without a golden house, is his ability to buy bread affected by his neighbours ability to build their houses out of gold? The point you were trying to make was to do with relative poverty not absolute/actual poverty. Where are you getting the figure of 80% from, do you have a source to support this?
It weeds out the least profitable, for example during recession, and the most profitable survive. Which is good for capitalism.
Good business practises means more profitable, a 'good' business practise might be paying workers as little as you can.
It might be, but conversely, if a business wishes to keep hold of a highly skilled workforce that is more efficient then it is far more beneficial to offer higher wages to more highly skilled positions, not to mention that a high turnover of staff, due to low wages, will result in higher training costs. Henry Ford was an early pioneer of this view. Furthermore, workers are the owners of their own labour, as such they have a choice in whether to work for a particular wage or not. However, if they try and sell this labour above the market value of it, they are less likely to find employment.
Men are not mere individuals - they're social beings. That doesn't mean we're all the same, but that even our experience of our own individuality differs because of relations to others.
In any case "From each according to ability, to each according to need".
Another empty slogan! And I suppose that the removal of an individual?s freedom to determine what his needs are, that is inherent in this policy (for even by democratic vote the automatic right of a man to determine how he will use the fruits of his own labour is taken from him), are of little consequence?
As much as man may be a social being, society itself is not a separate entity but is composed of individual human beings. By demanding individuals sacrifice themselves for the sake of others (society) you are engaging in nothing short of moral cannibalism.
Democracy is the way in which decisions of necessary production and distribution will be made, as it would provide the best (really, the only truly viable) system of mediation and for people to express their individual needs.
Democracy is not the same as freedom, and democracy will only truly work where individual rights are protected, for democracy is merely the process of decision making by majority vote and without protecting individual rights there would be nothing to prevent a majority ruling something that either discriminates or is detrimental to a minority. As I?ve said previously democracy in itself is mob rule, and the dictatorship of the majority is seldom different to the dictatorship of an individual tyrant or monarch. A man?s individual needs would and desires would still not be his own to determine, as it would still need to be approved by the majority.
The enslavement is capitalism, and the parasite is capital.
Another empty slogan, can you please explain to me how Capitalism, - as in a system of individual rights, including the right to private property, and in which all property is privately owned ? equals enslavement? And also how capital acts as a parasite? It might sound like a nice soundbite, but it is pure drivel.
[If we ave no masters there are no slaves. Once class-society is abolished we will be free! Liberated...]
In the strictest sense of the word, there are no masters under a Capitalist system, as all men are subject to the rule of law and equality under the law. It?s also no co-incidence that since the emergence of Capitalism, slavery ? an abomination that had existed throughout all history prior to the Enlightenment ? has been practically eradicated from the world and does not exist in the capitalist-world (with the exception of the most brutal of criminals.)
Socialism means: we produce on the basis of need. Not because of the dictates of capital which is like pinning us on a runaway train.
Again, who determines ?need?, which economically is little different to ?demand?? Capitalism produces on the basis of demand for certain goods, in this a free market is far more democratic than any form of central planning or communal vote on what needs are.
You are, again, describing state-capitalism, not Marxian socialism.
Even with what you call Marxian socialism, economic planning will not be in the control of the individual, with central planning organised by ?democratic vote?. It still does not allow entrepreneurship to flourish, as very few of the majority will share the vision of an entrepreneur and be prepared to take the risks involved in a new venture.
Quote from: Gonzo
Capitalist system - again parasites feeding off the efforts and ability of other men.
Well said.
Misquoting my statement is not an argument.
If your response to the reality that there are homeless while others with far too much for their own good - a dismaying reality - is to call the person pointing it out to you a 'parasite' with personal resentment I would call that a cop-out and a sign of denial. (Or do you mean that homeless are parasites?)
Who are you to decide how much is ?too much for their own good? or that a homeless man?s need grants him the automatic right to another man?s wealth, that he has rightfully earned through his own effort. You were not pointing out the reality of the plight of a homeless man but damning a wealthy man to the servitude of his less well off neighbour. There is nothing in a Capitalist society that prevents men being charitable towards the less well off, but such an act of kindness ought to voluntary and performed freely, not forced by the state or the communal majority. Indeed many a wealthy industrialist has given generously to those less well off through philanthropic acts and foundations. But the fundamental point is that one man?s need does not grant him the right to live off another man?s effort.
For your information, I am not jealous of the wealthy, although such people often are greedy. Not that it makes a real difference to me because that is a personal quality unrelated to their ownership of capital (they could all be philanthropists and it makes no difference). I choose quite happily to not have more than I already do.
Which is all very nice for you, and the fact that you have such a choice to live your life as you see fit under a Capitalistic system, yet choose to damn Capitalism and promote a system where you would have no individual choice in how much you have, as such a decision would be made by ?democratic voting? and equal sharing (although bear in minds that not all needs are equal so you may receive even less than you put in).
'Rags to riches' make nice stories for a reason. They're rare.
We are not talking about rags to riches stories, but of the origins of the world?s wealthiest self-made men, the point being that their wealth was no accident of birth and given that they all continuously, throughout their lifetimes continued to increase their wealth not a result of luck.
Which is better than capitalism where one person owns the pot, 19 people fill it and the one person gives them all back 1/20th of their contribution.
Like Marx, you seem to be under the misguided impression that those that own and run businesses do absolutely nothing but oversee, a bunch of mindless drones sloughing away and that factories and industry are natural resources that exist without the need to be created. Like Marx, you have neglected the value and the power of the human mind in all this. Human beings are not simple creatures only endowed with the ability to perform manual labour, but are rational, intelligent, thinking beings, capable of creating many great things. Those who form businesses and build factories, not only had to have the mere capital, but more importantly the vision, ability and creativity necessary for developing (to list a very few examples) a means of mass producing cotton cheaply, developing higher crop yields, developing systems of clean water and sewage disposal, developing life saving medication, developing affordable electronic and mechanical labour saving devices ? and who benefits from all these innovations? The common man, the worker, the 19 who ?fill the pot?; the benefit they receive, especially given the low economic risk they take, in comparison to the entrepreneur, far exceeds the amount of work they put in.
Regards,
Gonzo
Topic: Capitalism and Other Kids' Stuff