Is Capitalism Good or Bad?

Individual
As opposed to what?
Capitalism with all it's faults is still the system that fosters, change, innovation , and progress . All other systems would appear to stiffle it.

Sorry guys, I don't actually believe that capitalism is bad. I was just trying to give a different point of view.

I think capitalism is a concept that is naturally great on paper, but in real life it can become complicated. It's not capitalism that's good or bad, it's what we humans do with it that's good or bad.

Thanks for the insight, littlek. A lot of things are like that in life: power, money, leadership...

I suppose that the only real problem with capitalism is when people go way overboard with the idea of money and become workaholics.

what's good or bad...


I take heed of your inspiring comment. While capitalism and its structure provide the means to achieve personal and society's goals, it's how people use them that can be good or bad. I remember Einstein had the same thought about the use of science, mentioning that there is a foundation somewhere beyond science.

truth
Like socialism and fire, capitalism has both beneficial and detrimental aspects. It motivates people to invent in ways socialism does not. I was in Moscow two weeks before the coup and was impressed by the obvious depression of the people, particularly the clerks in stores. The indifference was phenomenal. Yet on paper socialism should at least avoid the great inequalities and exploitation of capitalism at its worst. Socialism has the principal goal of social justice; capitalism has as its principal goal profits, even at the expense of others. The only way socialism can work is if it is not in competition with world capitalism which will destroy it every time. Yet looking at the state of socialist and capitalist sociieties today, I'd choose the latter. What concerns me most is the threat of RAPACIOUS CAPITALISM, that is to say unregulated capitalism. The greatest shame of the last year is the way our society has been let down by the corruption of our regulatory agencies.

I'll say something about this issue that I mentioned in another thread. It may seem tangential, but I suggest not:


Communism died, in part, because it refused to borrow from other economic systems to make it stronger, fairer, and more stable. Because of that, any contributions or value communism had for humanity has pretty much been lost. While it always would have glaring defects, communism would have been a much better system had it acknowledged it was not perfect -- and borrowed some reasonable ideas from capitalism, rather than treating capitalism as a mortal enemy.

Capitalism, in my opinion, suffers from that same malady - just in the opposite direction.

Nuff said?

Capitalism, just like any other economic model, is neither good nor bad. It's a concept, a thought. it simply is. It has no ability to be either good or bad. "Good" and "Bad" are moral and ethical properties and can only be applied to an economic model based on what human beings do.

truth
Well then, Frank, it seems we agree that a mixed economy is the most rational form of economic system. Some aspects of life must be guaranteed, that is to say not be wholly of the market place, and other aspects are best left to forces of the market. It's a matter of the degree of "elasticity" of various demands. Medicine, food staples, education, insurance, etc. are relatively inelastic, i.e., humans cannot survive without them. On the other hand, luxury items--whicn can include "boutique" levels of medical care, foods, and even education--are more elastic, and therefore a just privilege of the very successful. I don't believe the less wealthy should be envious or resentful of the more wealthy, but I do feel that all people have a right, in a society as wealthy as ours, to a decent level of security and comfort--as long as they are law abiding and cooperative citizens (this does not, of course, mean that they should forego their right to individual thought and social dissent).

So, OCCOM, did you get your answer?

JL

Didn't read your reply until just now. You must have posted it as I was writing mine.

Yer right, we do agree on lots of the essentials.

Great minds.....!

There doesn't appear to be much disagreement here. I find it encouraging that the only dissenting opinions were playing devil's advocate.

If capitalism is so great, why doesn't anyone actually practice it?

truth
The more vulgar apologists for capitalism, make an assumption that I find particularly odious. That is that capitalism reflects the principle of nature, that big fish NATURALLY eat small fish. But that in situation of government regulation, the UNNATURAL occurences of protecting the smaller, more inferior, fish becomes the rule. This type of social-darwinism overlooks the fact that capitalism does not operate within a "natural" environment; it's environment is just as artificial as that of socialism. Capitalists thrive within an artificial environment that benefits their interests. Property laws (enforced by the might of the publically owned military forces) protect their interests, making unlikely the "natural" event of the more numerous small fish taking over the far less numerous big fishes' property. Since capitalists survive because of the legal system supported by the majority of citizens, they should make no claims to a "natural" superiority. They should recognize that if the legal system should change (as occurs in revolutions) they might not have the personal qualities needed to thrive in the new artificial system. As a result they should recognize their obligations to their fellow citizens, citizens who politically allow (even if in doing so they reveal--due to their political socialization--their lack of awareness of their own "class interests) the system which protects and promotes the interests of the "ruling class." This may make me look like a Marxists. I am not. I think Marxists theory is too deterministic to be acceptable as a theoretical SYSTEM: I do not buy its teleological historicism. But it is clearly not all wrong.

Joe, you obviously have some thoughts that are contrary to the current view of capitalism. I for one would like to hear them before launching into this discussion.

Re: truth

Absolutely not! Your points are extremely valid and any capitalist who doesn't realize it; is the proverbial fool and his money...

Wow--JL--you certainly put a large slice of your political thinking on the table. I feel compelled to take issue with some of that thinking. You brand some defenders of capitalism as "apologists" as though you have just completed Marxism 101. You may not have intended this as you wrote it but that is how I interpret your words. Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideologly as you imply when you compare it to Marxism. Marxism is an ideology--it's the whole ball of wax complete with the psychological fullfillment necessary to replace every human need for religion. It has conveniently denied all innate properties of human nature and instead proclaimed that human nature is mallable and thus each individuals behavior can be molded to fit the needs of the ideology. This was necessary due to the incompatibility of the Marxist creed of: "From each according to his capabilities, to each according to his needs". This creed is contrary to the historic evidence that human nature is largely determined by evolutionary patterns of behavior which would revolt at the thought of not being able to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor, to acqure land ownership, and to raise one's family without interference from some "State entity".

You also seem to believe that since capitalism exists within an "artificial"environment it somehow is flawed and is a fraudulent system. I would contend that capitalism, while being admittedly imperfect, is the economic system most compatible with the freedom of the individual to operate within the constraints of any society that values freedom of thought and action for the INDIVIDUAL. Show me an alternative system that promotes as much freedom of action for the individual. Socialism promotes STATE OWNERSHIP of everything including the means of production and property ownership. This forms the basis for the complete abuse of the system which resulted in the Stalinist Totalitarian form of socialism with it's resultant extinction of approximately 50,000,000 souls and the Pavlovian brainwashing inflicted upon the remaining millions.
Is this the system you want?

I have always enjoyed your philosophical writings and I was somewhat surprised by your revealing words on this subject. I was happy however that you threw in one caveat-----"Capitalism is clearly not all wrong".

I am aware that you are not a Marxist but your post did take on the quality of a rant against Capitalism which really surprised me. I characterize it as a rant because you really did not offer any constructive solutions to the obvious weaknesses nor any viable alternative.

truth
Perception, thanks for having read my post(s). I was afraid it would be too boring for most. I agree that Marxism is an ideology, but I would contend that socialism is, like capitalism, first and foremost an economic system. I would insist that capitalism has strong ideological underpinnings; I cannot see how that could be denied. Notice that I did not say that that capitalism is "all wrong"; I said that, despite the faults of Marxism (some I mentioned) IT is not all wrong. I also said that despite capitalism's faults I would prefer to live in a capitalist than a socialist system. Having said that, I feel that much good can be said about the social values underlying socialism. You note that socialism promotes "STATE OWNERSHIP" of the means of production and property. It doesn't sound so sinister when it is phrased as "community ownership" of such things. It cannot be denied, I think, that both systems are "artificial" insofar as they are the creations of human beings, forms of social contract. Complete freedom amounts to a Hobbsian anarchy. In capitalism you have freedom from state control of economic activity (comparatively speaking, of course). In socialism you have freedom from the fear of starvation or extreme deprivation (unless the entire system is "broke" so to speak.) But neither system is comparable to a jungle as the social darwinist would have us think. We mustn't equate socialism with Stalinism; one is the extreme abuse of the other. And in both systems there is a high degree of political propaganda or "brainwashing." If you love the freedoms of capitalism, as I do, please keep a vigilant eye on the doings of John Ashcroft and his employers.

JL
I certainly did misread what I called a "caveat" regarding your defense of Marxism.

I must strongly protest your statement that capitalism has "strong ideological underpinnings". When has capitalism tried to replace all religion with it's own religion as Socialism must do to entice the unwary into it's web. Socialism must exclude other religions and replace it with it's own dogma. Capitalism has no need for ideological wrappings----the handling of currency is pragmatism in action and you certainly can't equate the simple mechanics of investing money as ideological. I must make one last point which to me is the most egregious fallacy of Socialism, and that is the denial that human nature has NO evolutionary/genetic basis. Instead Marx and many prominent intellectuals insist that the mind starts as a "blank slate" and behavior is controlled and formulated by experience alone. This is very convenient for Marx because if he were forced to contend with human nature as fixed and unchanging he would never be able to "sell" his theory.

Nice try regarding replacing "State ownership" with "Community ownership"------I'm not at all interested in "packaging" socialism is less sinister wrappings. No thanks to community comrades reporting my activities to the party bosses.

You just had to "fling down the gauntlet" about Ashroft didn't you? Without launching into a "rant" I will ask you a question. Would you admit there is a possiblity that Ashcroft and the DOJ with the aid of the Patriot Act surveilance provisions, is the reason we have not had another terrorist attack in the US? Just a possibility?

If the current view is that any state actually practices capitalism simpliciter, then I do indeed have contrary views.

JLNobody: Surely you've read some Kropotkin, n'est ce pas?