Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

Rothmans · 20-04-2010 02:09AM

efla wrote: »

No, it isnt. The mode of production is not determined by the mere act of cultivation. Honestly, even wikipedia would clear up the basics.

I'm not talking about cultivation or any other technical aspects of providing said produce, I'm talking about providing a living for oneself whether that be through farming, jousting, being a soldier or any other occupation of the time

Ostrom · 20-04-2010 02:13AM

Rothmans wrote: »

I'm not talking about cultivation or any other technical aspects of providing said produce, I'm talking about providing a living for oneself whether that be through farming, jousting, being a soldier or any other occupation of the time

As people have always done, you're right - the specific action is irrelevant. But people make their living under historically differing social conditions. Without money to allow accumulation of wealth beyond 'things', without private ownership and wage labour. It is these aspects (and many others i am ignoring) that determine a capitalist mode of production, not the simple act of making a living.

landsleaving · 20-04-2010 02:15AM

Rothmans wrote: »

You are talking about what I would refer to as 'pure capitalism'. However, if that was the point of this thread then this thread would be moot as Ireland, the UK, the U.S ( all Eu countries) etc are not technically 'capitalist' in the purest sense. If this was the case would we be providing social welfare, rent allowance etc? Is that not a socialist policy?

That wasn't really my point, I was just saying that capitalism isn't that old and what you say there doesn't really address what I said... it's a totally new point. What I'm saying is that what makes capitalism what it is, hasn't existed very long. The fundamental concept that you are the owner of your labour is a relatively new one.

And knights were a seperate class, the average peasant couldn't become one, they were generally the sons of the Lords.

Back on topic, what were you getting at when you mentioned Keynes, out of interest? (Is that even on topic?)

Rothmans · 20-04-2010 02:21AM

efla wrote: »

As people have always done, you're right - the specific action is irrelevant. But people make their living under historically differing social conditions. Without money to allow accumulation of wealth beyond 'things', without private ownership and wage labour. It is these aspects (and many others i am ignoring) that determine a capitalist mode of production, not the simple act of making a living.

Ok, I think its closer to the basics capitalism (monetarily speaking that is).
In any case I think it would be ideal to live in the society similer to that envisaged by Karl Marx ( with exceptions of course, such as freedom of religion and so on) where everyone was equal but its just not possible methinks. It has elementary flaws- it just does not reward hard work.Thus I would prefer the capitalistic models.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree . . . . time for bed for me anyway

Ostrom · 20-04-2010 02:27AM

Rothmans wrote: »

Ok, I think its closer to the basics capitalism (monetarily speaking that is).
In any case I think it would be ideal to live in the society similer to that envisaged by Karl Marx ( with exceptions of course, such as freedom of religion and so on) where everyone was equal but its just not possible methinks. It has elementary flaws- it just does not reward hard work.Thus I would prefer the capitalistic models.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree . . . . time for bed for me anyway

Then to speak monetarily is to exclude a great proportion of human history, we have not always laboured and traded as such. I wouldn't depend on Marx for the answer, but his writings on precapitalist modes of production are a good place to start making distinctions. If youre looking for policy and direction i'd probably go a bit more liberal though...

Rothmans · 20-04-2010 02:30AM

landsleaving wrote: »

That wasn't really my point, I was just saying that capitalism isn't that old and what you say there doesn't really address what I said... it's a totally new point. What I'm saying is that what makes capitalism what it is, hasn't existed very long. The fundamental concept that you are the owner of your labour is a relatively new one.

And knights were a seperate class, the average peasant couldn't become one, they were generally the sons of the Lords.

Back on topic, what were you getting at when you mentioned Keynes, out of interest? (Is that even on topic?)

This is my last post then bed.
It's just that I used to be a bit more socialist a few years ago until we studied Keynes in History at second level. Then when I went to uni i learned even more about his economic theory and it just clicked. when we were talking about loans i thought of his theory of spreading the wealth so to speak, by basically talking out loans and then repaying in the oncoming expansion. It makes perfect sense to me -if there's one thing econ and history have thoght me is that every recession is invariably followed by an expansion. Unfortunately we are in a reccession right now but it must be followed by a boom.

Rothmans · 20-04-2010 02:34AM

efla wrote: »

I wouldn't depend on Marx for the answer

Oh no neither would I that's why I highlighted the word similer and illustrated that there should be many exceptions. But his ideal of social equality should be the cornerstone of any society. Unfortunately, as we know all too well, it isn't

.

Anyhow, it was good talkin to ya,
good night.:)

landsleaving · 20-04-2010 02:35AM

Rothmans wrote: »

This is my last post then bed.
It's just that I used to be a bit more socialist a few years ago until we studied Keynes in History at second level. Then when I went to uni i learned even more about his economic theory and it just clicked. when we were talking about loans i thought of his theory of spreading the wealth so to speak, by basically talking out loans and then repaying in the oncoming expansion. It makes perfect sense to me -if there's one thing econ and history have thoght me is that every recession is invariably followed by an expansion. Unfortunately we are in a reccession right now but it must be followed by a boom.

Now I see where you're coming from when you say loans create wealth. Keynes has some good ideas, better to let governments intervene when necessary than to let the free market just collaspse. History counts for nothing though when greed gets in the way. Maybe if the government actually learned some basic economic theory... :rolleyes:

Anyways, good talking to you too, twas fun

Rothmans · 20-04-2010 02:38AM

landsleaving wrote: »

Now I see where you're coming from when you say loans create wealth. Keynes has some good ideas, better to let governments intervene when necessary than to let the free market just collaspse. History counts for nothing though when greed gets in the way. Maybe if the government actually learned some basic economic theory... :rolleyes:

Anyways, good talking to you too, twas fun

same here budy,
night:)

Ostrom · 20-04-2010 02:44AM

Rothmans wrote: »

Oh no neither would I that's why I highlighted the word similer and illustrated that there should be many exceptions. But his ideal of social equality should be the cornerstone of any society. Unfortunately, as we know all too well, it isn't .

Anyhow, it was good talkin to ya,
good night.:)

Thanks, goodnight!

Tar.Aldarion · 20-04-2010 03:21AM

It's a bad system, we just haven't come along enough as a species to adopt another one so it's here to stay for a while

Xluna · 20-04-2010 07:12AM

No. The rich poor divide will exponentially increase. Eventually there will be another revolution.

dlofnep · 20-04-2010 08:52AM

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Communism and socialism have the potential to make people lazy and create a bland society. Capitalism is different. It makes people ambitious and willing to fight. Take Britain at the end of the 80's :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Yes, let's take Britain under the rule of Thatcher. It saw mass inequality, with more and more people under the poverty line. Thatcher embodied a all for one attitude, that allowed the wealthy to become wealthier, and the poor become poorer.

She's hardly an example of the merits of capitalism.

Rothmans wrote: »

Its amazing how socialist societies seem to crumble within decades of their establishment whilst capitalist countries last for centuries (if not millenia!) - eg the United Kingdom

No it's not. It's amazing how many socialist or communist nations the United States has tried to, or have been successful with a coup d'etat.

DazMarz wrote: »

Capitalism is unfortunately the only system that will work, due to providing the right incentives to people (ie: work hard and rewards will come; if you create something important, you will reap bigger rewards etc.)

Under Communism et al, these incentives were not there, and people had no reason to be creative or innovative. So it did not work.

Alot of people claim that community or socialist policies do not inspire drive or creativity. Ever hear of Sputnik?

BluePlanet · 20-04-2010 10:02AM

Interesting article at the Pew Research Center
End of Communism Cheered but Now with More Reservations
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=267

Have a look at this graph:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/267-09.gif

A few former communist countries saying people were better off under communism.

PeterIanStaker · 20-04-2010 10:05AM

It will continue to exist because it is a juggernaut.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.

Chiorino · 20-04-2010 11:08AM

I think capitalism, in some form at least will continue indefinately. People, generally speaking, are a greedy species and this does'nt look like changing anytime soon. Communism, despite its original principles, mostly descended into a system where a small elite controlled the masses and gained at their expense.
Slightly OT, I don't know enough about communist economics but were communist countries subject to the boom-bust cycles that are so common in capitalist societies?

Michaelrsh · 20-04-2010 07:56PM

efla wrote: »

You're missing a few millenia of pastoralism and subsistence agriculture

Capital evolved from Capitale, a late Latin word based on proto-Indo-European kaput, meaning "head"—also the origin of chattel and cattle in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money, or money carrying interest.[9][19][20] By 1283 it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm. It was frequently interchanged with a number of other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, principal, assets, property, patrimony.[9]

- wikipedia.

Capitalism nowadays is far more advanced than capitalism was 2000 years ago, yet it still had the same principles. Nowadays we use coins, bank notes or bonds instead of sheep or cattle as money. Capitalism is the oldest and most understood form of economic system.

Iwasfrozen · 20-04-2010 08:10PM

Michaelrsh wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI

^^^^^
Did these guys last?

Either way I sure love this song.

Michaelrsh · 20-04-2010 08:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Either way I sure love this song.

Without the lyrics, of course.

20-04-2010 08:19PM

I think capitalism will, simply because it is the only system that evolves naturally from a barter system.

sron · 20-04-2010 08:32PM

Why do some people refuse to separate Marx's criticisms of Capitalism from his ideas on Communism? You'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist today who thinks his ideal society is the best way to go, but his analysis in Das Kapital is the best analysis of Capitalism ever conceived.

Also, not every Socialistic or Marxist state has been disastrous. Cuba's healthcare system is better than America's, and the Paris Commune didn't fare too badly (until the French government slaughtered them). Besides, for every bad Marxist or Socialist state there is a Capitalist equivalent: for every China and Soviet Union, there's a fascist Italy and Germany or an imperialistic US or Britain.

Do you think capitalism will continue to work in the future?

Comments