Is capitalism really such a good system?

[P. G. Tipps]

Well no, as long as the people making the critical examination also examine the problems of capitalism; .

Even if there had been no critical examination of the 'problems of capitalism' by anyone since its inception (clearly arrant nonsense) it would still be up to communists/socialists to prove their claim that the world would be a better place under a different global system, as they so constantly claim.

The historical evidence in former collapsed states like the Soviet Union, and its surrounding satellites, points to quite the opposite being the case. Responses like 'oh, Stalin's Soviet Union was merely a 'corruption' of Communism' is a bit like saying that Italy under Benito Mussolini was a corruption of Fascism!

Unfortunately it does tend to, as the people critically examining alternatives don't also examine the problems with capitalism - or at least start with the assumption that the so-called benefits of capitalism are what everyone wants and benefit everyone, and that capitalism is the 'natural' system of humanity.

Your first point here is an almost word-perfect repeat of your previous statement expect that you've simply now decided that people don't examine the problems with capitalism. Are you being serious?

As to your second, I've never yet met or even heard about a supporter of capitalism who claimed that capitalism 'benefits everyone'. However, one only has to look around our own country to see it has clearly benefited the great majority of the population, at least in material terms. As communism is all about the distribution of material wealth its adherents still have to explain how it would create similar material wealth without giving individuals the opportunity to attain a better lot for themselves and their families, which would also benefit the wider community in form of taxes alone. The rest of us are still awaiting any convincing answers to that question.

Again I've never heard anyone claim that capitalism is the 'natural system of humanity'. I have heard and read that, compared to communism/socialism, it is more in tune with 'human nature'. That, of course, is a matter of mere opinion, but at least there is rather more evidence to support than disprove it!

[Richard Barrett]

Responses like 'oh, Stalin's Soviet Union was merely a 'corruption' of Communism' is a bit like saying that Italy under Benito Mussolini was a corruption of Fascism!

That is nonsense. The characteristics of socialist thought are set out in great detail in numerous writings and concisely encapsulated in the Communist Manifesto, which the USSR can clearly be seen not to have embodied. Fascism of course doesn't have a comparable body of thought, although I suppose one could say that the Third Reich carried out the threats contained in Mein Kampf rather accurately.

As you say, this discussion is getting somewhat circular, mostly because of this insistence on your part and that of others that for socialism to have any validity it must be seem to be "working" somewhere in the world. The point is surely rather: would it not be desirable to live in a society characterised by justice and equality? (as opposed to what we have now, which is clearly heading in the opposite direction.) And are human beings capable of bringing such a thing about, and if so how? Obviously I am convinced that they are, and I've expressed a few ideas which I think support that position. I would find it hard to live with such a pessimistic and sclerotic view of humanity which speaks of something being "in tune" with some immutable concept of "human nature". I don't see how people can be satisfied with that, unless of course they're beneficiaries of it.

[french frank]

The point is surely rather: would it not be desirable to live in a society characterised by justice and equality? (as opposed to what we have now, which is clearly heading in the opposite direction.) And are human beings capable of bringing such a thing about, and if so how? Obviously I am convinced that they are, and I've expressed a few ideas which I think support that position. I would find it hard to live with such a pessimistic and sclerotic view of humanity which speaks of something being "in tune" with some immutable concept of "human nature". I don't see how people can be satisfied with that, unless of course they're beneficiaries of it.

The only legitimate response I find to views with which I completely concur is to point to the phrase: 'I would find it hard to live with such a pessimistic and sclerotic view of humanity ...' Isn't that the source of the doubts? That is the subjective element. Not a question of being 'satisfied' with it as being 'pessimistic'.

[P. G. Tipps]

Richard Barrett, theoretically you are correct.

Given that all human beings had such a commendable view of things as you outline there would be absolutely no reason to believe that a fairer system would be impossible to create. Sadly the reality is that we humans have a distinct tendency to look after ourselves first and the Common Good a pretty poor second. That is indeed in our nature ... it is called the survival instinct which is not exactly unique to humans. Even in totalitarian communist societies humans will barter goods secretly and take monetary bribes in order to improve their material lot or just simply survive.

That is why communism has to be heavily authoritarian to have any real chance of success. Without that it's a safe bet that there would be a lot more bartering and bribing going on! Furthermore, I (and others) are still not clear how any society will be able to produce the material wealth it aims for without the use of either the carrot or the stick, or in some cases, both.

You may continue to call that 'pessimism' but others might describe it as a fair and, as yet, wholly unanswered question.

[Flosshilde]

Sadly the reality is that we humans have a distinct tendency to look after ourselves first

Some humans; not all.

and the Common Good a pretty poor second.

Fortunately there are those who understand that by looking after the common good they also look after themselves. In fact, I don't understand how anybody could think otherwise.

how any society will be able to produce the material wealth it aims for

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question - perhaps the question should be 'do we need the material wealth capitalism tells us we do?'

[aeolium]

The programmes were called "What's the Big Idea?" and first in the series was "The End of the Socialist Dream?". It was broadcast in November 1991.

Below is my transcript of presenter Bryan Magee's question and Eric Hobsbawm's reply, which I will try and fit into one post:.....

Thank you for digging that out, S_A. Yes, you are right, Eric Hobsbawm did admit that his faith had been misplaced. But I think he felt nevertheless that it had been worthwhile. I was looking at his memoirs, Interesting Times and towards the end of the chapter "Being Communist" he refers to a play written by an East German dramatist in the 1980s about the Arthurian knights. Lancelot is asked whether he still believes in the grail and says "I don't know, I can't answer the question. I can't say yes or no...[but] if we give up on the grail, we give up on ourselves." And to me, communism has always had some of the characteristics of a religion: the faith in a utopia on the distant horizon, the justification of horrific actions to achieve the promised land, the treatment of dissent as punishable heresy, even the hagiography of the leader.

Now I think a more powerful challenge to capitalism than any posed by communism or another rationalist Enlightenment theory is that provided by a real religion, Islam, which in its fundamentalist form does - to its adherents - offer an alternative vision of a fairer society and opposes itself to Western excess, decadence and military interventions on the one hand and corrupt self-serving regimes on the other. This form of Islam seems to have a powerful appeal not just to the oppressed in the Middle East but also in Central Asia and significant parts of Africa, and may well spread further. The kind of society that it seeks would not be attractive to many in the west, with its unequal treatment of women (and minorities like gays) and illiberalism but it has flourished not just as a resistance movement but as one with a powerful idea of religious and social community - the first welfare state after all having been created under the 7th century caliph Umar I.

[Richard Barrett]

to me, communism has always had some of the characteristics of a religion: the faith in a utopia on the distant horizon, the justification of horrific actions to achieve the promised land, the treatment of dissent as punishable heresy, even the hagiography of the leader.

I respectfully suggest that none of that has much to do with communism. I think many people have the tendency to describe revolutionary socialism in terms of religion, because the framework of religion is so ingrained in our culture in so many ways, making it difficult to think about any kind of future-oriented idealistic striving without seeing it in religious terms... but I think we really ened to get beyond that kind of thinking: it isn't a religion, it's something else, which requires getting rid of the dead weight of superstition and irrational belief.

[P. G. Tipps]

Some humans; not all.

I would think the overwhelming majority of us put ourselves and our families first, whether we realise it or not.

Fortunately there are those who understand that by looking after the common good they also look after themselves. In fact, I don't understand how anybody could think otherwise.

I agree with the sentiment. However I'm not all sure how it can be achieved in practice without the already-mentioned stick and/or carrot which is basically what politicians use to try and achieve this through laws.

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question - perhaps the question should be 'do we need the material wealth capitalism tells us we do?'

You've now got to the crux of the problem. It is the capitalist system which has created the wealth in our current society, even if this wealth has been distributed unfairly which undoubtedly it has been. No argument whatsoever about that.

However, you seem to be suggesting that society doesn't really need all this wealth in the first place. The problem with that is that if we're not bothered about the wealth there then wouldn't be much to distribute fairly amongst everyone, so rather than having rich and poorer people we'd simply end up with a society of The Equally Poor?

Doesn't seem like a huge improvement in the general human condition to some.

[amateur51]

That is nonsense. The characteristics of socialist thought are set out in great detail in numerous writings and concisely encapsulated in the Communist Manifesto, which the USSR can clearly be seen not to have embodied. Fascism of course doesn't have a comparable body of thought, although I suppose one could say that the Third Reich carried out the threats contained in Mein Kampf rather accurately.

As you say, this discussion is getting somewhat circular, mostly because of this insistence on your part and that of others that for socialism to have any validity it must be seem to be "working" somewhere in the world. The point is surely rather: would it not be desirable to live in a society characterised by justice and equality? (as opposed to what we have now, which is clearly heading in the opposite direction.) And are human beings capable of bringing such a thing about, and if so how? Obviously I am convinced that they are, and I've expressed a few ideas which I think support that position. I would find it hard to live with such a pessimistic and sclerotic view of humanity which speaks of something being "in tune" with some immutable concept of "human nature". I don't see how people can be satisfied with that, unless of course they're beneficiaries of it.

At this point I usually mention Kerala which sets the anti-socialists off on another wave of predictable goal-
post moving :smileythingo:

[amateur51]

Richard Barrett, theoretically you are correct.

Given that all human beings had such a commendable view of things as you outline there would be absolutely no reason to believe that a fairer system would be impossible to create. Sadly the reality is that we humans have a distinct tendency to look after ourselves first and the Common Good a pretty poor second. That is indeed in our nature ... it is called the survival instinct which is not exactly unique to humans. Even in totalitarian communist societies humans will barter goods secretly and take monetary bribes in order to improve their material lot or just simply survive.

That is why communism has to be heavily authoritarian to have any real chance of success. Without that it's a safe bet that there would be a lot more bartering and bribing going on! Furthermore, I (and others) are still not clear how any society will be able to produce the material wealth it aims for without the use of either the carrot or the stick, or in some cases, both.

You may continue to call that 'pessimism' but others might describe it as a fair and, as yet, wholly unanswered question.

Have you read Woman On The Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, PGT?

[amateur51]

Some humans; not all.




Fortunately there are those who understand that by looking after the common good they also look after themselves. In fact, I don't understand how anybody could think otherwise.




Perhaps you're asking the wrong question - perhaps the question should be 'do we need the material wealth capitalism tells us we do?'

Exactly Flossie :supportiveembrace:

[amateur51]

Thank you for digging that out, S_A. Yes, you are right, Eric Hobsbawm did admit that his faith had been misplaced. But I think he felt nevertheless that it had been worthwhile. I was looking at his memoirs, Interesting Times and towards the end of the chapter "Being Communist" he refers to a play written by an East German dramatist in the 1980s about the Arthurian knights. Lancelot is asked whether he still believes in the grail and says "I don't know, I can't answer the question. I can't say yes or no...[but] if we give up on the grail, we give up on ourselves." And to me, communism has always had some of the characteristics of a religion: the faith in a utopia on the distant horizon, the justification of horrific actions to achieve the promised land, the treatment of dissent as punishable heresy, even the hagiography of the leader.

Now I think a more powerful challenge to capitalism than any posed by communism or another rationalist Enlightenment theory is that provided by a real religion, Islam, which in its fundamentalist form does - to its adherents - offer an alternative vision of a fairer society and opposes itself to Western excess, decadence and military interventions on the one hand and corrupt self-serving regimes on the other. This form of Islam seems to have a powerful appeal not just to the oppressed in the Middle East but also in Central Asia and significant parts of Africa, and may well spread further. The kind of society that it seeks would not be attractive to many in the west, with its unequal treatment of women (and minorities like gays) and illiberalism but it has flourished not just as a resistance movement but as one with a powerful idea of religious and social community - the first welfare state after all having been created under the 7th century caliph Umar I.

I don't think that an Islamic nation like Pakistan embodies what you describe aeolium. Islam may have many positive aspirations but given that you acknowledge that in practice it disenfranchises over half the world's population as a matter of basic principle it has some serious questions to answer.

[Richard Barrett]

You may continue to call that 'pessimism'

Thanks, I will.

[aeolium]

I respectfully suggest that none of that has much to do with communism. I think many people have the tendency to describe revolutionary socialism in terms of religion, because the framework of religion is so ingrained in our culture in so many ways, making it difficult to think about any kind of future-oriented idealistic striving without seeing it in religious terms.

I was not referring to the theory of communism but how it has been perceived by at least some of its adherents, how it sustained its appeal in the C20 even long after the failings of communist-inspired regimes had become apparent. It's clear from the Hobsbawm autobiography for instance, that his belief in communism was more than just a rational and dispassionate conclusion about the best way to change society for the better. Why have so many such regimes featured a Great Leader who appears to have semi-divine status?

.. but I think we really ened to get beyond that kind of thinking: it isn't a religion, it's something else, which requires getting rid of the dead weight of superstition and irrational belief.

I would say that there was some kind of irrationality in believing that even though numerous Marxist or Leninist revolutions have resulted in the emergence of authoritarian regimes which did not lead to better societies, the next one will not.

[P. G. Tipps]

Have you read Woman On The Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, PGT?

From memory, I can't say I have, amateur51.

Why? Did you find it a rattling good yarn?