Is capitalism really such a good system?

[waldo]

... but unfortunately not for a large proportion of people who live in the shadow of capitalism, especially in the third world. As for efficiency: as has already been mentioned, it inevitably produces periodic crises of varying degrees of severity, up to and including wars, which generally result in a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the already rich. I wouldn't call this very efficient, although if you're in the "one per cent" you'd see it differently I guess. This is just in addition to what Teamsaint has already said.

And as for communism, if we define it, as I would, in terms such as "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", and as an expansion of democratic participation rather than a denial of it, the brutality of régimes like those of the Soviet Union and Mao's China oughtn't to be blamed on communism, since these were dictatorships rather than anything resembling communism. Isn't that obvious?

Capitalism isn't responsible for the Third World. The Third World was the Third world long before capitalism emerged. We, in the UK, were the Third World in 1800, too. We are no longer in that position precisely because industrial capitalism lifted us to a whole new level of economic well being. (If you are going to have a view on these things, it might be a good idea to read some books on the history of economic development.........)

As for communism: it is authoritarian and dictatorial in its very essence, since communism means: no private property, no freedom to buy and sell, no freedom to run business. If those things are allowed, then that is capitalism!!!!!!!!!! An "expansion of democratic freedom"!!!!! It has to be the very opposite, since it depends upon withdrawing freedoms from individuals (and preventing them from voting for parties advocating capitalism!). Simply saying "from each according to their abilities etc" - that's just a slogan. It has to be translated into a system of political and economic arrangements. And that means, to repeat, limiting the rights of people to trade and to own property. People must be PREVENTED from doing these things and punished when they do. Otherwise - it's capitalism! Get it yet?

I'm afraid I have to drop out of this discussion now. Best wishes to those who remain.

[aeolium]

As to possible alternatives to capitalism, Bertrand Russell's monograph "Proposed Roads to Freedom", though written nearly a century ago, provides a good survey of the different kinds of socialism and anarchism:

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/b-russell/roads-freedom.pdf

The final section, "The World As It Could Be Made", starting on page 119, summarises his position. Though some of his attitudes are dated, and current pressing concerns such as that relating to man-made climate change are not considered, there are some good suggestions here, especially about greater local and industrial democracy. Russell favoured then a form of Guild Socialism without such an emphasis on state power and centralisation as some other socialist thinkers advocated.

I think it can also be argued that the immediate post-war form of regulated capitalism with, in some countries, a significant application of socialist economic principles was a great improvement upon the largely unregulated, turbo-capitalism that we now endure which is reviving the high unemployment and huge inequality of the pre-war era. Post-war Britain for instance had high income and capital taxes and nationalised systems of health, education, utilities and transport with higher levels of public housing. Even if this system was also flawed, its flaws were in my view far less serious than those of the current economic system.

[Serial_Apologist]

Capitalism isn't responsible for the Third World. The Third World was the Third world long before capitalism emerged. We, in the UK, were the Third World in 1800, too. We are no longer in that position precisely because industrial capitalism lifted us to a whole new level of economic well being. (If you are going to have a view on these things, it might be a good idea to read some books on the history of economic development.........)

As for communism: it is authoritarian and dictatorial in its very essence, since communism means: no private property, no freedom to buy and sell, no freedom to run business. If those things are allowed, then that is capitalism!!!!!!!!!! An "expansion of democratic freedom"!!!!! It has to be the very opposite, since it depends upon withdrawing freedoms from individuals (and preventing them from voting for parties advocating capitalism!). Simply saying "from each according to their abilities etc" - that's just a slogan. It has to be translated into a system of political and economic arrangements. And that means, to repeat, limiting the rights of people to trade and to own property. People must be PREVENTED from doing these things and punished when they do. Otherwise - it's capitalism! Get it yet?

I'm afraid I have to drop out of this discussion now. Best wishes to those who remain.

A shame you choose to bow out at the moment your arguments are becoming more and more incoherent and inconsequential, whereas before, they had some cogency. I think you are Simon and I would like to claim my $20k.

[ahinton]

I think you are Simon and I would like to claim my $20k.

You unreformed and unrepentant capitalist, you!....

[Richard Barrett]

(If you are going to have a view on these things, it might be a good idea to read some books on the history of economic development.........)

Which have told me that the prosperity of the West was very much based on massive and inhuman exploitation of what is now the third world.

As for preventing people from owning things, the point is to bring about a situation where there's nothing to be gained from owning things, where people are committed to collective ownership because they realise that this is for the benefit of everyone. Why is owning things so important? I don't really get it. Well, as Serial says, you've bowed out on a somewhat incoherent note...

[vinteuil]

. Why is owning things so important? I don't really get it. ...

... people like owning things. A failure to understand this basic truth of human nature undermines any attempt to create a communist utopia.

[ahinton]

... people like owning things. A failure to understand this basic truth of human nature undermines any attempt to create a communist utopia.

I don't think it just that people like owning things pure and simple and for the sake of it; it's more that some people like owning some things because at least they are then in a position to be able to exercise control over their fate; one owns a piano and (hopefully!) ensures that it is properly maintained, just as one might do a house. Some people prefer to own their homes because of greater security of tenure and greater control over what goes on it it, the looking after of it, &c. than might be the case if they were rented when the tenant is reliant on the landlord to carry out appropriate maintenance in timely manner (and that won't always work).

With things that might outlast their owners, that ownership is really more of a custodianship in any case.

Where would one stop about owning things anyway? S-A would apparently stop at "consumer goods", which presumably does not include one's home but would include its contents.

Sometimes the choice between owning and renting/leasing is a purely commercial one in any event. For example, I've always owned a (used) photocopier since forming The Sorabji Archive in the 1980s but, since the last one died, I'm renting one because my cashflow does not enable me to purchase one; this was a decision based upon commercial necessity and I would otherwise have preferred to purchase the machine outright at considerably less total cost.

[Richard Barrett]

this basic truth of human nature

Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take for the "human nature" argument to surface.

According to Marx, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class, and those ruling ideas under capitalism tend - surprise! - to imply that capitalism and human nature are unchangeable. Socialists on the other hand argue that human nature is flexible, not reducible to simple unchanging characteristics, and shaped to a great extent by social circumstances, so that whether an individual expresses generosity or greed depends to a great extent on the values of the society he/she is living in. Marx: “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations.” What makes us human is the ability to change, to create new social systems and evolve to adapt to them, in other words if we are capable of creating capitalism we should also be capable of creating socialism. These are quite subtle arguments and I'm not sure I've expressed them very convincingly, but surely it's clear that our "human nature" is very different from that of many societies of the past and even of the present. So there's no particular reason to suggest that it can't change again, except by being convinced by capitalism's self-supporting ideology. It isn't that long since people believed that kings ruled by divine right and doing away with them would lead to savagery.

[vinteuil]

... my notions of "human nature" are perhaps influenced by seeing how very young children behave. Of course I accept that the various behaviours that have been privileged by various societies over the ages have changed and will contine to change. I am unpersuaded by Marx's notion that primal concepts such as "greed" and "generosity" are so easily likely to be done away with.

[Dave2002]

It isn't that long since people believed that kings ruled by divine right and doing away with them would lead to savagery.

Isn't it more likely that most people did not believe that, but in fact put up with the situation, as to do otherwise could have been dangerous? Perhaps some kings really did believe that they had a divine right to rule, but even if they didn't - it would be good for them to put that thought about.

[Richard Barrett]

Isn't it more likely that most people did not believe that, but in fact put up with the situation, as to do otherwise could have been dangerous? Perhaps some kings really did believe that they had a divine right to rule, but even if they didn't - it would be good for them to put that thought about.

Indeed. And by the same token there are very many people around now who see how capitalism does what it does, don't "believe" in it, but put up with it because the alternatives seem too dangerous.

[ahinton]

Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take for the "human nature" argument to surface.

According to Marx, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class, and those ruling ideas under capitalism tend - surprise! - to imply that capitalism and human nature are unchangeable. Socialists on the other hand argue that human nature is flexible, not reducible to simple unchanging characteristics, and shaped to a great extent by social circumstances, so that whether an individual expresses generosity or greed depends to a great extent on the values of the society he/she is living in. Marx: “the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations.” What makes us human is the ability to change, to create new social systems and evolve to adapt to them, in other words if we are capable of creating capitalism we should also be capable of creating socialism. These are quite subtle arguments and I'm not sure I've expressed them very convincingly, but surely it's clear that our "human nature" is very different from that of many societies of the past and even of the present. So there's no particular reason to suggest that it can't change again, except by being convinced by capitalism's self-supporting ideology. It isn't that long since people believed that kings ruled by divine right and doing away with them would lead to savagery.

I understand and agree with most of this, but the mere fact that, as you write, "there's no particular reason to suggest that (human nature) can't change again" doesn't mean that it will necessarily change in the particular ways that might meet with your approval in the specific context under discussion here.

That said, I would not necessarily argue that the notion of ownership is predicated upon "human nature" in the first place but, given that things have to be owned by someone, I don't see why that "human nature", in the guise of an ability to make choices where choices exist, cannot embrace the right to own some things and rent/lease other things that are owned by someone else.

I suppose, however, that the nub of my problem here is with the notion of "collective ownership", on two grounds - firstly, not everything is inherently amenable to such ownership in the first place and, secondly, I'm unconvinced of its real meaning in practice. The John Lewis Partnership example was cited above but, whereas that organisation markets the notion that all of its partners "own" it (i.e. own a share in it), in reality what they "own" is the right to a bonus based upon the company's annual profits and, as I understand it, every Partner receives the same percentage of his/her salary as bonus each year, irrespective of rank, salary level, &c. - all very laudable, but surely not the same as actually "owning" John Lewis? But perhaps I'm just being dense; (it wouldn't be the first time and doubtless won't be the last!)...

S-A's clarified where he'd draw the line with this (consimer goods); where would you do so, in terms of distinguishing between those kinds of things that you are prepared to own and those others that you might use but see no reason to own?

[ahinton]

there are very many people around now who see how capitalism does what it does, don't "believe" in it, but put up with it because the alternatives seem too dangerous.

I suspect that there might be considerably more who do so because they cannot conceive of what those alternatives might be and how, by the universal agreement necessary for them, they could be implemented and operated democratically.

[teamsaint]

... people like owning things. A failure to understand this basic truth of human nature undermines any attempt to create a communist utopia.

Just for a start, we have, almost all of us, had an "ownership" principle drummed into us, by forces all around us, from day 1.
That is going to be pretty hard to break out of.
Perhaps it is not so much an instinct as a very deeply ingrained habit?

Another thing that we are taught from the start of our lives is that we are competitive, and that left to our own devices, and without strong leadership, we are unable to rein in our worst excesses. The chaos of international relations "proves " this.

[P. G. Tipps]

The problem with the argument that human behaviour can be changed is ... how do you encourage anti-social people to become better, lazy folk to become harder workers, and greedy ones more sharing? After all before any rewards are evenly shared inputs have to be closely monitored and regulated according to a fair process as well!

'Education' is often cited as a solution but religions have tried this with mixed results to say the least. Some people will continue to act selfishly and be lazy whatever they are taught (or indoctrinated into depending on one's point of view).

So that just leaves 'the stick or the carrot' and that's where capitalism, for all its undoubted faults, has indeed a much better "understanding" of the flaws in 'human nature' than, say, socialism/communism, imv.