Is capitalism really such a good system?

[Serial_Apologist]

Or you could describe it as opportunity and aspiration clearly denied by an alternative socialist/communist system which would only encourage mediocrity and drab uniformity.

On the contrary: let a thousand flowers bloom - in terms, obviously of so many ideas being put to (for example) neighbourhood competitions people with so much leisure time would be clamouring for the materials from which they would be making shirts, dresses, etc etc. The drab uniformity of which you write is there for all to see, right now, in those rows of black suits on hangers, grey, black and navy blue puffa jackets, hoodies and white trainers. There was a time (in the 60s) when fashion meant colour! Now that's only allowed for women. Oh, and PINK of course for little girls! And this isn't enforcing conformity??

My own feeling, FWIW, is that it's the latter which is truly guided by envy hence its hatred of the rich and successful in the capitalist system.

Quite the opposite - elitism for everyone we should say, just like we all argue Radio 3 should be promoting, (but you knew that really!)

[Serial_Apologist]

Those with disproportionate shares of wealth will always tend use the envy argument...it is Mandy Rice Davis stuff. Take away the avoidable inequality, and you take away the envy.

The Affluenza bloke is really good on this. What's his face?

[Richard Barrett]

elitism for everyone

Quite. People seem to have the idea that socialism is about uniformity when actually it's the opposite... "communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that is does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation" (Communist Manifesto)

[amateur51]

... any ideas as to how to wean humanity off this wide-spread "instinct" or "deeply ingrained habit"?

Taking the plug off the telly might be a good starting point

[teamsaint]

Taking the plug off the telly might be a good starting point

Good advice Ams, and I wish I had done this when my kids were young.

Mind you, rather messes up MOTD.

As an alternative strategy, make this compulsory viewing in schools.

http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/

Sorry to bang on about it, but this really does put a lot of things into perspective.

[Serial_Apologist]

But I don't see that as the only way to espouse that system; capitalism does not of itself have to presuppose greed or be dependent upon envy and, when these things do manifest themselves, it's a corrupted form of capitalism that's being followed. "That jewel" in the context in which you refer to it is one thing; some equipment necessary for the running of an SME, for example, is quite another.

While I am prepared to acknowledge a stage at which capitalism was progressive, I don't think William Blake, writing at the time industrialism associated with it was getting off the ground, would agree that it was ever uncorrupted/ting. But supposing you are right, to get back to that fairer stage in capitalism's evolution would put Britain at an enormous disadvantage in global competitive terms today.

Also, assumptions might be made about someone who lives in a million pound + home regardless of whether the resident has purchased it to live in - it could as easily be rented - so any envy on the part of the person maing such an assumption here might well find itself either misplaced altogether or unwittingly directed at a wealthier person because of what he/she rents rather than owns.

If the pooling of land under common ownership was the norm, no one would have grounds for begrudging another in this way; it is only cultural habit that takes a different perspective - the way most US citizens see our NHS for example.

[Richard Barrett]

While I am prepared to acknowledge a stage at which capitalism was progressive

It was certainly progressive at the time when Blake was around, in so far as it did lead to the disempowering of the hereditary aristocracy, as well as to the advances in technology which enabled (among other things) the growth of an industrial working class and thus to the possibility of advancing beyond it. In so far as inequality is built into capitalism in a fundamental way, it can never give rise to a society based on equality and social justice. As Teamsaint says: "Under a more collective system there would be no need for financial aspiration, and its destructive qualities. Drab mediocrity? already built into many people's lives, along with debt and resentment."

[P. G. Tipps]

On the contrary: let a thousand flowers bloom - in terms, obviously of so many ideas being put to (for example) neighbourhood competitions people with so much leisure time would be clamouring for the materials from which they would be making shirts, dresses, etc etc. The drab uniformity of which you write is there for all to see, right now, in those rows of black suits on hangers, grey, black and navy blue puffa jackets, hoodies and white trainers. There was a time (in the 60s) when fashion meant colour! Now that's only allowed for women. Oh, and PINK of course for little girls! And this isn't enforcing conformity??

No, it's not enforcing anything ... capitalist supply naturally responds to demand, in other words what people want! Men tend to prefer darker colours on the whole and women are not forced to buy pink or turquoise mobile phones. All the evidence of the difference tastes of men and women can be seen by a simple inspection of the products sold at any department store/ supermarket, any day of the year. If capitalism didn't respond to consumer demand it couldn't and wouldn't exist!

Quite the opposite - elitism for everyone we should say, just like we all argue Radio 3 should be promoting, (but you knew that really!)

Well, 'elitism for everyone' is a complete contradiction in terms and therefore its attainment something of a 'challenge'! As we all know from experience and history, socialism and communism simply produce alternative 'elites' to capitalism.

Radio 3 is actually an excellent example of what happens when organisers and managers try to force an unnatural 'inclusiveness'. The whole thing gets 'dumbed-down' and listeners now get invitations for tweets about what music they prefer whilst crunching their cornflakes. Never mind that Radio 3 listeners previously chose that very station because its standards were clearly higher than the others. Of course, we cannot have any sort of 'elitism', the Equalitists insist, so we all end up with a less-convincing and, yes, much drabber version of ClassicFM.

Public broadcasting can play a vital role in filling in the gaps that commercial stations ignore because the latter are quite naturally far too busy pandering to the largest audiences, ie the 'non-elitists'. R3 should simply be left to the 'elitists'. Then both are happy. The only people who seem to see anything at all wrong with that are the Equalitists!

[Richard Barrett]

As we all know from experience and history, socialism and communism simply produce alternative 'elites' to capitalism.

As I said before, that's a bit like sayng at the time of the Restoration or when Napoleon crowned himself emperor that republicanism simply produces more kings. Of course "elitism for everyone" is a contradiction, it was intended as a rhetorical figure. With the resources and technology that presently exist it would be possible for everyone in the world to live comfortably. Capitalism is why that can't presently happen. You can write all you like about it giving people choices, but, taking the world as a whole, most people's lives are not characterised by the availability of choices: even in the UK, one of the world's richest countries, there's significant and growing poverty which reduce "choice" to questions like being able at any particular time to buy food or clothes for oneself or one's children, while the rich become richer, I hardly need to point out. Capitalism is the driving force behind this increasing inequality.

[aeolium]

Yet whatever the clear shortcomings of capitalism, it seems evident to me that people in the west will not be persuaded that communism is the answer. And that is because despite the high-sounding principles of the theory - let a thousand flowers bloom, that every person can develop to his or her full potential - the actual attempts to implement communist principles by those who were disciples of Marx (and later, of Lenin) have been disastrous. Those who oppose private ownership of property here ought to recall that the enforced collectivisations in the Soviet Union and China led to human suffering on an immense scale. And it is not enough to say - ah, but that wasn't really communism, that wasn't how the theory was supposed to go. But those were attempts by people who believed they were implementing communist principles - and in the case of the Russian revolution, a great many of the transitional proposals advocated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto were indeed implemented. So people looking at the theory of communism are right to be wary on the grounds of the disastrous attempts to realise it. They are right to be concerned about how human rights, political liberty, and pluralism of thought are to be guaranteed when they so signally disappeared under avowedly communist regimes.

[ahinton]

While I am prepared to acknowledge a stage at which capitalism was progressive, I don't think William Blake, writing at the time industrialism associated with it was getting off the ground, would agree that it was ever uncorrupted/ting.

No, I'm quite sure that he wouldn't - and nor would Adam Smith in his day - but it has undoubtedly been corrupted and misappropriated since on a global scale undreamed of by either.

But supposing you are right, to get back to that fairer stage in capitalism's evolution would put Britain at an enormous disadvantage in global competitive terms today.

But even if it did so, it would surely have that effect far less than would the wholesale overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with something else as yet to be determined and defined but quite opposite in principle to capitalism; I have never sought to suggest that any one nation's unilateral application of such fundamental reforms could work and, in today's ever more connected globalist society, they simply wouldn't work unless there were prior internatioanl agreement to adopt them. Furthermore, getting back to that fairer stage would come not only at a cost but also bring with it advantages that, in time, ought to enable a much fairer society to achieve more and become less at risk of being disadvantaged.

If the pooling of land under common ownership was the norm

That's as maybe but, as in most things, with rights come responsibilities, so the with the right to ownership of land - even "common ownership" as you put it - comes those owners' responsibilities towards it in terms of custodianship, good use and the rest; I am no expert in such matters, any more than I am in matters of banking so, just as I didn't ask and would not have wanted to have an enforced (albeit temporary) stake in Royal Bank of Scotland, I would not want to be a "common owner" of anything the full details of whose best management and use are outside my area of expertise. "Common land" already exists, of course, but it's not used for commercial or residential building and is thus a far simpler matter to deal with as it is not subject to squillions of pounds in development and management costs nor is it subject to the vagaries of the market because it is not intended for commercial purposes.

[ahinton]

With the resources and technology that presently exist it would be possible for everyone in the world to live comfortably.

Maybe not immediately, but the point remains true nevertheless.

Capitalism is why that can't presently happen.

That's a bald statement of your belief and I accept it as such. It is only my personal opinion (albeit no doubt shared by some) that it is the corruption, misappropriation and wilful misunderstanding of the socially positive aspects of capitalist practice, rather than the phenomenon of capitalism itself, that is why it can't presently happen. I know well that you disagree fundamentally with that view as indeed you have a perfect right to do, but it remains my view nevertheless.

You can write all you like about it giving people choices, but, taking the world as a whole, most people's lives are not characterised by the availability of choices: even in the UK, one of the world's richest countries, there's significant and growing poverty which reduce "choice" to questions like being able at any particular time to buy food or clothes for oneself or one's children, while the rich become richer, I hardly need to point out. Capitalism is the driving force behind this increasing inequality.

As above. You are, of course, correct in what you say here in your first sentence. I am of the view, however, that until the rich can be persuaded that no one actually needs more than a certain amount of wealth in order to be able to "live confortably", as you put it, it won't matter what system might be tried, the rich will make sure that it doesn't work - or at least that it doesn't work against their "interests".

[Richard Barrett]

it seems evident to me

I imagine that it usually seems evident to most people at most times that the social system they're living in is somehow immutable. And yet history shows that radical changes have happened, not everywhere at once, and not before various "failures" have taken place. It's still true that the analysis of capitalism developed by the Marxist tradition of thought is deeper and more accurate than any other, and while this truth was somewhat submerged between the 1980s and a few years ago it is presently gaining currency again.

I would prefer to remain optimistic that a change in consciousness can occur, and my feeling is that as global inequality continues to manifest itself increasingly in terms of uncontrolled financial speculation, the unequal impact of climate change, the perception that the interests of "democratic" governments and the people they rule don't coincide, and so on, there'll come a point where cooperation on a level not allowed by the short-term dynamics of capitalism is going to be the only way for a new and more extensive "dark age" not to descend on the world. Of course it could go either way, but IMO the ideas behind socialism need to be kept alive against such time as they'll be needed, and acquiescence in the face of a seemingly immovable status quo seems to me unduly defeatist and possibly self-fulfilling.

[aeolium]

I imagine that it usually seems evident to most people at most times that the social system they're living in is somehow immutable. And yet history shows that radical changes have happened, not everywhere at once, and not before various "failures" have taken place. It's still true that the analysis of capitalism developed by the Marxist tradition of thought is deeper and more accurate than any other, and while this truth was somewhat submerged between the 1980s and a few years ago it is presently gaining currency again.

Of course you are aware that I have at no stage claimed that the social system I was living in was immutable, which would be a preposterous claim. I have lived through enormous changes in it, and seen enormous changes in the social systems of other countries. I agree that Marx's analysis has provided valuable insights into the nature of capitalism, but that is not to say that his prescription for revolutionary change is the right one. I think the failures - and I would not put that word in quotation marks - of the attempted realisation of his communist ideas point to flaws in the theory. They result in authoritarian regimes which limit human freedoms and suppress human potential.

I would prefer to remain optimistic that a change in consciousness can occur, and my feeling is that as global inequality continues to manifest itself increasingly in terms of uncontrolled financial speculation, the unequal impact of climate change, the perception that the interests of "democratic" governments and the people they rule don't coincide, and so on, there'll come a point where cooperation on a level not allowed by the short-term dynamics of capitalism is going to be the only way for a new and more extensive "dark age" not to descend on the world. Of course it could go either way, but IMO the ideas behind socialism need to be kept alive against such time as they'll be needed, and acquiescence in the face of a seemingly immovable status quo seems to me unduly defeatist and possibly self-fulfilling.

If ever there was an opportunity for the revival of socialist and/or communist ideas it was with the financial crash of 2008, which laid bare the failings of capitalism in spectacular fashion. Yet if anything it has led (in the West at least) to an upsurge in right-wing populism and nationalism, with the left largely bereft of electoral support. Isn't this the spectre of communism - the communism of failed implementation, not of political theory - that still haunts Europe? In some ways this is a pity in that there is much in socialist thinking that I am sympathetic to. But I never want to see a revival of communism led by those who seem to want to gloss over the horrors of the regimes inspired by it, in the mistaken belief that somehow it will be different this time.

[Richard Barrett]

If ever there was an opportunity for the revival of socialist and/or communist ideas it was with the financial crash of 2008, which laid bare the failings of capitalism in spectacular fashion.

That was only six years ago, and none of the conditions which led to it have changed in the meantime. I think it's likely to have been the first and probably not the largest of a series of upheavals. As for electoral support, large numbers of people no longer have any faith in voting systems to deliver anything but a different subgroup of the same political class; more fundamental change seems to me unlikely to come about through such means.

Also there's no reason to assume that any future change will begin in "the West". While it's true that recent elections in Europe have seemed to indicate a shift to the right, this is by no means the case in South America for example. Of course it's true that nobody wants a return to Stalin-like dictatorships which claimed to be communist while being nothing of the sort, but those régimes didn't have a monopoly on lying about their political nature, as we see for example in the way Western governments talk about their priority being "wealth creation" when they mean "wealth creation for the rich".