Is capitalism really such a good system?

[Flosshilde]

Hardly - since it's a case of the exploited (dare I say oppressed), or the powerless, hating the exploiters, or the powerful - entirely reasonably, in my view. Whereas racism, sexism, etc is the other way round.

[P. G. Tipps]

Hardly - since it's a case of the exploited (dare I say oppressed), or the powerless, hating the exploiters, or the powerful - entirely reasonably, in my view. Whereas racism, sexism, etc is the other way round.

So you would hate any man or woman simply because of their 'class'?

How appalling ...

[Richard Barrett]

So you would hate any man or woman simply because of their 'class'?

Did anyone say anything about hating people because of their class? Hatred of the class system and of the way the ruling class exploits people is something quite different, there's nothing personal about it. And hating some scoundrel who seems to embody the evils of capitalism, like Fred Goodwin or Ian Duncan Smith, is quite healthy I would have thought.

[Richard Barrett]

Kunkel's writing style is a bit opaque (is he German?) but it's good to see someone using the term ruling class, and though imv he's right in concluding that Picketty ends up as an apologist for capitalism, he himself leaves the question of agency open - unless, that is, we expected to think that the ruling class will conveniently disband itself. But the London Review ain't of course no call to arms!

David Harvey has some similar things to say, a great deal more concisely, on his website.. He concludes: There is much that is valuable in Piketty’s data sets. But his explanation as to why the inequalities and oligarchic tendencies arise is seriously flawed. His proposals as to the remedies for the inequalities are naïve if not utopian. And he has certainly not produced a working model for capital of the twenty-first century. For that we still need Marx or his modern-day equivalent.

David Graeber also makes a trenchant critique of Piketty - he doesn't seem to understand that it doesn't matter how many books he sells, or summits he holds with financial luminaries or members of the policy elite, the sheer fact that in 2014 a left-leaning French intellectual can safely declare that he does not want to overthrow the capitalist system but only to save it from itself is the reason such reforms will never happen. The 1% are not about to expropriate themselves, even if asked nicely. And they have spent the past 30 years creating a lock on media and politics to ensure no one will do so through electoral means.

[Flosshilde]

And hating some scoundrel who seems to embody the evils of capitalism, like Fred Goodwin or Ian Duncan Smith, is quite healthy I would have thought.

But frustrating and ultimately fruitless - hating the individual can obscure the fact that it's the system that is the problem. Fred the Shred has gone - but the problems in the banking industry that he symbolised are still there.

[Richard Barrett]

Fred the Shred has gone - but the problems in the banking industry that he symbolised are still there.

I am of course quite aware of that! but it's also important to bear in mind that the "problems" didn't fall out of the sky but were the results of decisions taken by real people - people like you and me but with a lot more money and no conscience.

[teamsaint]

So you would hate any man or woman simply because of their 'class'?

How appalling ...

Big landowners are, by almost any definition, a class.
in 2010, one third of UK land was owned by 1200 aristocratic families.
They choose not to do anything to right the awful inequality that this perpetuates. I don't hate them, but I don't like what they do at all.

They have the power to act in a fairer way.

[P. G. Tipps]

... And hating some scoundrel who seems to embody the evils of capitalism, like Fred Goodwin or Ian Duncan Smith, is quite healthy I would have thought.

You no doubt think that, but others might find the hatred of any human being (even a scoundrel) destructive to themselves and possibly the rest of society.

Hating the deed is one thing, hating the individual because he happened to get things badly wrong (along with countless others) or someone because of his politics is quite another.

To describe such hatred as 'quite healthy' seems to me quite bizarre.

[ahinton]

I realise that I'll be shot down for this, but I do wish that this "ruling class" descriptor could be consigned to where it rightfully belongs, not least because it risks hiding something far mor dangerous and fearsome still. This "ruling class", when referred to - does it mean monarchs and their families? presidents and their henchmen? prime ministers and theirs? - or just those people with vast amounts of assets and massivly high incomes who desire to wield power by using it in their own interests and against the interests of others? Apart, perhaps, from cases where members of the first three categories happen also to fit the last, it seems to me that what is meant is the last. The problem with this is that they have no democratic right to "rule" and they are not really a "class"; the reason for the latter of these is that they each have their own sets of interests which might and sometimes do conflict with one another. Were the intents and desires of every person with more than £x billion to his/her name and an annual income in excess of £x00,000 million were to be examined, I rather doubt that much commonality would be found. If they were all in the same boat, then whatever one might call them one would at least know what and whom one was up against but, in truth, the very diversity amongst them suggests too much fragmentation to warrant their being flung together as a "class", not least because not everyone who is in such a position of wealth seeks to use it against the interests of others.

OK, maybe that's something of a side issue to the question posed by the thread. Capitalism was a good system (though not a perfect one - what system would or could be that?); whether it can recover from the parlous and discreditable state into which it has gotten itself over decades is obviously open to question (and it is indeed rightly being so questioned), but it certainly will not unless there is an international concerted and sustained effort to ensure that it does. In the meantime, there seems to be considerably less agreement as to a viable alternative than there is even about how the present system could be reformed for the general social good.

I agree that hating some of the most overtly corrupt practitioners of what might be called denatured capitalism, be they bankers like Goodwin and Diamond or politicians like IDS, reflects adversely upon the hater and is pointless, but that doesn't mean that they should not express their utter contempt for the actions of such people when they believe them to be as they do.

[Flosshilde]

I am of course quite aware of that! but it's also important to bear in mind that the "problems" didn't fall out of the sky but were the results of decisions taken by real people - people like you and me but with a lot more money and no conscience.

Agreed, but there's a risk of the 'rotten apple' idea taking hold, especially in the media & politicians.

[ahinton]

Big landowners are, by almost any definition, a class.
in 2010, one third of UK land was owned by 1200 aristocratic families.
They choose not to do anything to right the awful inequality that this perpetuates. I don't hate them, but I don't like what they do at all.

They have the power to act in a fairer way.

Indeed they do - and that's why they should. How one gets them to do so remains an open question, however. That land needs all to be put to good use for the benefit of all - and that would mean a variety of good uses, including agricultural one, housing, solar farms, properly managed woodland and many more. I'm not against the ownership per se, but with such ownership comes responsibilities towards others; instances of carelessness of this is what fuels contempt for these people.

[Flosshilde]

he happened to get things badly wrong (along with countless others) or

Which makes it sound like an accident, whereas 'things' went 'badly wrong' through wilful actions on the part of Goodwin, Diamond et al. I've no doubt that in their eyes the only thing they did wrong was to get found out.

[Flosshilde]

Indeed they do - and that's why they should. How one gets them to do so remains an open question, however. That land needs all to be put to good use for the benefit of all - and that would mean a variety of good uses, including agricultural one, housing, solar farms, properly managed woodland and many more.

Rather a lot of what's done isn't done for the benefit of all, but to attract large subsidies. The real 'subsidy junkies' & 'scroungers' are among the richest people in the country - including those at the top of the 'ruling class' - i.e. the royal family.

[Richard Barrett]

To describe such hatred as 'quite healthy' seems to me quite bizarre.

Whatever. I try my best to think rationally but there are moments when emotion takes over. It has nothing to do with "rotten apples"; it's not even the entire system that's rotten, it's working in the only way it can, redistributing wealth upwards, privatising profit and nationalising risk. As for "getting it wrong", Goodwin would still be happily "getting it wrong" now if he could, I have no doubt of that. IDS will continue to "get it wrong" until he's put out to pasture. As far as the ruling class is concerned neither of them did or are doing anything fundamentally wrong.

[ahinton]

Agreed, but there's a risk of the 'rotten apple' idea taking hold, especially in the media & politicians.

Yes, I fear that this may indeed be the case; many people love a scapegoat because they help to reduce complex issues to what then look like simple ones - which is to miss the point.