Communism?

[Nobunaga]

It is working in China and will continue to work.

there is nothing wrong with communism.

The fear from you people leaches through a stink that I can smell from the laptop.

... It is working in China only to keep 3/4 of the population ignorant and poor. If that's what you meant, I guess you're right.

...

[thegreekdog]

It's clear that capitalism is failing (right now) in enriching the inner life of people, in fact it empoverishes it. In general.

+1 although I don't think communism is likely to be the answer either.

You guys are both assuming we have a capitalist economic system right now, and not a socialist one.

[pmchugh]

It's clear that capitalism is failing (right now) in enriching the inner life of people, in fact it empoverishes it. In general.

+1 although I don't think communism is likely to be the answer either.

You guys are both assuming we have a capitalist economic system right now, and not a socialist one.

Would you argue otherwise?

[thegreekdog]

It's clear that capitalism is failing (right now) in enriching the inner life of people, in fact it empoverishes it. In general.

+1 although I don't think communism is likely to be the answer either.

You guys are both assuming we have a capitalist economic system right now, and not a socialist one.

Would you argue otherwise?

Yes. I would argue that the world economy is some version of an oligarchy where the people in power are directly tied to monied interests and the people in power make decisions to benefit themselves and the monied people.

That is not capitalism (it's not socialism either though).

[pimpdave]

Yeah, it's more like feudalism, something Adam Smith warned about, if capitalism is left unregulated.

[pmchugh]

It's clear that capitalism is failing (right now) in enriching the inner life of people, in fact it empoverishes it. In general.

+1 although I don't think communism is likely to be the answer either.

You guys are both assuming we have a capitalist economic system right now, and not a socialist one.

Would you argue otherwise?

Yes. I would argue that the world economy is some version of an oligarchy where the people in power are directly tied to monied interests and the people in power make decisions to benefit themselves and the monied people.

That is not capitalism (it's not socialism either though).

Maybe you should have left out, "and not a socialist one" then. To me, what you described is capitalism or at least what I consider people to mean when they say capitalism.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe you should have left out, "and not a socialist one" then. To me, what you described is capitalism or at least what I consider people to mean when they say capitalism.

I think your definition of capitalism is flawed (no offense intended).

A popular example from the U.S. - The Affordable Care Act is supposed to provide health insurance for all Americans. It does that (sort of, there is a debate as to how many more Americans are covered now than prior to the law's passage). The question is, how does it do it. If it were a socialist law (as U.S. conservatives contend) it would be the government providing health care for citizens. The law doesn't do that. It does two things:

(1) The law requires people to buy health insurance (that is not capitalism). That's oligarchy. The government is requiring people to purchase something from a private company, thereby enriching the private company.

(2) If the person cannot afford to buy health insurance, the government will pay for health insurance. This is also oligarchy. The government is taking other peoples' money and giving it to a private company to pay for the health insurance of an individual, thereby also enriching the private company.

If we lived in a capitalist society in the U.S., instead of an oligarchical society, people could buy health insurance if they wanted and the government wouldn't pay for it.

[pmchugh]

Maybe you should have left out, "and not a socialist one" then. To me, what you described is capitalism or at least what I consider people to mean when they say capitalism.

I think your definition of capitalism is flawed (no offense intended).

It is not "my definition", it is my perception of what is meant by the term when used by the majority of people.

A popular example from the U.S. - The Affordable Care Act is supposed to provide health insurance for all Americans. It does that (sort of, there is a debate as to how many more Americans are covered now than prior to the law's passage). The question is, how does it do it. If it were a socialist law (as U.S. conservatives contend) it would be the government providing health care for citizens. The law doesn't do that. It does two things:

(1) The law requires people to buy health insurance (that is not capitalism). That's oligarchy. The government is requiring people to purchase something from a private company, thereby enriching the private company.

(2) If the person cannot afford to buy health insurance, the government will pay for health insurance. This is also oligarchy. The government is taking other peoples' money and giving it to a private company to pay for the health insurance of an individual, thereby also enriching the private company.

If we lived in a capitalist society in the U.S., instead of an oligarchical society, people could buy health insurance if they wanted and the government wouldn't pay for it.

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

[thegreekdog]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

[Symmetry]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

So essentially, people who argue for capitalism are like people who argue for communism?

[thegreekdog]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

So essentially, people who argue for capitalism are like people who argue for communism?

In that we haven't seen unconstrained communism? Yes.

[pimpdave]

I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.

[BigBallinStalin]

Capitalism is an economic system. If you want to talk politics and culture, then you have to admit that these latter two will affect the economic system.

[pmchugh]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

I don't disagree with you on the current government(s). I am just saying that unconstrained "capitalism" would also result in an oligarchy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

I don't disagree with you on the current government(s). I am just saying that unconstrained "capitalism" would also result in an oligarchy.

It depends on the legal systems and the means of enforcement.

[pmchugh]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

I don't disagree with you on the current government(s). I am just saying that unconstrained "capitalism" would also result in an oligarchy.

It depends on the legal systems and the means of enforcement.

Interesting. Can you provide an example of an unconstrained "capitalist" state that would not result in an oligarchy?

[Timminz]

I want to show at least 4 examples off the top of my head, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.

Bets part of this thread, so far.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your capitalism is another man's oligarchy. The power is concentrated in rich, who unconstrained by government would only get richer and more powerful.

The government doesn't constrain the rich, is my point. It benefits the rich. It always has. We have not seen unconstrained capitalism. We haven't even seen constrained capitalism.

I don't disagree with you on the current government(s). I am just saying that unconstrained "capitalism" would also result in an oligarchy.

It depends on the legal systems and the means of enforcement.

Interesting. Can you provide an example of an unconstrained "capitalist" state that would not result in an oligarchy?

There's anarchical societies, which permit "the private means of production," which is a basic definition of capitalism, but they also have communal means of production for certain goods. So, these terms "capitalism" and "socialism" don't really explain much. (Unfortunately, I'm away from my library to look it up these societies' names, but the book is called Anarchy, State And Public Choice.)

So, we need a more useful analytical framework for understanding complex, social phenomena. There's basically three categories of institutions: economic, political, social. Each influences the other. The institutions can be designed and can be the result of human action but not of human design (i.e. spontaneous order).

For example, if you want to criticize capitalism, then how do you separate the influence of mercantalism or Keynesianism? We have to factor in the political institutions as well. And, of course, the social institutions (culture, norms, moral codes, etc.).


For me, capitalism refers to an economic system of exchange and production which relies upon prices, property rights, and profit and loss. But as soon as I mention this definition, I have to address legal systems (regarding property rights), which are formed and maintained through political and social institutions. It depends on where we find ourselves in history.

Prices have been around centuries, as have property rights and profit and loss. Does this mean that capitalism has been around this long? Not really, it's just a deficient term.

[pmchugh]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

[jak111]

I'm not here to get involved with any argument, so I hope you all don't mind that I skipped over all your posts (No offense Scotty, but when I seen your name I knew there was going to be a debate on this topic).

I'm not even Atheist, yet I don't fit under any religion or non religion category, I believe what I want to believe and my view changes constantly as I learn more FACTS. (Solid evidence, not faith, I have faith but not in some higher power, I have faith in the human race that we can get along some day). I believe Communism its self is not bad, anyone who disagrees I can guarantee that they'd get all defensive in this way if I put down their government or religion. Only people under a belief/ideology can be bad/corrupt.

Many individuals may fight about this, but usually they either haven't bothered to look for themselves, they've been told otherwise and believe it, or they're American (no offense but you'll see why here in a second). Fidel Castro is probably one of the best recent Communist leaders world wide. He provided FREE education, including college, university, etc.
Cuba only became Communists due to the US putting their noses where they don't belong (which, if you look in history they've done many times, taking credit even where they come in at the last minute after the main fighting was over to claim glory).
What they don't tell you in your schools about Castro, is that before him Cuba had a Communist leader still who was backed by the US. (Funny eh?)
Finally, Cuba probably is one of the nicest places in the world, I assume some locals hold hatred for people worldwide, as do quite a few in US, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, France, etc. But in all honesty, if I could go anywhere in the world for a vacation, it'd be Cuba, and because I can understand what they're being paid, I'd give the workers where ever I staid a bonus just so they could get along, help them and their families out.

Communism is a pretty amazing thing if you think about it. It's the drive to do good in life that will make communist people want to become doctors or cops, or whatever, because a higher paycheck is not there to motivate them, but instead their own ambitions and dreams. If that's not something that'd be good in society in general, then how corrupt are we? When did it stop being about the people, dreams, and ambitions, and start being about money all the damn time?

In a Communist government, yes they have complete control, but as long as they're GOOD people who want to actually better the world, there's less officials to give your money to, so they tend to not be as greedy.

I'm done with my speech, so you can agree or disagree, but honestly I don't care. People are beyond corrupt when all they see is the darkness in things.

[thegreekdog]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

I think if you look at economics on a longer-term historic basis, I think you'll find that the less control, the better. In pre-medieval societies, economies were controlled only by the government; that didn't work out too well for the less fortunate. Similarly, if you compare medieval societies with current societies, you'll find a big difference. Compare people in the US to people in other countries that don't have a developed capitalist economic system. Hell, the vast, vast majority of poor people in the United States have televisions!

I guess my point is the question is not whether capitalism is bad; it's whether capitalism is better than everything else. I think it is. I think you do need to regulate it, but not in a way that benefits one group of people over another. A couple of examples - You can't have a regulation that is onerous for one business, but not another, just because the first business is smaller. You can't have tax benefits for one industry and not have them for all industries. I think if we take that stuff out of government, we'll all be better off.

[pimpdave]

I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.

[thegreekdog]

I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.

There's no law against selling illegal drugs? Doesn't making the product illegal constrain the market?

[pimpdave]

I'm pretty sure you see unconstrained capitalism in the black market, like illicit drugs, etc.

There's no law against selling illegal drugs? Doesn't making the product illegal constrain the market?

The ultimate of nit picking.

[BigBallinStalin]

I want to try and avoid any semantic or historical debate on the definition of Capitalism if possible, it really would be a boring discussion.

In my mind an anarchic capitalist society would not be immune from manipulation and control of the wealthy. If anything it could make the situation worse, if all services are provided by private entities then the richest of said private entities would control how such services are provided. That is still an oligarchical society to me.

Basically I don't believe it is possible, without proper regulation (i.e. unconstrained), to stop the richest few forming an oligarchy of sorts in a loosely defined "capitalist" state. Of course, I may be lacking in imagination as to just how different other forms of capitalism can be but as far as I can see the ideas of privatism and market economics lead directly to an unavoidable inequality in which a small minority of the population control the majority.

I may be getting some things confused, I am not an economist so feel free to correct me if I am not making sense.

It depends on the legal system, the means of enforcement, the constitution, the social attitudes which shape human actions, etc. etc. etc. There's more to it than just "capitalism/market economics causes or leads to oligarchy." If that was true, then consider the following:

The ideas which are the opposite of "privatism" (state ownership) and "market economics" (no markets, no prices, just central planning) was already applied by the Soviet Union. Did that not lead to an oligarchy? My point is that there's obviously more to it than it being a matter of "oh, you have private ownership and market economics; therefore, somehow your society will end in a oligopoly."