Has capitalism failed?

Scroll to see replies

DrunkHamster

There's no neurosis here, it's just that the defenders of capitalism understand the vast importance that economic growth has with regards to human well-being (and by implication, you don't). I know, I know, you think that growth isn't everything and you care about equality too. But if you care about how people are doing - in absolute terms, not relative ones - you'll care about growth.

For example, if the rate of growth in the USA had been one percentage point lower between 1870 and 1990, its per capita GDP would be a third less - on a par with Mexico. Now, there's a reason why poor Mexicans are flocking over the border, and it's not because the USA is a good country for rich people.

Thanks for your post.

You mentioned 'well-being' which is interesting, as from what I understand, it has little correlation with economic growth (up to a point!). What you say about the USA is true; since 1946, real incomes have increased by around 400%. However, in fact, there has been no increase in reported levels of well-being. I've used the USA as an example here, but this is an established trend.

As a note: By 'well-being' I'm refering to levels of reported happiness and satisfaction with lifestyle. While I understand the problems with reconciling this kind of data, it does include a number of psychological and social factors - which raw GDP neglects.

Reply 41

Red_Flag

borismor

Common now, that's always the other factor...

I understood what you were pointing out, but since you gave no explicit alternative or explanation as to why growth is not a good measure,
it is natural to assume that you were implying that equality is a better measure.

Otherwise your statement remains competely arbitrary, and deserves an equaliy arbitrary response.

I think what I said was a valid point. At least as a platform for further discussion. It's hardly constructive -or mature- to make asumptions and then respond 'arbitrarily'...

Reply 42

borismor

Red_Flag

While I understand the problems with reconciling this kind of data, it does include a number of psychological and social factors - which raw GDP neglects.

For example: jealousy of those who are more succesful then you are.

Reply 43

borismor

Red_Flag

I think what I said was a valid point.

How can anybody judge weather or not it is a valid point when it isn't backed by any kind of explanation?

Reply 44

Red_Flag

borismor

For example: jealousy of those who are more succesful then you are.

Not quite sure what you mean here. I agree with you that a society which holds ever higher consumption and income rates paramount, will indeed foster feelings of jealousy and inadiquacy.

Reply 45

Bismarck

Red_Flag

This post is quite interesting, I think, as it typifies the almost neurotic obsessiveness for economic growth from defenders of capitalism and neoliberalism. The rather simple implication being that, the system which delivers the greater economic growth is therefore the best. This myopic approach is hardly a good indicator of judgement on whether systems of governance have failed or not...

Says the person who's currently using the internet and a computer, technology only made possible by such growth. Let's be against the growth that provided us with our technology or that made it possible to have a welfare state for that matter. Or created conditions where the poor in the West are better off than the middle class in countries that had a command economy.

Reply 46

borismor

Bismarck

Really, Bismarck, you are forgetting some very importan psychological factors.

For example - some people may dislike the fact that other people make more money then they do.

Some people feel it's unfair they have to think, or learn, or work at all!

Reply 47

Folderol

Yeah I heard it failed in the '70s, '80s as well :shifty:

Reply 48

Collingwood

Red_Flag

While peoples' expectations probably do re-normalise themselves to improved conditions as prosperity increases, revert their wealth to 1945 levels, or even tell them that they can never earn more than they do now (ie. not reducing their real wealth at all, only removing potential future growth in wealth) and see if they become more or less happy.

I always find it ironic when 21st century socialists take the tack of simply denying the importance of prosperity, when the original socialists promoted their philosophy on the basis that it would greatly accelerate the rate of increase in prosperity.

Reply 49

borismor

Collingwood

I always find it ironic when 21st century socialists take the tack of simply denying the importance of prosperity, when the original socialists promoted their philosophy on the basis that it would greatly accelerate the rate of increase in prosperity.

Actually I disagree. In Marx's vision society will be eventually reduced to agricultural communes, because industrialization and specialization necessarily cause class - division.

You know how it is - when some people move forward, some people get left behind, and for Marx, justice will be achieved only when those who are left behind kill those who move forward...

Reply 50

Gremlins

borismor

Actually I disagree. In Marx's vision society will be eventually reduced to agricultural communes, because industrialization and specialization necessarily cause class - division.

Lolwut? Socialists might have complained about the division of labour and the rural-urban divide in 19th Century European Society (and you can see a similar divide in Asia and the Third World today too), but that doesn't mean the only other alternative is rural communes.

You know how it is - when some people move forward, some people get left behind, and for Marx, justice will be achieved only when those who are left behind kill those who move forward...

Reply 51

username224850

well, no, I think bad, greedy, short-termist capitalism has failed.

Reply 52

Zakyrie

HDchicky

Does the global economic show that capitalism has failed? Does this mean we should adapt socialist views? Should all private sectors become state owned? Should we combine them both?

Corporate bailouts, rising fuel prises, and high rates of unemployment in developed countries are indeed signs of a weakening economy, but capitalism hasn't failed yet. Its the government that provides grants and incentives for multinationals, so having those companies become state-owned won't make much of a difference.

Capitalism has failed in one aspect. Motivation. The idea behind capitalism is that everyone has chance to get rich and start their own business, but 2 :s-smilie:

things have counter-acted against this plan. First, the bourgeoisie own everything and perpetuate their wealth almost like an aristocracy. 2nd Bad decisions made by large corporations or the government unfortunately affect the little people, the small businesses. Drastically lowering their chances of ever getting rich or transcending their original class.

There's a lot doom and gloom and words like 'economic crisis' floating around. This is why. When economy appears to be bad it creates despair and builds a pit few people can climb out of.

Reply 53

borismor

Gremlins

Well - how else are you going to make sure that no work becomes redundant because of technology?

Reply 54

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

DrunkHamster

For example, if the rate of growth in the USA had been one percentage point lower between 1870 and 1990, its per capita GDP would be a third less - on a par with Mexico. Now, there's a reason why poor Mexicans are flocking over the border, and it's not because the USA is a good country for rich people.

That was beautiful!

borismor

I don't understand how this could possibly be more desirable. In the words of Bella Gerens:

"Christ, haven’t these people learned anything? If living off our own ******* local food was so great, our ancestors wouldn’t have escaped in relief from doing it as soon as conditions made it possible. Pardon me while I descend into teleological historicity, but isn’t one of the purposes of chronicling human development to avoid past mistakes, rather than to do the same stupid **** all over again?"

http://bellagerens.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/life-in-the-middle-ages/

Reply 55

qgujxj39

caroline147

Considering it was nowhere near capitalism in the first place, obviously not.

This.

Reply 56

Gremlins

Capitalism and the free market are not the same things. Capitalism is just an economic system where the means of production are owned by a relatively small group of people who then employ the rest of us to operate them. That doesn't preclude potentially enormous state involvement in the economy. Infact, when capitalism looks like it's faultering, the state more than happily steps in to save it - the Scramble for Africa was largely a battle for markets in which to dump excess production, the New Deal did more to save American capitalists than anything else, and right now we're picking up for the failure of the very richest members of society who will probably remain the very richest once this is all over.

Reply 57

arturo291

What is capitalism but a form of neo-slavery. Take loans - pay them off, the cycle never ends. The people who control the banking sector often control the entire country. Greed is the motor of capitalism, it's a race in consumption - the only people who prosper from it are at the very top of the food chain. I'm not trying to propagate communism, but just take a look around.

Reply 58

bishbash72

arturo291

How is working freely, and spending your money freely anything like slavery? What if you don't take loans? What on earth do you mean?

However, it is contrasted to communism, which IS slavery, literally.

Reply 59

bishbash72

Gremlins

Not at all. Capital is money. Capitalism is when people are allowed to spend their money as they wish. The terms are synonymous in every way.

What you are talking about is more like oligarchy, which I would seriously dispute the UK is.