When will the world wake up and see that free market capitalism doesn't work? Watch

redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
So I constantly see parroted on here 'communism doesn't work we all know that'. Of course we do, but neither does free market capitalism.

Over the past 50 years or so more and more major flaws of the free market have come to light, the major one being environmental damage, all of which free market fundamentalists have desperately tried to cover up.

Anyone reminded of a certain far left movement at all?

Capitalism clearly needs controlling, do you think it ever will be or we will just carry on destroying the planet until only the rich can survive?
3
reply
Holtz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Environmental damage has nothing to do with a particular economic model, that is an industrial issue. Our technology is unfortunately powered by fuels which harm the environment, that would still be the case whether we were capitalist, communist or any other model you like. I suppose if we lived in a truly communist society with no frivolous commodities we'd reduce industrial production significantly; but life would be pretty boring and we'd still be harming the environment at a reduced rate. We really need a new fuel, or for somebody to figure out the next leap in physics.

Capitalism works on human individualism. The best, or the most ruthless, or the luckiest prosper at the expense of everyone else. It seems to conform to human nature and encourages people to prosper, but it woefully lacks in compassion for the weakest members of society and relegates most of us to the status of worker drones. Communism isn't any better because there is no incentive to be productive at all. We're somewhere in the middle at the moment, and I think the best we can do is to find a balance between the socialist and capitalist ideas. We shouldn't be allowing the poor to starve, or people to go without medicine or shelter - but at the same time individualism needs to be maintained and some incentive needs to exist or people won't be productive. The only incentive we have is money and people need to be able to use that money to improve their situations.

The problem with the money incentive is it creates social classes to some degree or another. So we're stuck with these various classes, but we'll also support those who cannot support themselves. The best we can really hope for is to ensure everyone has access to basic necessities and provide as many opportunities as possible for people to shift through classes. We'll always have an elite wealthy class (the 1%) who control most of the world's wealth though, which isn't encouraging. I also feel like we've reached a point where we're not really progressing. Capitalism isn't what it was during the second world war, we're extracting resources to build a lot of pretty useless and trivial stuff for our own luxury and entertainment just for the sake of circulation. Why do we need a new version of the iphone every few months, and why does everyone buy it?

On a grander scale the monetary incentive system creates an even greater disparity of wealth between nations. It's quite disgraceful that untold millions across the world are still dying from dirty water and hunger, and diseases that we cured centuries ago in Europe. If I was an alien visiting Earth for the first time with no knowledge of our history or how we developed, I'd be pretty disgusted with how we've organised ourselves and distributed our resources considering we've got some people spending money to consume fermented fruit to essentially poison themselves for entertainment, while others are dying of cholera. But we can't even begin to address that while the world is divided up into so many individual countries with so many individual problems. If you can figure out a way for people to be selflessly productive, you'll save humanity.
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by redferry)
Anyone reminded of a certain far left movement at all?
No



0
reply
redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Plainview)
No



I meant in terms of those in power shutting down legitimate evidence against their ideology.

Number of deaths is irrelevant. Not that I agree with communism but the anti communists who so hated Russia increasingly employ tactics very much associated with communist regimes.

Out of interest does that figure for Mao include all the people that died in the famine after he wiped out all the sparrows? Because I would have thought he'd be above Stalin.
0
reply
usainlightning
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
We are corporatist not capitalist. Millionaires buying politicians, banking bailouts, subsidies propping up the housing market etc.
1
reply
redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Holtz)
Environmental damage has nothing to do with a particular economic model, that is an industrial issue. Our technology is unfortunately powered by fuels which harm the environment, that would still be the case whether we were capitalist, communist or any other model you like. I suppose if we lived in a truly communist society with no frivolous commodities we'd reduce industrial production significantly; but life would be pretty boring and we'd still be harming the environment at a reduced rate. We really need a new fuel, or for somebody to figure out the next leap in physics.

Capitalism works on human individualism. The best, or the most ruthless, or the luckiest prosper at the expense of everyone else. It seems to conform to human nature and encourages people to prosper, but it woefully lacks in compassion for the weakest members of society and relegates most of us to the status of worker drones. Communism isn't any better because there is no incentive to be productive at all. We're somewhere in the middle at the moment, and I think the best we can do is to find a balance between the socialist and capitalist ideas. We shouldn't be allowing the poor to starve, or people to go without medicine or shelter - but at the same time individualism needs to be maintained and some incentive needs to exist or people won't be productive. The only incentive we have is money and people need to be able to use that money to improve their situations.

The problem with the money incentive is it creates social classes to some degree or another. So we're stuck with these various classes, but we'll also support those who cannot support themselves. The best we can really hope for is to ensure everyone has access to basic necessities and provide as many opportunities as possible for people to shift through classes. We'll always have an elite wealthy class (the 1%) who control most of the world's wealth though, which isn't encouraging. I also feel like we've reached a point where we're not really progressing. Capitalism isn't what it was during the second world war, we're extracting resources to build a lot of pretty useless and trivial stuff for our own luxury and entertainment just for the sake of circulation. Why do we need a new version of the iphone every few months, and why does everyone buy it?

On a grander scale the monetary incentive system creates an even greater disparity of wealth between nations. It's quite disgraceful that untold millions across the world are still dying from dirty water and hunger, and diseases that we cured centuries ago in Europe. If I was an alien visiting Earth for the first time with no knowledge of our history or how we developed, I'd be pretty disgusted with how we've organised ourselves and distributed our resources considering we've got some people spending money to consume fermented fruit to essentially poison themselves for entertainment, while others are dying of cholera. But we can't even begin to address that while the world is divided up into so many individual countries with so many individual problems. If you can figure out a way for people to be selflessly productive, you'll save humanity.
Just to set the record straight I'm talking about free market , unregulated , capitalism, not capitalism as a whole. A matter very much liked to the environmental crisis, as most global warming deniers will tell you. That's why the right fight the environmentalists, they see any form of regulation to protect the environment as an attack on the free market. You can't have limitless growth without causing problems elsewhere.
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by redferry)
I meant in terms of those in power shutting down legitimate evidence against their ideology.

Number of deaths is irrelevant. Not that I agree with communism but the anti communists who so hated Russia increasingly employ tactics very much associated with communist regimes.
What? How? You asked me if free market capitalism reminds me of communism. The answer is no, because communism leads to democide. I don't see the 'anti-communists' using industry-wide purges, labour camps, or the secret police.

Out of interest does that figure for Mao include all the people that died in the famine after he wiped out all the sparrows? Because I would have thought he'd be above Stalin.
I doubt it. I always thought he'd killed 70 mil.
0
reply
redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Plainview)
What? How? You asked me if free market capitalism reminds me of communism. The answer is no, because communism leads to democide. I don't see the 'anti-communists' using industry-wide purges, labour camps, or the secret police.



I doubt it. I always thought he'd killed 70 mil.
Mao was an idiot.

I'm not argueing for communism here, just against free market capitalism.

The destruction of scientists careers and reputation reminds me of a number of communist regimes.
0
reply
Monkey.Man
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9


*ahem*.
1
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Free markets work best because all other systems had been tried before and today China is slowly becoming one of the biggest economies and a wealthier country because of free markets.

If there wasn't capitalism chances are you won't even have enough to eat or enough bricks/timber to build your home.
0
reply
redferry
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Alfissti)
Free markets work best because all other systems had been tried before and today China is slowly becoming one of the biggest economies and a wealthier country because of free markets.

If there wasn't capitalism chances are you won't even have enough to eat or enough bricks/timber to build your home.
Not all capitalism is free market capitalism , regulating markets is needed to prevent growth at the expense of the environment. It's been done before and worked eg the hole in the ozone layer. I don't see why it can't be done again but no, apparently we can't because it will destroy the global economy (make the rich less rich)
0
reply
StarvingAutist
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Because people enjoy sleeping.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (118)
65.19%
No I haven't decided yet (38)
20.99%
Yes but I might change my mind (25)
13.81%

Watched Threads

View All