Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    I would agree with all of this when viewing the west, where generally the poorest are able to benefit from capitalism if they make the most of it. However, capitalism does make massive usage of slave labour where people have no bargaining power to improve their wages to a point where they can save and get a leg up onto the good side of capitalism. 1/3 of India lives off less than $1 a day, yet in the same country has the fastest growing rate of millionaires. They are exploited by capitalism for if they don't want to work for 80c a day, they will die and be replaced by those who are happy to work for 75c.
    India's savings rate is over 30% and has been over 20% since the 70's. This is what fuelled their economic growth. You have to factor into this the cost of living as a percentage of income. In India this is lower than in the UK. Where have all the new millionaires and billionaires in India come from? Were they all rich to start with?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    i had a feeling that Nozick libertarians would sniff this thread out:cool:
    Who is this Nozick? My hero is Wilt Chamberlain who decisively showed patterned principles of justice (e.g. egalitarian ones) as incompatible with liberty.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Oh come on! That was a good joke!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    India's savings rate is over 30% and has been over 20% since the 70's. This is what fuelled their economic growth. You have to factor into this the cost of living as a percentage of income. In India this is lower than in the UK. Where have all the new millionaires and billionaires in India come from? Were they all rich to start with?
    Of course the $1 figure is no means comparable to the US/UK. However, the fact still remains that the social divide and extent of exploitation in the third world represent the 'dark side' of capitalism. As for the chicken and egg of capitalism, I don't know, I don't think even Marx knew (for him capitalism required private land to start it all off which required capitalism making the cause of capitalism capitalism).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Of course the $1 figure is no means comparable to the US/UK. However, the fact still remains that the social divide and extent of exploitation in the third world represent the 'dark side' of capitalism. As for the chicken and egg of capitalism, I don't know, I don't think even Marx knew (for him capitalism required private land to start it all off which required capitalism making the cause of capitalism capitalism).
    It required land when land meant wealth, then after the industrial revolution wealth was made through factories and capital, then came the information age where a kid can make a billion from his bedroom armed only with an idea.

    Also what would happen to these people being exploited if the evil capitalists didn't pay them for their labour? It's similar to the argument against child labour in victorian times in our country. If the kids didn't work, they starved. Capitalism provided them with the opportunity of life. There can be no greater gift than that.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    It required land when land meant wealth, then after the industrial revolution wealth was made through factories and capital, then came the information age where a kid can make a billion from his bedroom armed only with an idea.

    Also what would happen to these people being exploited if the evil capitalists didn't pay them for their labour? It's similar to the argument against child labour in victorian times in our country. If the kids didn't work, they starved. Capitalism provided them with the opportunity of life. There can be no greater gift than that.
    There's a distinction between paying them enough to survive, and paying them enough to survive and a bit more to save and make use of capitalism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chazzer66)
    Nick Clegg I want my £9000 a year back!!!!!!!!!!! :cry2:
    Actually you want your £5000 a year back because that's the bit you're complaining about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you marxists are scary. you're like islamic fundamentalists, but worse.


    what sort of people worship political doctrines? and talk of them in terms of prophecy?

    no wonder over a hundred million people were murdered in the name of marx in the 20th century.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Or that Marx was wrong. Capitalism doesn't exploit, it enables. People get more out of capitalism than what they put in. If you have more skills, you get paid more. If you work longer, you get paid more. If you save money, then you can invest it and capitalism will work very well for you.

    In order for capitalism to survive, people have to save and invest. No matter how highly paid your job is if you spend all your money, you are no more than a slave. Capitalism rewards those who learn to play the game.

    So learn to play the game.
    Impressively naive.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Marx underestimated capitalism. Its hold on society is so strong that the ideology it has created is a reality for the majority.

    Although I'm not socialist either because I believe capitalism, socialism etc all have hidden agendas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Would anyone on this thread say that the recent financial crisis proved some fundamental flaws in the free market system under capitalism?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jungle Is Massive)
    Impressively naive.
    Almost as impressive as your two word contribution to this thread. Would you care to elaborate?


    (Original post by ak726)
    Would anyone on this thread say that the recent financial crisis proved some fundamental flaws in the free market system under capitalism?
    Its proved that it isn't a free market.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Because capitalism does not lead to the concentration of power in the hands of one monopoly, like Marx thought it did.
    Monopolies, duopolies and cartels are alive and well under capitalism and pretty much any data you care to consult will show capital becoming increasingly concentrated in the upper percentiles as large sections of society at the bottom stay poor or get poorer. The trend is unmistakable; despite the rhetoric the rich become mega-rich while the rest struggle to keep their heads above the water, if they don't drown.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ak726)
    Would anyone on this thread say that the recent financial crisis proved some fundamental flaws in the free market system under capitalism?
    It's no coincidence that an increasingly rapid emergence of crises (from the 1970s) has run parallel to the implementation of neo-liberal - and essentially deregulating - policies in the advanced capitalist economies such as the US and UK.

    "markets know best" we were told, now we know that they don't, they only know how to blindly grasp for profits, even in the face of obvious calamity.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    ...

    Also what would happen to these people being exploited if the evil capitalists didn't pay them for their labour? It's similar to the argument against child labour in victorian times in our country. If the kids didn't work, they starved. Capitalism provided them with the opportunity of life. There can be no greater gift than that.
    You're making the argument for slavery there. When capitalists monopolise the resources needed by others to pursue their lives then their subsequent 'offer' of labour is exploitation, plain and simple.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Who is this Nozick? My hero is Wilt Chamberlain who decisively showed patterned principles of justice (e.g. egalitarian ones) as incompatible with liberty.
    There's plenty of debate over what can, or should, be meant by 'liberty' as well as over who's liberty we should be interested in defending.

    Defending the liberty of rich person A at the expense of poor people B, C and D, isn't a very convincing defence of 'liberty' more roundly, unless you define the term in a rather perverse way, imv.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    There's plenty of debate over what can, or should, be meant by 'liberty' as well as over who's liberty we should be interested in defending.

    Defending the liberty of rich person A at the expense of poor people B, C and D, isn't a very convincing defence of 'liberty' more roundly, unless you define the term in a rather perverse way, imv.
    Well I use the word liberty in a normative sense. That is, you ought to be free to do something which you have the right to do. And people do have the right to seek to accumulate more resources than others.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Read Elster. He destroys Marx on this.

    Bleurgh Rational Choice Theory. From the 80's too. I'm pretty sure that outside of economics (don't get me started...) no one takes hardcore RTC that seriously anymore.

    OP: Marx's big mistake was that he a) basically ignored human agency and b) thought he had some window onto society that no one else did that let him view the world objectively. Marx is more useful read as a way of explaining history and society in a counter-hegemonic way than if you take it as objective fact.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Well I use the word liberty in a normative sense. That is, you ought to be free to do something which you have the right to do. And people do have the right to seek to accumulate more resources than others.
    But that's just question begging and circular reasoning. All you're doing here is encouraging us to ask why people should have these things called 'rights' as well as why in particular some such 'rights' above or beyond others.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    ...

    OP: Marx's big mistake was that he a) basically ignored human agency and b) thought he had some window onto society that no one else did that let him view the world objectively. Marx is more useful read as a way of explaining history and society in a counter-hegemonic way than if you take it as objective fact.
    I don't particularly want to enter into a debate about whether Marx 'ignored' agency, but the extent to which you think that would be a mistake does in any event seem to rest on an assumption that there is such agency in some unproblematic sense. I'd offer that there's plenty of reasons why the idea of human agency is problematic; from the cause and effect mechanisms of brain activity and effects of socialisation to the ideological and material circumstances each individual finds their thoughts and behaviour structured by.

    The Marxist claim to 'objectivity' is, I think I'd agree, a tough argument, but is based on the idea that Marxism aims to analyse and interpret human action within the methodological framework associated with modern science. To the extent that Marxism is 'done' in the same way other sciences are, it does, reasonably, have at least a claim to a similar standard of 'objectivity'. But yes, how far it is so 'done' is another matter.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.