Capitalism, Democracy, Alternatives?

[physchem]

It has been quite interesting to me to think about the kind of world we live in right now, in whose hands it rests, how that has affected our morality and whether there are any alternatives which would make more people happier at the same time...

Feel free if you're interested...

[ProxyAmenRa]

I would just like to contribute to this discussion on defining what capitalism is. Capitalism is a political ideology of the British classical liberals. It is characterized by individual liberty and having this liberty extended to markets ie. free markets. With that said capitalism has not been widely practiced for the last 130 years.

I can not stress this point enough; capitalism is not what ever socio-economic system that is prevalent at any point in time.

The socio-economic systems that have practiced over the last 130 years have been socialism, fascism, mercantilism and hybrids between these three. The most prevalent system we see today in the west is the mercantilist welfare state.

[physchem]

Thank you for the information, I must say I knew none of that...
I guess that the modern economy is hiding behind the curtain of capitalism, because capitalism itself is non existent. In theory capitalism sounds fine the way you explained it should be.
I am just thinking it through, trying to reach a conclusion

[Cognisant]

Let's have Proxy run the world economy.

[Guess]

I can not stress this point enough; capitalism is not what ever socio-economic system that is prevalent at any point in time.
I fully agree with you that capitalism, as conceived, never existed and probably never will.

Nevertheless, the exact same argument can be used with socialism or communism:
"socialism/communism is not what ever socio-economic system that is prevalent at any point in time." In fact, I heard exactly this argument from a self-declared communist.

This difficulty with the "isms" tend to make most of the debate pointless. People tend to still strongly polarize the debate as capitalism vs socialism and backup their positions by saying it never existed, but it would bring the world to an utopia (not saying this is your case. Just that I have seen it way too often around)

Notwithstanding, I think that whatever we had as systems, they do give us an idea of the potential of the concept. As an analogy, imagine a house looks really nice for some people as drawn by the architect. Then, it is not built exactly as the architect designed. Some people will still say it is beautiful. Some people will change their mind. And some people who never saw the design before may find it horrendous or even like it.

Who is to blame? The architect or the builders? Different people will blame one or another.As capitalism became the only acceptable "conceptual architecture", people are not even considering alternatives. The people who blame the builders, do not accept that people can criticize the architect.

[Guess]

Thank you for the information, I must say I knew none of that...
I guess that the modern economy is hiding behind the curtain of capitalism, because capitalism itself is non existent. In theory capitalism sounds fine the way you explained it should be.
I am just thinking it through, trying to reach a conclusion

Keep thinking. Never stop it.

I kept thinking and I came to the conclusion that no. Capitalism is not fine even on the way it was/is idealized.

Do you want some food for thought? The book Capitalism 3.0, peter barnes, describes different systems we had, where we are and why we need to advance. As well some reasonable advances ongoing right now. If you google for it, you can get it for free actually.

By the way, the part I am really looking for now is alternatives. What exactly you dislike on current sytems (call it "currentism") and what do you think an alternative system should have? From there, we can try to draw arguments and ideas of evolution.

[Felan]

I fully agree with you that capitalism, as conceived, never existed and probably never will.

Nevertheless, the exact same argument can be used with socialism or communism:
"socialism/communism is not what ever socio-economic system that is prevalent at any point in time." In fact, I heard exactly this argument from a self-declared communist.

This difficulty with the "isms" tend to make most of the debate pointless. People tend to still strongly polarize the debate as capitalism vs socialism and backup their positions by saying it never existed, but it would bring the world to an utopia (not saying this is your case. Just that I have seen it way too often around)

Notwithstanding, I think that whatever we had as systems, they do give us an idea of the potential of the concept. As an analogy, imagine a house looks really nice for some people as drawn by the architect. Then, it is not built exactly as the architect designed. Some people will still say it is beautiful. Some people will change their mind. And some people who never saw the design before may find it horrendous or even like it.

Who is to blame? The architect or the builders? Different people will blame one or another.As capitalism became the only acceptable "conceptual architecture", people are not even considering alternatives. The people who blame the builders, do not accept that people can criticize the architect.

I'm unclear whether Proxy is saying that Capitalism has never been practiced or whether it is not a socioeconomic policy. I tend to think he is saying the latter and that if you have a policy then you don't have Capitalism. If he might there has never been Capitalism then his specifying 130 years is an oddity and I'm not sure what he is saying then. Having the government involved in economics is as Capitalist as requiring everyone to be indoctorinated in a state approved religion is Religious Freedom. I'm a little fuzzy on some details but my impression is that early US history was much closer if not embracing the ideas of Capitalism.

Ironically a number of the initial colonies that formed in the early part of the European colonization of North America adopted a fairly true communism as their government. They were small, there wasn't a strong overall government, and they did it before Marx put his ideas to paper. The historical accounts of those efforts indicated that they just couldn't get it to work.

The problem with any construction is neither the architect nor the builders. It is entropy, rust, rot, decay, or whatever other word concept works for you. You write a program over time it becomes less cohesive and more bug ridden. You buy a car and over time it develops squeaks, the brakes give out, and it won't shift into second gear. You buy a house and the foundation shifts, the wood rots, the roof develops leaks, and mold takes up co-residence. You give birth to a child and they grow old, get sick, and die. A star is born, burns, and dies. To me it is ludicrous to think that a social establishment would be immune to the same processes as even stars and the fabric of universe are beholden to.

In the end it is time that tears everything down and each time it happens our recourse to build a better house then we did the last time. It is interesting how long we cling to the old enfeebled and decayed though. We'll stay in the house until the very moment it falls on our heads. Once it collapses though we do what we really do best, build anew. Once in a great while, we actually do improve on what we built the last time.

[ProxyAmenRa]

Thank you for the information, I must say I knew none of that...
I guess that the modern economy is hiding behind the curtain of capitalism, because capitalism itself is non existent. In theory capitalism sounds fine the way you explained it should be.
I am just thinking it through, trying to reach a conclusion

Proponents of capitalism have lost the debate over the definition of the word many years ago. Now we're all libertarians. ^_^

[ProxyAmenRa]

Let's have Proxy run the world economy.

I would rather play computer games and buy a kayak. Buy a kayak! I shall do that this weekend.

I have just sunk too many years into the subject at hand. It is very sad. I should not have made it a goal to understand why the hell the 2008 crash happened.

[QUOTE=Guess;274862]I fully agree with you that capitalism, as conceived, never existed and probably never will.

No, capitalism has existed in the past. Not perfectly allowed to propagate itself. There was still state intervention to some extent seen in tariffs and manipulations of the money supply. If you want the greatest examples of capitalism see the industrial revolution, the greatest increase of the standards of living the world has ever seen, income of the poor doubled in 50 years. Capitalism existed in the US from 1790 to 1860. I use the date 1860 because that is when the interstate commerce commission was created in order to cartelize the rail industry.

The reason why I stated capitalism is not the current states of affairs, being what ever the state of affairs is, is not capitalism, is because people like Micheal Moore love to obfuscate language to score political points of the ignorant.


Nevertheless, the exact same argument can be used with socialism or communism:
"socialism/communism is not what ever socio-economic system that is prevalent at any point in time." In fact, I heard exactly this argument from a self-declared communist.

If you read the Fabian Socialist literature, you can easily tell that today would be a Fabian Socialist's wet dream.


This difficulty with the "isms" tend to make most of the debate pointless. People tend to still strongly polarize the debate as capitalism vs socialism and backup their positions by saying it never existed, but it would bring the world to an utopia (not saying this is your case. Just that I have seen it way too often around)

There are clear definitions of socio-economic systems we can use to describe a situation. I advocate using correct definitions. Ergo, using proper definitions, what we see over the last 70 years is the rise of the mercantilist welfare state.


Notwithstanding, I think that whatever we had as systems, they do give us an idea of the potential of the concept. As an analogy, imagine a house looks really nice for some people as drawn by the architect. Then, it is not built exactly as the architect designed. Some people will still say it is beautiful. Some people will change their mind. And some people who never saw the design before may find it horrendous or even like it.

No comment.


Who is to blame? The architect or the builders? Different people will blame one or another.As capitalism became the only acceptable "conceptual architecture", people are not even considering alternatives. The people who blame the builders, do not accept that people can criticize the architect.

Capitalism is the state of affairs which emerges with little to no state intervention into individual liberty and the market. There is no architect or system builder. The theory of capitalism, how markets with individual liberty works, was developed from observation.

[Otherside]

"Consumerism" is the maladaptive ideological social issue that the "occupy" crowd are really fighting against, knowingly or not. They can win that war in their minds and be free of it, but "keeping up with the Jones'" will always exist in this society.

[ProxyAmenRa]

"Consumerism" is the maladaptive ideological social issue that the "occupy" crowd are really fighting against, knowingly or not. They can win that war in their minds and be free of it, but "keeping up with the Jones'" will always exist in this society.

People always rage against consumerism but I have never heard a clear and concise definition of what it is.

[Mello]

Consumerism is the natural need for humans to consume. To get material goods so they can compare each other to it and think they are better than each other. It's retarded.

[Otherside]

People always rage against consumerism but I have never heard a clear and concise definition of what it is.

I think it generally boils down to the notion that you can buy happiness.

[ProxyAmenRa]

I think it generally boils down to the notion that you can buy happiness.

So people want to impose on others a philosophical stance on one's values regarding wealth through the state? And not convince them to change their minds by the merits of their position?

Fuck me dead. I thought we got over this issue with the separation of church and state.

[Mello]

You're allowed to consume, but you should understand when to do it and not become compulsive about it.

[ProxyAmenRa]

You're allowed to consume, but you should understand when to do it and not become compulsive about it.

Thank you for allowing me to consume. o_O

[snafupants]

There's a Yale political science professor, Robert Dahl, who makes a pretty compelling case for the US as a polyarchy instead of a democracy. I mean, aristocrats have had a historical campaign advantage and, now, with Citizen's United, business connections and veiled/unlimited donations certainly won't set you back any. Furthermore, the mess with the electoral college and delegates further muddies the picture. This is without even discussing blatant instances of corruption in primaries and general elections in the United States. There have been three instances where the popular vote was not in line with the electoral college one, so, naturally the people were drowned out.

[Otherside]

There have been three instances where the popular vote was not in line with the electoral college one, so, naturally the people were drowned out.

Nixon/Kennedy (1960) and Bush/Gore (2000) are two in particular that I remember. I'm sure there are more.

[snafupants]

Nixon/Kennedy (1960) and Bush/Gore (2000) are two in particular that I remember. I'm sure there are more.

The three years are 1876, 1888 and 2000. The last instance was further complicated because of then Florida Governor Jeb Bush's relation to the presumptive US president and the Supreme Court's close decision to not overturn what Florida had done. I don't know what difference that would have made, though, as the electoral college takes precedence, as the foregoing examples illustrate. Time to invoke Article Five?

[Otherside]

The three years are 1876, 1888 and 2000. The last instance was further complicated because of then Florida Governor Jeb Bush's relation to the presumptive US president and the Supreme Court's close decision to not overturn what Florida had done. I don't know what difference that would have made, though, as the electoral college takes precedence, as the foregoing examples illustrate. Time to invoke Article Five?

Interesting. My high school history teacher (and book) were wrong about 1960, it appears.

[snafupants]

Interesting. My high school history teacher (and book) were wrong about 1960, it appears.

That election was actually incredibly close: Kennedy garnered 49.7% of the popular vote and Nixon received 49.6% of the vote. Out of approximately seventy million votes at the time, that percentage difference represents about one hundred thousand people. That's basically a small city, say Lawrence, Kansas. The implications for Nixon clinching to the throne in the sixties are pretty awesome...the sixties would be quite dissimilar from how we view that decade. Bay of pigs, thirteen days, Cold War, drugs, counterculture, Vietnam War, there's almost too much to process. Well, again, the popular results depressingly do not matter, and Kennedy cleaned up in the Electoral College anyway. Edit: Nixon apparently blew that election because of his profuse sweating during debates. With the advent of television, the public could now unfortunately see the candidates in action. This anecdote, however, may be more myth than reality.

[physchem]

Keep thinking. Never stop it.

I kept thinking and I came to the conclusion that no. Capitalism is not fine even on the way it was/is idealized.

Do you want some food for thought? The book Capitalism 3.0, peter barnes, describes different systems we had, where we are and why we need to advance. As well some reasonable advances ongoing right now. If you google for it, you can get it for free actually.

By the way, the part I am really looking for now is alternatives. What exactly you dislike on current sytems (call it "currentism") and what do you think an alternative system should have? From there, we can try to draw arguments and ideas of evolution.

Thanks for the advice and the book, I'll check it up, I am also very interested in alternatives...
I was interested in learning about technocracy in particular

[ProxyAmenRa]

Thanks for the advice and the book, I'll check it up, I am also very interested in alternatives...
I was interested in learning about technocracy in particular

Before you go running off looking for alternatives, research the socialist economic calculation conundrum. It puts forward the argument that centrally planned economies simply can't function in reality to any reasonable extent.

[Guess]

Today I came across an interesting article about Bill Gates ideas on what he is calling "creative capitalism". It reminded me of this thread.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1828417-1,00.html