Is Capitalism Unsustainable?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Psychedelic Casual, 4 Dec 2017.

  1. pirate

    pirate

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2010
    thats wrong because voting for anyone other than the incumbent (in this case the tories) is voting for change. In which case 57.6% is an actual majority.

    A labour win and voting for change are completely different things
     
  2. Grassland Blue

    Grassland Blue

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2016
    Gender:
    Male
     
  3. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    That's an interesting story but what you've described is not capitalism but a clear form of socialism. The means of production are communally owned and the community make the decision on how the output is distributed.

    There's no doubt that capitalism has been responsible for the growth in living standards and the many technological advances we've experienced over the last 150 years or so. But the problems outlined in GDM's post and the lessons of the 2008 financial crash shows that unfettered capitalism, without appropriate oversight & regulation, often leads to bad decisions that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
     
  4. Chippy_boy

    Chippy_boy

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Occupation:
    Indolence
    Location:
    Bristol
    It's interesting to me how capitalism does become fettered. I agree that it tends to make a very small number of people exceedingly rich, and a much larger number if not poor, then certainly not as well off as they would be, were the wealth shared more evenly. It seems to me that a sort of natural equilibrium comes into play. People tolerate this imbalance provided both the level of "poverty" at the bottom is not so unbearable and more importantly, provided not so many are subjected to it. But as capitalism progresses, the numbers grow and the sense of injustice increases until such point that a more socialist government is installed. They then seek to right these injustices, but often (usually or always depending on your political viewpoint) at the expense of overall economic success. The middle then start to feel hard done by, and they grow in both passion and number to the point that the socialists are kicked out and replaced by capitalists again. Rinse and repeat.
     
  5. Grassland Blue

    Grassland Blue

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2016
    Gender:
    Male
    Nail on head!
     
  6. GortonBlue62

    GortonBlue62

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2015
    Gender:
    Male
    The story describes a failing (collectivist / socialist) system being abandoned and the villagers beginning to work for themselves and their families (an individualist / capitalist approach).

    How is the system they moved to socialist?

    The point is that when people work for themselves they work harder, achieve more and benefit society considerably more than a collectivist approach.

    Socialism is a Utopian dream always imposed as a top down solution. It is the enemy of progress, prosperity and freedom.

    Capitalism is what happens when people are free to live their lives and work for themselves.

    I'm not a libertarian and I'm not advocating unfettered unregulated systems. I'm also not defending crony capitalism and the excesses of huge multi nationals.
     
  7. Ancient Citizen

    Ancient Citizen

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2009
  8. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    I don't think you really understand the meaning of socialism. The definition is that the individual or a group owns the means of production and decides what to produce and how to distribute it. In its most restrictive form the state controls all those decisions and I think we both agree that's not optimal.

    What the Chinese farmers did was adopt a form of market socialism, where's there's a personal incentive to produce as much as possible but they have to meet state-imposed norms and carry out production in a system where they don't actually own the tools they require to produce those goods. Under a capitalist system, a wealthy individual or company would own the means of production and all the output, which it might then sell at a profit. It would reward those workers with either a share of their output or financially, from the revenue generated.

    The Israeli kibbutzes were great examples of market socialism. Members decided how the profits were spent and that might involve buying cars, TV's or a collective asset such as a swimming pool. Many kibbutzniks ultimately became quite wealthy when their kibbutz shut down, they agreed to their factory/farm being taken over or the land used for housing and the financial assets were distributed to the individuals.
     
  9. GortonBlue62

    GortonBlue62

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2015
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand perfectly what socialism is.

    The story of Xiaogang village was illustrative. The Chinese farmers risked their lives to move away from a communist (socialist) system that had driven them to the brink of starvation.Of course they weren't going to go around declaring their new found love of Capitalism.

    The point is clear; there is no freedom without economic freedom. Working for the collective good never works - it impoverishes everyone.
     
  10. inbetween

    inbetween

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2010
    Location:
    N53.68 W02.71
    What you are detailing in the last paragraph is actually just a business, a capitalist business. It is effectively a group of 'shareholders' who invest their time, efforts or money and choose how to spend the fruits of their efforts together. This is assuming they are free to invest to make profits and share those profits, that makes them effectively venture capitalists.

    What do you think they would do if their profits were taken instead for the benefit of the state? Do you think they would continue their business or not bother?
     

Share This Page