Is Capitalism Unsustainable?

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Semantics maybe but I'd say that working under a central planning system where you have no control or incentive is almost invariably not for the collective good. No one really benefits.

Whatever system you choose to call it, that's the point that Deng Xiaoping (who was always an economic reformist, which earned him Mao's displeasure) took on board. The Chinese call it market socialism or "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" whereas others refer to it as state capitalism. In fact the official line is that, to move to a fully socialist economy requires an element of capitalism. I think we'd both agree that's bullshit.

 

[jonmcity]

Capitalism is unsustainable if the few get to greedy, and are not willing to pay the many enough to contribute to a growing economy, as is the case today.

 

[Magicpole]

When I look at how I grew up and became aware of my surroundings (mid to late 60's) and on my street there were 3 corner shops - one at each end and one in the middle. And a Co-op down the hill where my mum did the shopping and collected the dividend stamps. It was early to mid 70's that the supermarkets arrived and the corner shops started to go one by one. Successful independent businesses began to be taken over by larger - but still local - businesses or entrepreneurs. Come Thatcher and regional businesses were then being taken over by national companies. And of course the wicked witch of Grantham flogged all that we as the people owned off to the highest bidder via share issues... Zoom on another decade or 3 and the national companies have been bought by the global companies.
So for capitalism to survive it has to keep evolving not only new products (think of vinyl to cassettes to CD to digital or Betamax to video to DVD to Blue Ray) but also in corporations getting bigger and bigger and cornering markets.
So once a corporation is global, where can they go? They can't gain any more ground. And once technology has ran out of new products to flog us (Apple spring to mind) or the public gets wise and refuses to follow the hype and advertising and doesn't bother buying the emperor's new clothes which these products are, then we will see a change in the capitalist system.
It's sheep we're up against

So yes then?

Because people will always want the new thing. Always have always will.

My view is unless it is a mixed economy, with increased wealth spreading, then cunts worse than Trump are waiting to feed on the discontent and lead us down very scary avenues.

I can't believe I wrote cunts worse than Trump. That's how scary I feel pure capitalism to be. Too many people left behind to be exploited by saviours.

 

[urban genie]

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.

It sounds like a co-operative each house worked for themselves, but in a collective as a village to look after each other which is a socialist form of thinking.

Individualism is not discouraged in socialism, but economical and social equality is, tge great leap forward, pol pot and stalinist russia may have used the mantle communiat or socialist, but they were totalitrian and totalitarianism can thrive in any economic system

 

[jacko74]

but state funded or state aided doesnt equal socialism.
Its only socialism if the aim of the funding is to redistribute wealth to the poor and funding the banks is exactly the opposite of that.

I think you're being rather pedantic.. of course when I used the phrase ''socialism for the banks'' then it's actually a complete bastardisation of the true concept of socialism.

But I didn't think that would need explaining.


Still waiting for SWP to further explain how the banks haven't received any State support in the last decade...

 

[Big Swifty]

Marx was a bit hasty and premature in predicting the decline of capitalism.

Marx rushed in where Engels feared to tread.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Marx was a bit hasty and premature in predicting the decline of capitalism.

I think he grossly underestimated its wealth creating powers.

 

[Big Swifty]

I apologise for introducing a weak pun into a serious discussion then

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I apologise for introducing a weak pun into a serious discussion then

Sorry mate, missed that one :-/

 

[Grassland Blue]

Sorry mate, missed that one :-/

That'll be zero Marks for you then!