Global capitalism is failing

Only international socialism can solve global problems

  • I agree

    Votes: 28 20.9%
  • I disagree

    Votes: 106 79.1%

  • Total voters
    134
Cleric said:
Its also brought massive corruption,some poverty and an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor.You either have or you dont.The middle class is being wiped out.

Not that I'm advocating KAUMINISM1!!1!!!!11 but capitalism needs some changes.

The middle class isnt being wiped out in america at least, i dont know about europe. Im pretty sure the middle class is the largest demographic range in america. What i meant to say is that there are more middle class then other classes. And that trend isnt changing.

Oh and communism or even socialism isnt without its corruption.

Every government has corruption. And theres no real way to measure it either so its hard to prove which has less or more.
 
I think a lot of these problems could be solved tearing down the hinderences of capitalism, like tariffs, quotas, etc. Free trade would help relieve the pain of poverty, much more than a global socialist system.

Also socialism on a large scale is usually not very successful. See Soviet Union, Modern Europe. Extending that around the globe would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
 
CIVPhilzilla said:
I think a lot of these problems could be solved tearing down the hinderences of capitalism, like tariffs, quotas, etc. Free trade would help relieve the pain of poverty, much more than a global socialist system.

Also socialism on a large scale is usually not very successful. See Soviet Union, Modern Europe. Extending that around the globe would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I agree with some of that.

Most of the tariffs the United States imposes on other countries for certain products have a futile outcome. Such as the tariffs on textiles and steel.

Why? As it is we cannot compete globally with textiles and steel because of dumping done on our market and foriegn markets with cheaper goods. So the tariff just hurts free trade and our textile industry for example isnt going to go anywhere.
 
betazed said:
lol, how about not enough capitalism?

This is a good argument. If the first world abandoned it's anti-competitive practices universal capitalism may work. However, I fear that resource limitations would scupper the plan. Also it's pretty unlikely that capitalism would ever be accepted by everyone.

Also take this comparison: Muslims have to spend several hours a day in prayer. Christians also have to spend time in non-productive activity, although not so much. Universal Capitalism favours those that spend all of their time in economic activity and they will outcompete people who don't. The World would quickly become devoid of art and fun as we all become automatons living only to earn.

Competition will result in everyone having to slave away and they'd be no one left to think things through or look ahead. Progress would cease.

Can those that believe in Capitalism and believe that they are living in Capitalist countries explain how and why they can spend time posting here? Unless of course you get paid for it..... ;)
 
Xanikk999 said:
The middle class isnt being wiped out in america at least, i dont know about europe. Im pretty sure the middle class is the largest demographic range in america. What i meant to say is that there are more middle class then other classes. And that trend isnt changing.

Oh and communism or even socialism isnt without its corruption.

Every government has corruption. And theres no real way to measure it either so its hard to prove which has less or more.

Living in a post socialist country I would know.There was corruption in the old socialist system,but it was really nothing compared to the 'democracy' I live in today. Police,politicans,education,healthcare everything can be bought if you got the right connections and money.

But I'm still seeing far too many poor people,folks just struggling to buy their kids books for school.Shame really.
 
Cleric said:
Living in a post socialist country I would know.There was corruption in the old socialist system,but it was really nothing compared to the 'democracy' I live in today. Police,politicans,education,healthcare everything can be bought if you got the right connections and money.

But I'm still seeing far too many poor people,folks just struggling to buy their kids books for school.Shame really.

Well at least i know we dont have that problem here.

Textbooks for school K-12 is provided by the schools.

But even for college textbooks you can get used textbooks and there are other ways to pay for them.
 
I think its mostly like that in the balkan countries that have been ravaged by war and stuff like that.

I'm in one of those countries and capitalism needs to adapt to that situation.But when it is taken raw ,sheet like I decribed above happens.
 
Zamecnik said:
Wow, can't believe anyone actual uses Hayek anymore. I think its more useful to think of Hayek as the ideologue of neoliberal economics in its purest form. However, like most ideology, the actual practices of its practitioners. It may be useful for you to do some research on neoliberalism and the class power restoration project that it actually entails. Hayek and the crew were regarded as quacks, justifiably so, right up until the late 60's. Around this point, regarding the radicalism that surrounded the era, a class project formed using Hayek's idea as its ideological basis. After this, corporate money began flowing to right-wing thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation, for a small example. Essentially, a full-scale ideological attack began on Keynesianism (and the power check it provided against elite interests and the overaccumulation of wealth) backed by certain elites. Amazingly, this project worked and thus the current neoliberal hegemony.

I bring this up because there is a close correlation between the Keynesian development policy followed by postcolonial states that brought remarkable developments, the subsequent switch to neoliberalism in power centers such as the United States and the fostering of these ideals onto developing countries and the subsequent disaster. Regarded this way, it isn't capitalism that failed but a certain vision of it, which does indeed rely the economic subjugation of developing countries for profits.

Hayek, Friedman and the rest of that crew made a massive (intentional or unintentional) mistake when they took the political out of the "political economy" (as economics was known for quite some time). There is nothing objective about economics or the so-called "free-market," it is a social construction that serves certain interests. In the case of neoliberalism, it is obvious whose interests it serves, primarily the elite of the global North. Of course, since economics has increasingly been posed as some sort of objective science much of the masses that have taken an Econ 101 class have swallowed its ideology hook, line and sinker.

Dude, I'm an economist. I work for the US government as such. Much of what the Austrian school has done has been co-opted by right wing conservative think tanks, but its primarily a libertarian philosophy. Secondly, markets serve the interests of all. If they function properly, everyone involved gets back the value of their work.
 
Cleric said:
I think its mostly like that in the balkan countries that have been ravaged by war and stuff like that.

I'm in one of those countries and capitalism needs to adapt to that situation.But when it is taken raw ,sheet like I decribed above happens.


Cleric,

THe problem of socialist countries changing to capitalism is that they try tomake the change without any of the institutions in place that are necessary to prevent capitalism's abuses
 
Xenocrates said:
Can those that believe in Capitalism and believe that they are living in Capitalist countries explain how and why they can spend time posting here? Unless of course you get paid for it..... ;)

Because in a capitalist system, I make my own rules as to how I spend my time. And I have decided to spend this bit of time on CFC.
 
I'm against farmer subsidies because it basically shoves their comparative advantage in cheap labor down the toilet. The advantage of western countries is their educated people, the advantage of the third world is their cheap labor. Thus, by mixing educated people and cheap labor everybody is helped. The problem is that we 'protect' our own industries that cannot compete on their own. If US farmers can't make a profit, then they should move on to a field where they have a comparative advantage over third-world farmers.

In order for capitalism to work companies have to rise and fall like anything else. If a few unprofitable industries in the West go to the developing world, then so be it. The big defenders of protectionism are the unions, btw.
 
happy_Alex said:
@ no I haven't. I'm sure those people are working hard each day to provide for the needs of themselves and their families. But if there were no poverty and related deaths then we would not be having this discussion.

You have poverty in anarchy. You have poverty in socialism. You have poverty in mercantilism. You have poverty in serfdom. You have poverty in slavery. You have poverty in capitalism. You have poverty in bartering.

What's your point? Capitalism is currently the best means for people to lift themselves out of poverty. If you find a better system, I am all ears.

Cleric said:
Its also brought massive corruption,some poverty and an ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor.You either have or you dont.The middle class is being wiped out.

Not that I'm advocating KAUMINISM1!!1!!!!11 but capitalism needs some changes.

It is to an extent in developing countries, but then again it happens everywhere. The middle class is being created in capitalistic developing countries from the influx of new jobs and need for local management. The rich always get richer everywhere anyways.
 
I read this in Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat. I don't know if it is his words, but I thought it was a brilliant statement:

"Socialism makes people equally poor. Capitalism makes people unequally rich."
 
happy_Alex said:
We sell them corn, they cant sell us corn, and if they starve to death well that's okay, coz they had an equal chance under the system right?

How do they starve to death if they buy us corn? Don't they know how to cook it?

Equal opportunity dosn't equate to equality of outcome (we all have a chance to play the lottery, but we are not all going to win...)

If 'you' can sell corn cheaper it's because of farming subsidies which as I said earlier exceed US aid budget. This keeps families in poverty, and is a product of global capitalism. Well maybe you are happy with that. I'm not.

But subsidies are not capitalistic.
 
We might try for more Internationalism in Capitalism, not necessary more capitalism.

Seems to me a lot of the problems of capitalism today are due to too much of it is nationalist in nature.
 
Verbose said:
We might try for more Internationalism in Capitalism, not necessary more capitalism.

Seems to me a lot of the problems of capitalism today are due to too much of it is nationalist in nature.

"Capitalism" is not nationalistic in nature. Many economic systems that are currently in place are nationalistic in nature because they are practiced by governments. However, purer capitalism would be a move away from such nationalism...
 
BasketCase said:
Ooh, hey--here's something you might find scary. :)

Out in the wild, the only way to survive is to exploit other living things--specifically, to kill them and eat them.

When we humans get our mitts in the system, and do things like exterminate wolves in order to protect our livestock--guess what? The system of nature starts going wrong.

It would appear that exploitation and inequality are the centerpieces of a strong, stable, and healthy ecosystem.....

:eek:

This post is absolutely drenched in the Naturalistic Fallacy. Natural does not equal Moral. Social Darwinism is so full of logical holes it's pathetic. One of the parts of being human is being able to use our brains to tell our less morally desirable public urges to go and take a jump in a lake.
 
Roibeárd said:
I read this in Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat. I don't know if it is his words, but I thought it was a brilliant statement:

"Socialism makes people equally poor. Capitalism makes people unequally rich."

Quoting Neo-Liberal rubbish doesn't make it true. :p
 
Irish Caesar said:
"Capitalism" is not nationalistic in nature. Many economic systems that are currently in place are nationalistic in nature because they are practiced by governments. However, purer capitalism would be a move away from such nationalism...
What nature? (Feels decidedly idealist and essentialist to me.) Just like socialist planned conomies we can judge it by performance (which is interestingly uneven). In principle it's universalist, but in practice?

Capitalism depends on functioning markets and these are erected and safeguarded by a legal framework that is still national. A nation that skimps on it will struggle with getting capitalism to work to its benefit. Or one that can't enforce its own laws.
(Shoddy regulations of property rights might well be a major factor why South America has trouble getting rich. Unclear ownership as a left over from colonial days prevents lots of people from investing and expanding their operations. The US fixed that sort of problem in the early 19th c. IIRC.)

Generally classical economic theory depends on us treating economy as a sphere separate from politics. But that's not necessary how it works.
The amount of "intrusion" into the international economic system from politics tends to indicate the sphere of economics and the sphere of politcs are hopelessly intertwined, except when we try to treat them as separate when theorising.:)
 
Well whatever you consider to be major threats to the world they can all be overcome even if we dramatically decreased war. It is a bit of an ask I admit but think if you stoped spending time and money on weapons you could feed and educate every person on the planet and invest in technology to stop the problems with global warming. If international socialism occured then that woulddrastically increase peace but it is not "the only way" so I had to vote no. Also the process of creating international socialism would be painful because there are too many people are too high on capitalism to notice that it is going to implode on itself one day. Capitalism has just as many shortcomings as communism (same affect - different means). If the last 100 years have taught people anything (which it hasn't) it is that you cannot hpe to impose ideologies (religious, economic or governmental) on another person/country. It doesn't work and it won't. Wilsonism/DPP is not going to work. We need to accept our differences not destroy them. If we destroy them we end up destroying everyone in the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom