Global capitalism is failing

[Atropos]

And the problem is still, I think, that John Maynard Keynes hit the nail whith his retort to the assertions of classical economits that "in the long run" the Invisible Hand would set things right:

"In the long run we're all dead."

And there's the rub. There are political and even existentialist concerns about how we live (or would like to live) that economic theory for a very long time simply tried to treat as non-issues.

Economic theory that when faced with the problem of "People are dying!" simply answers "All will be well in the end" does have a problem. (And has likely crossed into dogma.)

It's not to say that socialism is the answer, just that the expanding intellectual frontier of economy is necessary. (And it is expanding. Succeed and economy as we know it might cease to exist of course, since this was not what it was originally designed for.)

Nobody is suggesting that it is a Good Thing that people are dying. But the evidence suggests that non-capitalist systems make things worse rapidly whereas capitalist systems make them better slowly. Not a great choice when people are dying, but still a fairly obvious conclusion.

By the way, I wouldn't cite Keynes as the Great Red Hope. He helped found the IMF.

 

[seezachswim]

I'm amazed that this debate is still going on. I just don't understand how you can justify socialism. If the USSR and its allies were socialists then I think it proves that socialism was and is a unrealistic solution. Most to all wealthy modern nations are capitalistic, while there are very few if any examples of succesful socialist countries. Even countries like china, which is getting much wealthier, is getting that way because they are moving towards capitalism.

On a side note, it seems that most of the supporters of capitalism are from the US, while the supporters of socialism are from europe. Just thought that was interesting.

 

[El_Machinae]

What I find interesting is that current (or expected) wealth/income levels of the people supporting each system!

 

[happy_Alex]

Until you do so, I will continue to believe these "academic" theories, because they work. Slowly, but they work - when not foiled by highly un-capitalist First World export subsidies.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, US agricultural subsidies are currently higher than the total US aid budget. US is a capitalist sytem right?

 

[happy_Alex]

The consant evasions and excuses of the capitalist faction in this thread never cease to astound me.

You consider yourself objective and your ideas based on 'math' and 'statistics' and me to be opinionated.

Umm,

Capitalism wasn't around when Europe was carving up and enslaving indigneous Africans. You can say the capitalist mindset started with Adam Smith (1776)

I'll believe scientific journalistic research over policy sites any day of the week.

The South Sea Company was formed in 1711. The British government
sold this company the right or 'asiento' (which it had aquired from the Spanish in 1713) to trade slaves across the atlantic.

There's nothing about the SCC the contradicts the definition of Capitalism in Wikepedia.

 

[happy_Alex]

I'm amazed that this debate is still going on. I just don't understand how you can justify socialism. If the USSR and its allies were socialists then I think it proves that socialism was and is a unrealistic solution. Most to all wealthy modern nations are capitalistic, while there are very few if any examples of succesful socialist countries. Even countries like china, which is getting much wealthier, is getting that way because they are moving towards capitalism.

On a side note, it seems that most of the supporters of capitalism are from the US, while the supporters of socialism are from europe. Just thought that was interesting.

Socialim is a distinct philosphy and set of values to communism, check wikipedia to verify this fact.

 

[Atropos]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, US agricultural subsidies are currently higher than the total US aid budget. US is a capitalist sytem right?

True, but there is nothing "capitalist" about trade subsidies. It's a little like saying that, because people drank vodka under communism, vodka is a defining characteristic of communism.

The UK has national healthcare. The UK is a capitalist country. Does that make national healthcare a feature of capitalism?

You are perfectly right in saying that US trade subsidies should be abolished (as should European trade subsidies).

 

[Atropos]

Socialim is a distinct philosphy and set of values to communism, check wikipedia to verify this fact.

You are absolutely right. And the USSR was socialist (by its own definition), not communist. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In Marxism, communism occurs only after the state has withered away, so there has never been a fully "communist" state by its own definition.

 

[happy_Alex]

The UK has national healthcare. The UK is a capitalist country. Does that make national healthcare a feature of capitalism?

The UK is a Mixed Economy, with a democratic socialist government.

 

[Atropos]

The UK is a Mixed Economy, with a democratic socialist government.

Blair? Democratic? Sure. Socialist? Uh...Do bear in mind that this is the guy who removed from the party platform the clause demanding government ownership of the means of production, which is the technical definition of socialism.

Blair a socialist? You'll have a hard time backing up that one.

 

[Xanikk999]

The UK is a Mixed Economy, with a democratic socialist government.

And just so you know the U.S is a mixed economy also. Just doesnt have as many socialistic elements also.

However we still are a mixed economy. We do have medicare, welfare, and retirement funds and other misc stuff.

 

[happy_Alex]

The first line of the Labour Party clause 4:

‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party..."

Labour is bigger than Tony Blair. Labour is commited to the public services in th UK. A true capitalist country would not tolerate public funded and 'free' health and education to the extent of the UK.

 

[happy_Alex]

@Xanik,

don't forget anti-trust stuff

 

[Atropos]

If you are going to define "socialist elements" as any state involvement, then sure. Every state in the world has socialist elements. It's just not socialism under my own (and most political scientists') definition. But definitions are fungible.

There is more to the Labour Party than Blair. But I have many English left-wing friends who, although significantly to the right of "socialism" as conventionally defined, are furious at the policies of the Labour Government.

Clause 4, iirc, is a hangover from pre-Attlee days. The position of the Labour party has changed a little since then.

I must say, however, that if you are working with a definition of "socialism" that includes the Labour mainstream, then many of my objections to "socialism" disappear. I just don't see how this "socialism" is incompatible with "capitalism" as I define that term.

 

[happy_Alex]

Well, exactly. Much of what socialists have worked for and have achieved have been accepted as axiomatic. You're the first from the 'capitalists' to acknowledge this.

 

[Atropos]

Well, except that the demands of the real "socialists" (Attlee, say) went quite a bit beyond the NHS. I haven't noticed that coal nationalisation is on the current government's agenda.

 

[Verbose]

Nobody is suggesting that it is a Good Thing that people are dying. But the evidence suggests that non-capitalist systems make things worse rapidly whereas capitalist systems make them better slowly. Not a great choice when people are dying, but still a fairly obvious conclusion.

By the way, I wouldn't cite Keynes as the Great Red Hope. He helped found the IMF.

What on earth would make you think I have any real sympathy for economic socialism?

There's nothing there to indicate that. Looks more like we're in agreement.

I was simply pointing out that we are dealing with a complex reality where economy and politics are intertwined and that a lot of those that react to what they see as inherent flaws in the capitalist system may actually have a point from certain perspectives. (Are we going to allow these perspectives in a discussion of capitalism?)

The extent of my sympathy for Marxism is that I think it's a good idea to try to do what Marx did, i.e. find a position outside political and economic liberalism from which to try to look at our societies.

Marx' own suggestions and solutions I'm sure I find no more successful than you do. Or those of any of his followers. I'm just willing to entertain the idea that we should keep trying to find something that works better than the current system. (While in the mean time we do well to adress any deficiencis on an ad hoc basis.)

But that I can be assumed to be advocating socialism without doing so is kind of indicative of how much bad faith there is in these threads. It becomes a ridiculous side-taking of either/or; either "Socialism to the Hilt!" or Capitalism - No Time for Consciousness!"

There might be as much statements of belief in these economy discussions as there are in the evolutionism/creationism threads. Of course here I include the assertions that somehow Capitalist Salvation will occur to us eventually, which might place me beyond the pale as I'm not actually much of a Believer in it. And neither are you in fact, I'm sure.

 

[Atropos]

What on earth would make you think I have any real sympathy for economic socialism?

There's nothing there to indicate that. Looks more like we're in agreement.

I was simply pointing out that we are dealing with a complex reality where economy and politics are intertwined and that a lot of those that react to what they see as inherent flaws in the capitalist system may actually have a point from certain perspectives. (Are we going to allow these perspectives in a discussion of capitalism?)

The extent of my sympathy for Marxism is that I think it's a good idea to try to do what Marx did, i.e. find a position outside political and economic liberalism from which to try to look at our societies.

Marx' own suggestions and solutions I'm sure I find no more successful than you do. Or those of any of his followers. I'm just willing to entertain the idea that we should keep trying to find something that works better than the current system. (While in the mean time we do well to adress any deficiencis on an ad hoc basis.)

But that I can be assumed to be advocating socialism without doing so is kind of indicative of how much bad faith there is in these threads. It becomes a ridiculous side-taking of either/or; either "Socialism to the Hilt!" or Capitalism - No Time for Consciousness!"

There might be as much statements of belief in these economy discussions as there are in the evolutionism/creationism threads. Of course here I include the assertions that somehow Capitalist Salvation will occur to us eventually, which might place me beyond the pale as I'm not actually much of a Believer in it. And neither are you in fact, I'm sure.

I wasn't in any way accusing you of being a socialist, feeling sympathy with socialists, marrying socialists, greeting socialists in the street, or living in the same city with socialists. I was just pointing out that your earlier post seemed to me to ignore the fact that no superior alternative to capitalism has yet been proven to work, since it appeared to agree with other posters that capitalism's failure to provide a panacea in the short run is a problem which should be addressed. It "should" be addressed, perhaps, but I'm not sure that it can be addressed.