What is capitalism ?

[carniflex]

Option 2 is as far as I can see obviously right; capital is as Marx observed, a social phenomena;

Right answer.

An interesting perspective on capitalism would be that it is the exploitative system where you can sell companies (note carefully that thoseshould be understood not only as production units but also as social institutions consisting of cooperating individuals), while one in the slave society where people are sold directly and feudal societies where families can switch owners. This is indeed an difference in capitalisms favour, since the individual can leave the company, even if it in practice quite often will not be much of a choice.

Interesting...
Can i ask you if it is a personal idea or if you can link it to an author/book ?

 

[carniflex]

In the US it has become for some not an economic tool but a religion. It is thoughtlessly offered as the answer to all problems and any restrictions on its practice is condemned as heresy.

Capitalism is thoughtlessly offered as the answer to all problems and any restrictions on its practice is condemned as heresy in Europe also.
With one major difference in the phraseology: The word capitalism is never used, and its systematization is called "liberalization".
(That's why liberal means pro-capitalism in Europe.)

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Capitalism is a system based on the freedom to buy and sell. I

 

[Richard Cribb]

Interesting...
Can i ask you if it is a personal idea or if you can link it to an author/book ?

I have read some articles by a Swedish economist; Sten Ljunggren, who thinks that market and capital are antagonistic. I also seem to remember that Noam Chomsky has developed similar thoughts.
Unfortunately I read those things long time ago, so right now I can't provide you with any concrete titles, but I will do a little research. Thinking about it, I believe one of Ljunggren's books were entitled Market and capital - an ill-matched couple. I don't know if it has been translated to any other languages, though.

 

[amadeus]

Capitalism is freedom.

 

[Taliesin]

Capitalism is slavery.

(This comment means no more or less than the one above it.)

 

[amadeus]

the system don't work.

What is your evidence? My evidence is the United States.

 

[amadeus]

Capitalism is slavery.

(This comment means no more or less than the one above it.)

Typical Marxist nonsense. What do you have to support it? I expect nothing.

Capitalism allows individuals to pursue their own futures without interference.

 

[downtown]

I voted for the first option. no doubt, sometimes, people get hurt in the process, but i dont fault the system for that. I dont think that capitalism, all by itself without any state regulatation at all, does much help to the population at large. But with reasonbable state policies working with it, Capitalism is great!

 

[ComradeDavo]

What is your evidence? My evidence is the United States.

The US is a shining example of how capitalism is more about the power of corporations than the rights of an individual.

 

[Taliesin]

Typical Marxist nonsense. What do you have to support it? I expect nothing.

Capitalism allows individuals to pursue their own futures without interference.

My meaning is that both my statement and yours are equally simplistic and idiotic claims.

Capitalism is a system of transactions free from certain kinds of interference, which generally results in higher total productivity and a certain degree of suffering for many. It required brutal state coercion to institute it in the first place, and the use of the military to sustain it against popular dissent ever since. Capitalism was founded upon stealing land out from under peasants and forcing them into the cities, where they and their descendants had no choice but to die or to accept horrid living standards and work demands. Mercifully, this is not really the case in the developed nations any more, thanks to "Marxists" as you would call them, but this exploitative and coercive element still runs through capitalism. As a system it still requires the use of military force and oppression to support it internationally, and in most of the world's countries, "free markets" means "markets where foreign companies can kill and enslave our people and despoil our land of its ecosystems and resources". The capitalist movement would be a whole lot more convincing if it didn't require such widespread and heavy interference to keep the free markets "free".

 

[Zulu Elephant]

Capitalism is an economic system which is part of a free society.

In its purest form, it is regulated only by its own forces.

I'm a capitalist but...

 

[amadeus]

The US is a shining example of how capitalism is more about the power of corporations than the rights of an individual.

Corporations are organizations of people, Davo. A majro corporation is not run, owned, or operated by a single individiaul. It takes thousands, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of people. All of those people have jobs, something they wouldn't have if your flimsy economic "theories" were in place.

Show me a place where people are truly "better off" because of a lack in economic freedom. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. If you have the nerve to cite quasi-socialist economies like Sweden or such, they are anomalies and nothing more. The rest of the world can afford to support their burdens.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'm a capitalist but...

At least give me the courtesy of striking down my post with more than a !
Even would have been a better comeback!

 

[ComradeDavo]

Corporations are organizations of people, Davo. A majro corporation is not run, owned, or operated by a single individiaul. It takes thousands, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of people. All of those people have jobs, something they wouldn't have if your flimsy economic "theories" were in place.

Show me a place where people are truly "better off" because of a lack in economic freedom. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. If you have the nerve to cite quasi-socialist economies like Sweden or such, they are anomalies and nothing more. The rest of the world can afford to support their burdens.

I'm not opposed to corparations in theory, it's in pratice the way they are run at current that I see the problem. When companies like McDonalds and Nike have profit as the number one goal individuals will get stamped over for the good of the company. Capitalism is global - many people in jobs do not get paid enough, have few rights and can be sacked at any given time. This is an example of capitalism at the expense of the individual.

As for an example, well it works the other way also Even in America there are many people for whom the world's current form of capitalism means poverty and unemployement, as jobs move elsewhere and companies relocate.

I don't see Capitalism in it's current form as benificial to the individual, free trade isn't really free when countries put tarrifs on foriegn goods.

 

[FredLC]

Corporations are organizations of people, Davo. A majro corporation is not run, owned, or operated by a single individiaul. It takes thousands, sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

The very same thing can be said about governments, tirannical or not. Every system, even "evil marxism", are pretty much "individual systems" as well, Sharpe, what shatters the point of your retort completely.

All of those people have jobs, something they wouldn't have if your flimsy economic "theories" were in place.

Tell that to the million of unemployed people in the world. Disregarding the capitalism where it is unsucessful is a tremendous fallacy. You can't overlook what you don't like and consider only the sucessful aspects when judging a certain theory.

Show me a place where people are truly "better off" because of a lack in economic freedom. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. If you have the nerve to cite quasi-socialist economies like Sweden or such, they are anomalies and nothing more. The rest of the world can afford to support their burdens.

So one can point them, but they are "no more than anormalities".

Pffff... considering that the number of people who are poor is much, much higher than the number of rich people - and in fact, the number of people in the world which are below the line of poverty is several times larger than the number of really rich people - one could make a strong argument that sucess is as much an aberration to capitalism as the "quasi-socialist" nations that you mentioned (and these are nowhere near quasi-socialists, they are capitalist all the way, but that is another story).

Of course capitalism is better than the alternatives so far, but it is not by a longshot the sacro-saint source of freedom and happiness that you seen to consider it, my friend.

Regards .

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Free MarketCapitalism is not exploitative because, by its nature, deals with consensual acts of trade. If neither party is coerced into going through with the trade then there is no exploitation.

Spoiler :

But who needs logic?

 

[Mise]

Free MarketCapitalism is not exploitative because, by its nature, deals with consensual acts of trade. If neither party is coerced into going through with the trade then there is no exploitation.

Spoiler :

But who needs logic?

You seem to redefine the word "exploitation" so that capitalism does not exploit anyone...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

You seem to redefine the word "exploitation" so that capitalism does not exploit anyone...

Then go ahead and define it

 

[Zulu Elephant]

At least give me the courtesy of striking down my post with more than a !
Even would have been a better comeback!

Sorry, didn't mean to offend but capitalism is just an economic system and nothing to do with freedom. There's no reason why you couldn't have a free society with a socialist economic system, just as there's no reason why a dictatorship is incompatible with capitalism.

I'm capitalist because I think it's the most efficient model for organsing the economy (or at least the least-worst system), not because of some bizarre idea that it is somehow 'moral' and 'free'. "Free markets" simply means markets that are relatively free of governement interference and nothing to do with political freedom.


Also

In its purest form, it is regulated only by its own forces.

Im not sure whether you are suggesting that the theory of capitalism is that it is self-regulating or whether you are suggesting that capital does self-regulate. The first is true, but the second is why i posted the ""