Capitalism

[Robb]

Capitalism is a morally bankrupt system but in today's world a necessary one.

To what extent do you agree?

[citizenoftheuniverse]

I agree, but I wouldn´t go as far as saying it is morally bankrupt. Humans are imperfect, so every system we create is somehow imperfect as well. Ideologically speaking, if well excecuted, communism would be more equal and less corrupt, but it is unlikely it could work well in real life. So then the only other option is capitalism. So therefore capitalism is the only working option and so nesessary in todays world. So I agree some what.

Edited April 5, 2011 by citizenoftheuniverse

[Proletariat]

It's not possible for an economic system to have morality. That's a human characteristic.

It would be more correct to say that Capitalism facilitates "corrupt" morals more easily and readily than other systems, but really, when you're talking about something as nebulous as morality, what one individual may deem as corrupt would be found logical and pragmatic by another.

My personal position is that both Capitalsm and Communism, in its purest form, are idealistic. Both seek to achieve utopias that simply cannot exist in reality. The best economic system is the mixed economy, one that utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations.

[Sandwich]

It's not possible for an economic system to have morality. That's a human characteristic.

It would be more correct to say that Capitalism facilitates "corrupt" morals more easily and readily than other systems, but really, when you're talking about something as nebulous as morality, what one individual may deem as corrupt would be found logical and pragmatic by another.

My personal position is that both Capitalsm and Communism, in its purest form, are idealistic. Both seek to achieve utopias that simply cannot exist in reality. The best economic system is the mixed economy, one that utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations.

I agree with this, although on a personal level I think that Communism is far more idealistically appealing, it does have some pretty major flaws in that it requires everybody to develop the same world view, really, in order for it all to function. If we're going to be splitting everything amongst ourselves, I want to know that everybody else is working at least as hard as me and nobody is sponging, for instance, so unless we all have an ethos of working to our utmost, there's intrinsic injustice from the word Go.

Capitalism (with regulation, as Proletariat said - and in my opinion also a degree of Welfare state economic Communism going on as a safety net to catch those at the bottom of society) is, in its lack of extremity, probably the best one to go for. The others seem to me to require a huge degree of global compliance, and on a realism scale, that's not going to happen.

[Keel]

My personal position is that both Capitalsm and Communism, in its purest form, are idealistic. Both seek to achieve utopias that simply cannot exist in reality. The best economic system is the mixed economy, one that utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations.

Could you explain to me how Capitalism aims to achieve a utopia? How is Capitalism 'idealistic'? What outcomes can Capitalism not achieve in reality? Secondly, a market which "utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations" can still be under a Capitalist system; to me, your statement was empty in nature.

[Proletariat]

My personal position is that both Capitalsm and Communism, in its purest form, are idealistic. Both seek to achieve utopias that simply cannot exist in reality. The best economic system is the mixed economy, one that utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations.

Could you explain to me how Capitalism aims to achieve a utopia? How is Capitalism 'idealistic'? What outcomes can Capitalism not achieve in reality? Secondly, a market which "utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations" can still be under a Capitalist system; to me, your statement was empty in nature.

It seems to be, then, that you would greatly benefit from broadening your knowledge in various national economies, so further discussions on these issues won't be so empty for you.

Capitalism is idealistic because, just like Communism, it was originally conceived to be a system where everyone benefits. The argument was - and in certain circles, still is - that a purely Capitalist system maximizes economic efficiency and growth, and therefore benefits everyone in the society, the employers though profit growth, and employees through wage growth, these two being the primary forms of income defined in a Capitalist system (for your sake, I have simplified my discourse by leaving borrowing out.) However, it is clearly seen in reality that Capitalism does not benefit all members of the society. The more capitalist an economy is, the more severely are they subject to boom-bust cycles. In addition, the most Capitalist economies also have the largest income gaps between the rich and the poor. These are facts that, quite frankly, are common knowledge.

What seems more likely to me, though, is that you have simply failed to comprehend my earlier post; it appears that your response is utilizing a very broad definition of Capitalism. If you'll look above, you'll notice that I only call Capitalism "in its purest form" as being idealistic; a basic understanding of world economies will reveal that almost every government in the world maintains economic regulations in some form or another, including the United States. Anti-monopoly laws are a good example; capitalist systems with no checks and balances will invariably result in corporate monopolies that undermine one of the very premises of the system: the free market.

Hopefully that helped you understand the issue better; no one likes a debate of semantics.

[Keel]

My personal position is that both Capitalsm and Communism, in its purest form, are idealistic. Both seek to achieve utopias that simply cannot exist in reality. The best economic system is the mixed economy, one that utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations.

Could you explain to me how Capitalism aims to achieve a utopia? How is Capitalism 'idealistic'? What outcomes can Capitalism not achieve in reality? Secondly, a market which "utilizes a free-market that also maintains necessary checks and balances to prevent unnecessarily disastrous boom-bust modulations" can still be under a Capitalist system; to me, your statement was empty in nature.

It seems to be, then, that you would greatly benefit from broadening your knowledge in various national economies, so further discussions on these issues won't be so empty for you.

Capitalism is idealistic because, just like Communism, it was originally conceived to be a system where everyone benefits. The argument was - and in certain circles, still is - that a purely Capitalist system maximizes economic efficiency and growth, and therefore benefits everyone in the society, the employers though profit growth, and employees through wage growth, these two being the primary forms of income defined in a Capitalist system (for your sake, I have simplified my discourse by leaving borrowing out.) However, it is clearly seen in reality that Capitalism does not benefit all members of the society. The more capitalist an economy is, the more severely are they subject to boom-bust cycles. In addition, the most Capitalist economies also have the largest income gaps between the rich and the poor. These are facts that, quite frankly, are common knowledge.

What seems more likely to me, though, is that you have simply failed to comprehend my earlier post; it appears that your response is utilizing a very broad definition of Capitalism. If you'll look above, you'll notice that I only call Capitalism "in its purest form" as being idealistic; a basic understanding of world economies will reveal that almost every government in the world maintains economic regulations in some form or another, including the United States. Anti-monopoly laws are a good example; capitalist systems with no checks and balances will invariably result in corporate monopolies that undermine one of the very premises of the system: the free market.

Hopefully that helped you understand the issue better; no one likes a debate of semantics.

I apologise if I have offended you in any sort of way. All I asked for was a clarification of certain points. You may carry on debating without my ignorant being getting in your way.

[dubyawhy]

Capitalism complements human progress and our innate nature far more than any brand of Communism. Capitalism is not actually necessary, but rather, Communism is unacceptable.

Communism itself isn't morally unacceptable either. It's just the course of actions that a capitalist society would have to take to make a transition into a communist one.

You would have to be familiar with a correct "moral system" (nihilism etc etc) to be able to say that Capitalism is "morally bankrupt", and since philosophers have had their own little endless feud over ethics and morals for the last few centuries, it is needless to say that you can't brand anything "morally bankrupt".

Capitalism is monetary freedom on a personal scale whereas communism isn't. So it could be argued that capitalism is in some ways MORE morally acceptable than other economic ideologies.

[rolfmaomachizlin]

Capitalism complements human progress and our innate nature far more than any brand of Communism. Capitalism is not actually necessary, but rather, Communism is unacceptable.

Communism itself isn't morally unacceptable either. It's just the course of actions that a capitalist society would have to take to make a transition into a communist one.

You would have to be familiar with a correct "moral system" (nihilism etc etc) to be able to say that Capitalism is "morally bankrupt", and since philosophers have had their own little endless feud over ethics and morals for the last few centuries, it is needless to say that you can't brand anything "morally bankrupt".

Capitalism is monetary freedom on a personal scale whereas communism isn't. So it could be argued that capitalism is in some ways MORE morally acceptable than other economic ideologies.

aaaaand, thank you wikipedia!

[Chris Kuno]

Well it can be true that

lism is monetary freedom on a personal scale whereas communism isn't. So it could be argued that capitalism is in some ways MORE morally acceptable than other economic ideologies.

. However, a utopian society would probably benefit from an ideal communist society which benefits the good of all.

...to quote Wall Street (1987)

Thank you. I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

[Proletariat]

Well it can be true that

lism is monetary freedom on a personal scale whereas communism isn't. So it could be argued that capitalism is in some ways MORE morally acceptable than other economic ideologies.

. However, a utopian society would probably benefit from an ideal communist society which benefits the good of all.

...to quote Wall Street (1987)

Thank you. I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

Yes, and utilitarianism also doesn't take into account a theoretical resource consumption pace unmitigated by the law of diminishing returns. Neither does it consider the results of the mere addition paradox in population ethics, which seems to suggest that communism and other egalitarian philosophies would logically result in a highly overpopulated dystopia.

Honestly, I don't think humanity is capable of imagining an utopian society. The very word is fallacious, and it doesn't translate into the real world whatsoever. Even I, as someone who typically loves to talk theoreticals, find discussions on utopias quite circular and really pointless.

I would also put both Capitalism and Communism underneath these Tents of Theory that, while being significantly more worthwhile to discuss than Utopias, have nevertheless never been achieved in Earth's history. Remember that a socialist state is not a state that has achieved Communism. It is just unfortunate that English lacks the equivalent distinction on the other side of the spectrum. I would probably phrase it as a state being able to embrace free market principles, without being a state that has achieved the free market of Capitalist mythos.

[An Almost Graduate]

Capitalism, in my opinion, is the only way one can truly be moral. When one constantly has the state telling you how to use your resources, how can you be charitable? As for socialism being moral, how is it moral to take money from people who work hard to give to those who are lazy?

Capitalism isn't greed. It's freedom to live as you choose. If you choose to be an alcoholic, then you can be an alcoholic, just don't expect anyone to pay you for it. If you choose to work hard, you've sarcrificed a lot of your energy for the betterment of your world, don't you deserve to have more than someone who is lazy? IB students earn more on average than those who took regular classes. Don't we deserve it?

Socialism is greed. In the Abrahamic religions, there is a beleif that...blah blah blah Moses...and socialism breaks the tenth commandment, which says do not covet thy neighbor's goods. Well socialism is an idea created by lazy people looking at the wealth acquired by hard working individuals and saying, "I want some." The entire notion of greed basically means breaking the tenth commandment (though people who have nothing to do with religion still resent greed, but it has been a concept absorbed into our culture due to the insistance on that commandment), and socialism is basically exercising the opposite of that.

It seems important to point out the common sense point that if you want to donate to helping the poor through charity, you can under capitalism. It's your money. It's your decision.

[dogmatichurricane]

The main issue with capitalism is that everyone works to their best interest selfishly (since human beings are greedy creatures). This naturally creates a side of winners and a side of losers and a state of Pareto optimality is reached (where making the winners better off would only be possible by making the losers worse off or vice versa).

I would personally rank capitalism over communism anyday despite its numerous flaws in economies. Capitalism with checks and balances in place sounds like a modernised socialistic country to me....

To add on, capitalism can actually generate benefits even in 3rd world countries where income inequalities exist. Muhammud Yunus' concept of a social business derived from his initial beliefs on microcredit is a good example of this.

Edited June 21, 2011 by dogmatichurricane

[Sandwich]

Capitalism, in my opinion, is the only way one can truly be moral. When one constantly has the state telling you how to use your resources, how can you be charitable? As for socialism being moral, how is it moral to take money from people who work hard to give to those who are lazy?

Capitalism isn't greed. It's freedom to live as you choose. If you choose to be an alcoholic, then you can be an alcoholic, just don't expect anyone to pay you for it. If you choose to work hard, you've sarcrificed a lot of your energy for the betterment of your world, don't you deserve to have more than someone who is lazy? IB students earn more on average than those who took regular classes. Don't we deserve it?

Socialism is greed. In the Abrahamic religions, there is a beleif that...blah blah blah Moses...and socialism breaks the tenth commandment, which says do not covet thy neighbor's goods. Well socialism is an idea created by lazy people looking at the wealth acquired by hard working individuals and saying, "I want some." The entire notion of greed basically means breaking the tenth commandment (though people who have nothing to do with religion still resent greed, but it has been a concept absorbed into our culture due to the insistance on that commandment), and socialism is basically exercising the opposite of that.

It seems important to point out the common sense point that if you want to donate to helping the poor through charity, you can under capitalism. It's your money. It's your decision.

This is quite a skewed view (in my opinion) of both capitalism and socialism

For instance, when you say that socialism has no morality (or what I think is a better term, principles), on the contrary. It's not like the state is some kind of evil tyrant and people have no say. Democratic countries that sway towards socialism vote in that socialism. If I think that everybody ought to be cared for within a society, for instance that if you get ill, your financial state shouldn't determine whether or not you receive treatment to get better, I vote for that. It's a large-scale society based morality, but it's a set of decisions about principles nevertheless. People vote to protect the principles of social care and welfare, it's not like some higher thing is forcing it.

I also think that it's important to separate principles from morality. Morality is a religiously-based concept of right versus wrong, black versus white and so on. You can't really apply that to a welfare state - for instance, taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those too lazy to earn it =/= taking money from those who earned it and giving it to somebody who has a severe mental health issue that prevents them from working. It's not a black and white scenario. Reallocating money isn't always 'wrong'. Sometimes it occurs for the right reasons, sometimes (it's true) you get scroungers - and the day a system is built which can differentiate the two without spending a hell of a lot of money and getting it wrong loads of the time, that system will be everywhere. Nobody likes supporting the work-shy. However, what kind of a society would fail to support those who, rather than being work-shy, are disabled, or unemployed but can't find a job, or unable to cope with various life circumstances that are not their own fault? So when I say principle, I think the principle is that it's a safety net to make sure nobody in the society is royally screwed over, dies of starvation and so on. It's an embodiment of social responsibility, but it's not perfect.

The fact is that the majority of people who are on welfare benefit etc., deserve to be on welfare benefit. Some people (a minority) do not deserve to be on it and sit at home doing sod all whilst living off the money of people who might themselves effectively then receive the same income, just they actually work for it! Socialism is not a system that endorses that. Nobody endorses it, just like nobody endorses any other kind of theft. These lazy people are not the inventors of socialism! They're hardly a blip on the electoral roll in countries that have whole populations voting. People who vote for national health and welfare are well aware of these leech-like people, but vote for it anyway on the basis that the people who do receive benefit that are in need of it will not be cast aside by society.

As for coveting thy neighbours goods or whatever, I don't actually understand your argument there. Why would it be coveting thy neighbours goods in socialism(!)?

People who work hard should receive what they've earned - apart from extreme versions of communism, this happens. So yeah, I don't especially get this point either. If I should work hard, and become severely ill for whatever reason... I expect not to be dumped in a ditch somewhere. I expect to make just as much use of public services as anybody else. If I have a chronic illness and can no longer work and earn money to support myself, I expect the state to make some provision for my care. So by paying into a relatively socialist state, I expect to get out of it what I put in. Yeah we're all IB students and work harder than everybody else or whatever you want to say, but if you had something awful happen to you tomorrow such that you could never be employed, would you follow your own advice and say there's nobody to blame but yourself, nobody has a responsibility to support you?

[miha]

Capitalism, in my opinion, is the only way one can truly be moral.

Yes, it is very moral indeed.

Capitalism isn't greed. It's freedom to live as you choose.

Look at the picture above, did that starving kid really have freedom to chose that. Think about your words twice.

If you choose to work hard, you've sarcrificed a lot of your energy for the betterment of your world, don't you deserve to have more than someone who is lazy?

Think about that, who works harder: a worker sweating 10 hours a day to get a dollar a day, or some rich man who lies on his beautiful yacht and all that he does in a day is eat some caviar. And you call a worker lazy...

IB students earn more on average than those who took regular classes. Don't we deserve it?

No, we dont. Because there are some people who don't even have enough money to go to ever enter eve first grade of the school. Just because my and your father have enough money to pay for IB doesn't justify that our lifes will be hundred times better than theirs.

Socialism is greed.

Come on. Socialism is working for your good by doing for common good, while capitalism is doing for your good by ruthlessly ignoring the rest.

Think again about what you said, please, and reconsider your opinion. Capitalism is no good. It is unmoral, selfish and as well it doesnt even work as a proper economic model as the 2007 crisis proved.

[Ezak]

Capitalism, in my opinion, is the only way one can truly be moral.

Yes, it is very moral indeed.

Capitalism isn't greed. It's freedom to live as you choose.

Look at the picture above, did that starving kid really have freedom to chose that. Think about your words twice.

If you choose to work hard, you've sarcrificed a lot of your energy for the betterment of your world, don't you deserve to have more than someone who is lazy?

Think about that, who works harder: a worker sweating 10 hours a day to get a dollar a day, or some rich man who lies on his beautiful yacht and all that he does in a day is eat some caviar. And you call a worker lazy...

IB students earn more on average than those who took regular classes. Don't we deserve it?

No, we dont. Because there are some people who don't even have enough money to go to ever enter eve first grade of the school. Just because my and your father have enough money to pay for IB doesn't justify that our lifes will be hundred times better than theirs.

Socialism is greed.

Come on. Socialism is working for your good by doing for common good, while capitalism is doing for your good by ruthlessly ignoring the rest.

Think again about what you said, please, and reconsider your opinion. Capitalism is no good. It is unmoral, selfish and as well it doesnt even work as a proper economic model as the 2007 crisis proved.

Just wanted to remind you that most african countries are socialist or are failed socialist dictatorships. Even so, what is moraly acceptable is not what we are looking for here, but what works the best.

[URA BOAT]

if me it is interesting why communism and socialism are compared with capitalism ....i know that they are polar and do not agree with each other under any circumstances...but if some one could explain to me what make them so polar

[El Che]

@miha:

I partially agree and partially don't agree with your comment. It's true that workers are not usually paid well but becoming rich and lying on a yacht is not a very easy thing to achieve. These rich men put tremendous effort, if we discard those who are in underground business, in their businesses to gain money. I mean that they don't become rich with a snap. It's debatable if socialism is working well. Remember the Soviet Union. Would it dissolve if the Communist system worked so well? Weren't the Soviet leaders also greedy? Also, how many examples of purely socialist countries can you give me right now? Even Cuba is shifting to a free market. I think you should have heard about the latest news and reforms in Cuba. Raul Castro is allowing citizens to buy/sell real estate. Doesn't this show that the socialist system isn't really working? Neither Capitalism is working, but so far countries with such philosophy achieved so much and it cannot be discarded.

I'm not a huge supporter of neither socialism nor Capitalism, although my username can make you think that I'm on the socialist side. Of course I like people in one country to be as equal as possible, but it's just not working.

[Award Winning Boss]

the reason why people do not want communism really is because no one in the developed nations wants to be 100% equal. To me equality would result in everyone having nothing, which is worse that having the poor and the rich.

Capitalism is a flawed system but history has pretty much shown that people hate communism because it's oppressive in a lot of cases.

The rich love capitalism, the poor think it's flawed. Those who are on the very bottom of capitalism, don't have a voice to say why they hate it.

These are some figures:

http://www.freemoney...ed-equally.html

I think it needs tweaking but it'd take developed countries to stop expecting everything on a plate. Then if it does happen... the media should stop putting 'our quality of life has decreased' while that'd be true it paints it in a bad light. Rather, 'developing countries have an improved lifestyle'. I'm no journalist but you get what i mean.

It requires a revolution in my opinion but hey, people don't want to give up comfort.

Edited November 5, 2011 by AHiddenName

[Ezak]

Or maybe they don't want it because history has shown that when you reach a certain stage in marxism (sure there are other doctrines than marxism in socialism, but these are so small and negligible that I skipped them.), it turns into a dictatorship. suddenly we have a new aristocracy were all the party members (or just the leader..) have everything and all the Oh so beloved workers have practically nil, the freedom of expression is banned, and the economy is going through the bottom because it can't allocate it's resources into things that are wanted and/or needed at all. This has occured several times in history, and I see no use in trying another time, bringing even more pain into this world.