The Intractable Flaw That Dooms All Capitalist Societies

[Game_Over]

What complicates this debate I think is the length of time it takes for social systems to change and evolve.

This process can take hundreds of years.

Communism in Russia arose from the overthrow of a Feudal system, as it did in China.

It is now over 100 years since the 1905 revolution and the people of Russia arguably still do not enjoy the benefits of a democratic, capitalist society.

In the end, it could take 150 - 200 years before this is achieved.

Seen in this context, the current 'crisis' in Capitalism is an insignificant 'blip'

A system that falters once every 70/80 years can hardly be said to have failed, especially when compared to a system that fails most of the time.

Capitalism is evolving, but eventually it will encompass the entire globe, because after hundreds of years of experiment it is clearly the 'least worst option' and the only one that has shown any semblance of working.

IMHO

[sbn]

Always nice to have an opinion from the peanut gallery.

I agree with him. In your example what is to stop the workers walking into the warehouses full of product and just taking it? Security staff of course! The security sector booms - loads of jobs guarding full warehouses. Newly rich security guards buy all the product. No sense in having security staff guarding empty warehouses is there? so they all get theri jobs back producing it again!

[KingBingo]

show me a free market that has failed

Are you serious? Look around you.

We have a government that spends over six hundred billion pounds and creates volume after volume of law and regulation, employs an army of regulators (seriously, there are more people working for various regulators than in the actual army) and you think that's a free market? That is quite honestly delusional.

If we had a free market and sound money not only would the banks not have failed in the first place, but they certainly would not have been bailed out.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Capitalism is evolving, but eventually it will encompass the entire globe, because after hundreds of years of experiment it is clearly the 'least worst option' and the only one that has shown any semblance of working.

IMHO

What pro-capitalists tend to ignore, because it throws a massive spanner in the works, is the environment. There's a very good chance that in another few hundred years the remaining few million humans will be hunter/gatherers. Forget capitalism.

[roadtoruin]

I've got that & also read it.

A gene is not a cell.

Your liver and your brain are not in a 'red in tooth and claw' battle for resources between each other...

+1

In fact adjacent cells are passively 'forced' to share some resources by osmotic pressures, or pay energy to keep them stored for themselves against a concentration gradient.

Bit like the rich having to live in a gated community to keep their wealth against the poor (oh dear Injin's got me analogy-building now).

[KingBingo]

What pro-capitalists tend to ignore, because it throws a massive spanner in the works, is the environment. There's a very good chance that in another few hundred years the remaining few million humans will be hunter/gatherers. Forget capitalism.

Yes because socialist governments have zero carbon emissions???

Oh, and their sh:te doesn't smell either.

[Injin]

I've got that & also read it.

A gene is not a cell.

Your liver and your brain are not in a 'red in tooth and claw' battle for resources between each other...

That's right.

They perform different tasks so that they are more likely to thrive.

Capitalism in a nuthelll - enlightened free trade and specialisation.

[Game_Over]

So when y=0 everything we want can be produced at no cost at all. So all prices in a free market will tend to 0 as well if you follow your own logic. Prices in a competitive market always trend to a real profit of zero, where real profit is profit over and above the risk free rate plus applicable risk premium. Since production is costless prices will be zero as there is no capital risk.

So in your capitalist hell everything is free. Oh no, sounds like Star Trek or something.

In most Capitalist countries, those who are actually engaged in productive work are so efficient that they end up supporting a vast 'rump' of unproductive 'hangers on'

What has happened in the UK is that under Nu Labour, the Socialist client state has expanded to such an extent that it is now totally unsupportable and will strangle any economic recovery.

The Uk's budget defecit is shortly going to reach the worst level for 60 years and this does not even include 1 Trillion of unfunded public sector pensions commitment.

The System is bankrupt and the consequences will be enormous, painful and long lasting unfortunately.

What we actually need is MORE Capitalist policies not less.

The State has got to be cut back drastically and if it isn't the Uk economy will not recover for decades IMO.

[KingBingo]

Spot on above poster!

[Game_Over]

What pro-capitalists tend to ignore, because it throws a massive spanner in the works, is the environment. There's a very good chance that in another few hundred years the remaining few million humans will be hunter/gatherers. Forget capitalism.

Capitalism will ensure that this doesn't happen, as it has done in the past.

Ultimately the Sun is going to explode and the Earth will become just a barren ball of rock.

So unless humans develop the technology to leave the Earth and travel to other Solar systems, ALL life on Earth is ultimately doomed.

And the environment is a big non-issue as far as I can see.

Take water as an example.

If 1 human or a billion humans drink water and then excrete it, what difference does it make to the environment?

If a plant grows and then dies and rots away, what difference does it make if a human eats it?

Nothing we appear to consume is either really created or destroyed and that applies to water, food and energy.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Nothing we appear to consume is either really created or destroyed and that applies to water, food and energy.

Incredibly simplistic and hardly applies to the human race, even if scientifically true (at least the energy part). Fossil fuels?

As for water, it takes energy to produce the clean drinkable sort, especially for a six billion+ population.

Food, again...it looks unlikely the organic model will get very far in a capitalist utopia, therefore you'll need lots and lots of fertiliser/chemical insecticides, not to mention land. No problem with the land, just cut down more rain forests. Oops!

See where this is going?

[Ted D. Bear]

That's right.

They perform different tasks so that they are more likely to thrive.

Capitalism in a nuthelll - enlightened free trade and specialisation.

Swap 'free trade' for 'cooperation' and you have socialism in a nutshell.

This 'cell' analogy to capitalism is a terrible one. There is no free agency at the cellular level and so any attempt to characterise interactions between cells or organs as 'free' is absurd.

[Stars]

Food, again...it looks unlikely the organic model will get very far in a capitalist utopia, therefore you'll need lots and lots of fertiliser/chemical insecticides, not to mention land. No problem with the land, just cut down more rain forests. Oops!

See where this is going?

People use chemical fertilisers and chop down forests because doing so provides more food. The same techniques would provide more food, even under communism / socialism

The private manopolisation of all the benefits of land by the owner pushes people outwards to take possesion of more and more land, even if the land already being used is sufficient to provide for everyone. Our system does make life a LOT less efficient than it need be, but not because it isn't socialism. Socialism is even worse than what we have presently.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Stars

[Guest X-QUORK]

Socialism is even worse than what we have presently.

I don't propose socialism to be the answer to our problems, I'd prefer to see a form of strictly controlled capitalism. Somewhere inbetween the two isms.

[KingBingo]

I don't propose socialism to be the answer to our problems, I'd prefer to see a form of strictly controlled capitalism. Somewhere inbetween the two isms.

So NuLabour then.

That's just been tried, didn't work either.

Controlling a free market DOES NOT WORK.

[Stars]

I don't propose socialism to be the answer to our problems, I'd prefer to see a form of strictly controlled capitalism. Somewhere inbetween the two isms.

Strictly controlled by who?

[Guest Skinty]

So NuLabour then.

That's just been tried, didn't work either.

Controlling a free market DOES NOT WORK.

Can any system 'work'? The problem is not the system but the agents within it. In other words ... humans.

Our very nature means that at heart we are greedy and competitve. It's why we evolved in the first place. If we weren't then we wouldn't be here discussing what type of system works for greedy and competitive agents.

OK so we also have altruistic traits, but this has been evolved for use in our respective packs. Ultimately it still benefits you if you are altruistic. Nor is it a trait you can rely on. There will always be people who are not altruistic at all and who will try to exploit whatever system you impose upon them.

So the way I see if, you either have an efficient system, or a fair system. You cannot have both.

[nixy]

That's right.

They perform different tasks so that they are more likely to thrive.

Capitalism in a nuthelll - enlightened free trade and specialisation.

What IS capital?

My guess is few really understand the true meaning.

me included perhaps?

My other guess is some prefer to politicise so called capitalism making it a 'greed thing'....... which it is not.

I have an ability to sweep a pavement or any other flat areas like roads an' stuff ........ I can exchange this for something else..........

......where 'something else' and an 'ability to do sweeping' are BOTH capital.

Am I wrong?

Edited April 16, 2009 by nixy

[Guest X-QUORK]

Strictly controlled by who?

The G20? World governments.

I don't do Injin-style existentialist debate, so don't go there.

[Stars]

Can any system 'work'? The problem is not the system but the agents within it. In other words ... humans.

If you think the issue is capitalism vs socialism or a controlled economy vs 'our system', then you will reasonably end up at this conclusion

[Guest X-QUORK]

My other guess is some prefer to politicise so called capitalism making it a 'greed thing'....... which it is not.

Interesting...go on.

[nixy]

Interesting...go on.

sorry just done an edit.......

[Stars]

The G20? World governments.

I don't do Injin-style existentialist debate, so don't go there.

It's a big, real issue though isn't it?

I don't do that round in circles stuff either, the issue is too important

Edited April 16, 2009 by Stars

[Game_Over]

Incredibly simplistic and hardly applies to the human race, even if scientifically true (at least the energy part). Fossil fuels?

As for water, it takes energy to produce the clean drinkable sort, especially for a six billion+ population.

Food, again...it looks unlikely the organic model will get very far in a capitalist utopia, therefore you'll need lots and lots of fertiliser/chemical insecticides, not to mention land. No problem with the land, just cut down more rain forests. Oops!

See where this is going?

My point is that water is in effect an infinite resource, as is energy and with infinite amounts of water and energy, we could easily grow more food than we could ever consume.

Not sure what the ultimate human population of the planet will be though, how many insects are there?

[domo]

Swap 'free trade' for 'cooperation' and you have socialism in a nutshell.

This 'cell' analogy to capitalism is a terrible one. There is no free agency at the cellular level and so any attempt to characterise interactions between cells or organs as 'free' is absurd.

Socialism is not cooperation, it is stealing from the productive to give to the unproductive.

The free market is by its nature cooperation only.