Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey - poll contacted over 34,000 people in 28 countries

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Capitalism seen doing 'more harm than good' in global survey

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-trust-idUSKBN1ZJ0CW

Quote

The poll contacted over 34,000 people in 28 countries, from Western liberal democracies like the United States and France to those based on a different model such as China and Russia, with 56% agreeing that “capitalism as it exists today does more harm than good in the world”.

 

The survey was launched in 2000 to explore the theories of political scientist Francis Fukuyama, who after the collapse of communism declared that liberal capitalist democracy had seen off rival ideologies and so represented “the end of history”.

That conclusion has since been challenged by critics who point to everything from the rising influence of China to the spread of autocratic leaders, trade protectionism and worsening inequality in the wake of the 2007/08 global financial crisis.

‘INTO THE VOID’

On a national level, lack of trust in capitalism was highest in Thailand and India on 75% and 74% respectively, with France close behind on 69%. Majorities prevailed in other Asian, European, Gulf, African and Latin American states...

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Saving For a Space Ship

[Big Orange]

It's become as discredited and dysfunctional as the Commie Command Economy....

[zugzwang]

 

In Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International (1993), Jacques Derrida criticized Fukuyama as a "come-lately reader" of the philosopher-statesman Alexandre Kojève (1902–1968), who "in the tradition of Leo Strauss" (1899–1973), in the 1950s, already had described the society of the U.S. as the "realization of communism"; and said that the public-intellectual celebrity of Fukuyama and the mainstream popularity of his book, The End of History and the Last Man, were symptoms of right-wing, cultural anxiety about ensuring the "Death of Marx." In criticising Fukuyama's celebration of the economic and cultural hegemony of Western liberalism, Derrida said:

For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious, macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable, singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.^[9]

[msi]

We don't have Capitalism we have the bastardised love child of Libertarian NeoFeudalism and Right Wing populism.

Privatise Profits and Socialise Losses

Individual Freedom unless it impinges against the Elites then it's 10 years for just holding a placard

Speak of the 'will of the people' but don't let the people express their will through collective representation

Alternative Facts and Conspiracy theories against the 'other' - deny all when its against you

 

[byron78]

14 minutes ago, msi said:

We don't have Capitalism we have the bastardised love child of Libertarian NeoFeudalism and Right Wing populism.

Privatise Profits and Socialise Losses

Individual Freedom unless it impinges against the Elites then it's 10 years for just holding a placard

Speak of the 'will of the people' but don't let the people express their will through collective representation

Alternative Facts and Conspiracy theories against the 'other' - deny all when its against you

 

We have capitalism, in the same sense that we have socialism.

They are NOT absolute positions. They are directions, between private ownership (the absolute position of which is, historically, some kind of feudalism) and state intervention (the absolute position of which is, unfortunately, the shite hole of communism).

You probably already know this, so I apologize if I'm stating the obvious!

[scottbeard]

The trouble is that "harm" and "good" are both very open to interpretation.

It's more interesting really to know WHY people think that than what % do in different countries, and who is getting the good and the harm.

No surprise that France are amongst the most anti-capitalist given how socialist their state is - they probably reject capitalism as being too unequal ie harm to the poor, good to the rich.

However, you could equally come at this from a perspective of the fact that humans are basically on course to make the Earth uninhabitable for humans....therefore really the "more harm than good" is environmental.  In other words, it's doing good to the current generation, but harm to future ones.

[nome]

We don't have Capitalism we have Corporatism and Bankism.

Just like we don't have any meaningful form of democracy, what we have is far closer to oligarchy and/or kleptocracy.

[spyguy]

Look at how much money the state taxes and spends and controls.

Then ask yourself if you have capitalism.

 

[dugsbody]

9 hours ago, zugzwang said:

For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious, macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable, singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.^[9]

"Absolute figures". Capitalism is filled with flaws but that is just a dishonest argument.

[byron78]

I'm amazed how many of you seem to think Capitalism is an absolute position! Bit worrying tbh.

[winkie]

Cartels, monopolies, capitalisation, monetisation both property and people, where people are valued differently some looked upon as better or worth more than others....the servants and those who they serve, all equal when some are more equal than others, can get away with more, with better opportunities available to them, and do what the rest can't because they can.......not saying it is entirely wrong, just how it is, put up with it.

[Former postman]

Lol capitalism? More like neo-feudalism

[msi]

54 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I'm amazed how many of you seem to think Capitalism is an absolute position! Bit worrying tbh.

You'd be surprised how may hard core libertarians take Capitalism as an absolute - just look at the number of Ayn Rand fans in Power around the world.

[Locke]

57 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I'm amazed how many of you seem to think Capitalism is an absolute position! Bit worrying tbh.

The key element of capitalism is consent which you either have or you don't. Just like the the difference between lovemaking and rape is consent, even if the mechanical details are identical.

[cnick]

14 minutes ago, Locke said:

The key element of capitalism is consent which you either have or you don't. Just like the the difference between lovemaking and rape is consent, even if the mechanical details are identical.

yes, the absolute here is physical violence.... or the threat of it.

'Capitalism' that 'requires' coercion is NOT capitalism.

We here have never known capitalism.  

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, byron78 said:

I'm amazed how many of you seem to think Capitalism is an absolute position! Bit worrying tbh.

Agree with you there, the number of absolutists in this thread is absurd.

If definitions really were as absolute, got to have it 100% or it's not that thing, then we've definitely not got any of those other things we claim either.

The reality is elements of most of them to varying degrees, of which, in this country anyway, capitalism is the most dominant.

Absolute capitalism is a very flawed concept anyway, one that neglects human nature as much as strict communism does. In such a system more capital gives more power and power always gives the opportunity to abuse the system for your own ends. It requires the sort of intervention labelled as non capitalist to keep a lid on that (with often questionable success).

[zugzwang]

46 minutes ago, Locke said:

The key element of capitalism is consent which you either have or you don't. Just like the the difference between lovemaking and rape is consent, even if the mechanical details are identical.

 

29 minutes ago, cnick said:

yes, the absolute here is physical violence.... or the threat of it.

'Capitalism' that 'requires' coercion is NOT capitalism.

We here have never known capitalism.  

There's no coercion. You've always been free to leave.

There are plenty of places in the world with less govt than the UK.

[cnick]

Just now, zugzwang said:

There's no coercion. You've always been free to leave.

So what would you do if I decided to stay?

[byron78]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

The key element of capitalism is consent which you either have or you don't. Just like the the difference between lovemaking and rape is consent, even if the mechanical details are identical.

Bit simplistic, but yes I get your point.

The argument would be, consent for whom, though? Surely only those with enough capital have that choice, quite a lot of the time?

Quite a lot of consent on your behalf has come from my generation. I consented to ending the rent cap, creating short-term tenancies, and then the financialisation of the housing market in the 1980s/90s. Anyone not able to vote then or who didn't vote Tory like me, didn't.

Wider point - are those of you stuck renting consenting to your position in the market? I know some will be, but surely not all?

Edited July 14, 2021 by byron78

[byron78]

1 hour ago, msi said:

You'd be surprised how may hard core libertarians take Capitalism as an absolute - just look at the number of Ayn Rand fans in Power around the world.

We've got one in charge of the NHS now! You're spot on, as well. Rand was always the darling of Tory conventions when I used to go (don't worry, I haven't in decades).

[byron78]

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Agree with you there, the number of absolutists in this thread is absurd.

If definitions really were as absolute, got to have it 100% or it's not that thing, then we've definitely not got any of those other things we claim either.

The reality is elements of most of them to varying degrees, of which, in this country anyway, capitalism is the most dominant.

Absolute capitalism is a very flawed concept anyway, one that neglects human nature as much as strict communism does. In such a system more capital gives more power and power always gives the opportunity to abuse the system for your own ends. It requires the sort of intervention labelled as non capitalist to keep a lid on that (with often questionable success).

It's such an obvious fundamental error, I'm wondering if this has been spread deliberately?

I refuse to believe people are that thick!

Edited July 14, 2021 by byron78

[jonb2]

24 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Agree with you there, the number of absolutists in this thread is absurd.

If definitions really were as absolute, got to have it 100% or it's not that thing, then we've definitely not got any of those other things we claim either.

The reality is elements of most of them to varying degrees, of which, in this country anyway, capitalism is the most dominant.

Absolute capitalism is a very flawed concept anyway, one that neglects human nature as much as strict communism does. In such a system more capital gives more power and power always gives the opportunity to abuse the system for your own ends. It requires the sort of intervention labelled as non capitalist to keep a lid on that (with often questionable success).

 

Good post, and I agree with the bold bit in particular. You cannot assume that people are robots. Big mistake.

They are greedy or not.

"Greed is good" - was once a pat line in a movie - now it's a religion.

 

[cnick]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

Good post, and I agree with the bold bit in particular. You cannot assume that people are robots. Big mistake.

They are greedy or not.

"Greed is good" - was once a pat line in a movie - now it's a religion.

 

What's worse ........ greed or dishonesty?

When a banking person creates purchasing power from nothing and gets paid for that 'service' (Cantillon effect?) ....... is that greed or dishonest.

?

[Former postman]

3 minutes ago, cnick said:

What's worse ........ greed or dishonesty?

When a banking person creates purchasing power from nothing and gets paid for that 'service' (Cantillon effect?) ....... is that greed or dishonest.

?

Both

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

"Absolute figures". Capitalism is filled with flaws but that is just a dishonest argument.

In what way was it dishonest? There were more people in poverty/enslaved in 1992 than at any time in human history.

And obviously since that date through a succession of global financial crises culminating in the GFC history has vindicated Derrida not Fukuyama/Thatcher/Blair.