4 ms·

You seem to be ignoring the lives lead by those not in the elite ruling class prior to capitalism. There is more wealth, distributed more evenly (though still u

by r_smart 10y ago

You seem to be ignoring the lives lead by those not in the elite ruling class prior to capitalism. There is more wealth, distributed more evenly (though still unequally) now then there ever was under various forms of fuedalism, etc. And communism has a well established track record of lowering quality of life for the lower classes while serving to consolidate more wealth and power to the few, as evidenced by the 20th century. I look forward to the day we take the next step in human organization, but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. The dominant system of the developed west in the 19th Century for which the term "capitalism" was coined was certainly an improvement in most respects over its predecessors, as was recognized by its critics who named it. The modern mixed economy, which has generally displaced that system in the developed west (and much of the rest of the world), which incorporates significant elements of the program of the socialist critics who named "capitalism" without, as those critics would generally have preferred, replacing entirely it's fundamental structure of property, is, while certainly far from ideal, I would say much better than capitalism, though it constantly seems to want to slide back into capitalism (or, rather, powerful interests want to force it back to that state).
- r_smart 10y ago
  Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      >and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality Yes, it's just that many people believe the current mix too heavily favors the government, which creates a massive consolidation of power & resources as well as a weak point susceptible to being co-opted or corrupted. This is what people who want the 'slide back into capitalism' are concerned about. Moving more towards state intervention moves us more towards the horrors of systems that are worse than wild west capitalism. >I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress I wasn't accusing you of claiming that. My main point is that by most trends as the power of the US federal govt has grown it has correlated with wealth inequality and stagnation for most of the people in the country. Basically, the greater the mix, the worse things have gotten. As we look towards the ultimate outcome of too much mix, it would seem that if we're not going to move towards something better, then we shouldn't be too quick to write off moving towards a more pure capitalism.

by r_smart 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> but surely it can be seen that, to this point, capitalism is the high water mark. The dominant system of the developed west in the 19th Century for which the term "capitalism" was coined was certainly an improvement in most respects over its predecessors, as was recognized by its critics who named it. The modern mixed economy, which has generally displaced that system in the developed west (and much of the rest of the world), which incorporates significant elements of the program of the socialist critics who named "capitalism" without, as those critics would generally have preferred, replacing entirely it's fundamental structure of property, is, while certainly far from ideal, I would say much better than capitalism, though it constantly seems to want to slide back into capitalism (or, rather, powerful interests want to force it back to that state).

r_smart 10y ago
Do you see any contradiction in advocating for the current mixed economy structure while also (hopefully, presumably?) decrying the trend of increasing wealth inequality that's been going on for much of the 20th century?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Not essentially; the modern mixed economy is a fairly broad umbrella, and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality (and particularly the growth in inequality of opportunity produced by growing inequality of outcomes.) OTOH, I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress, just as it would be to see capitalism or feudalism as the ultimate stage.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    >and it's at least arguable that reforms within it that would still be within that broad umbrella could roll back some of the growth in inequality Yes, it's just that many people believe the current mix too heavily favors the government, which creates a massive consolidation of power & resources as well as a weak point susceptible to being co-opted or corrupted. This is what people who want the 'slide back into capitalism' are concerned about. Moving more towards state intervention moves us more towards the horrors of systems that are worse than wild west capitalism. >I think it's a mistake to see the particular shape of the modern mixed economy (even recognizing it as a broad umbrella) as the ultimate stage in economic progress I wasn't accusing you of claiming that. My main point is that by most trends as the power of the US federal govt has grown it has correlated with wealth inequality and stagnation for most of the people in the country. Basically, the greater the mix, the worse things have gotten. As we look towards the ultimate outcome of too much mix, it would seem that if we're not going to move towards something better, then we shouldn't be too quick to write off moving towards a more pure capitalism.