6 ms·

As usual with most debates about Capitalism, this article indiscriminately mixes economic systems with political ideologies. Capitalism is not the opposite of

As usual with most debates about Capitalism, this article indiscriminately mixes economic systems with political ideologies. Capitalism is not the opposite of Communism, Democracy is (one of the core ideas of Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat). And there is not a single Western state with purely capitalist economy, what we see around us are mixed economies with smaller or bigger level of redistribution, limits on private property and elements of social security. I would really like to see which one of the central characteristics of Capitalism - private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, price system, competitive markets - is no longer supported by "51% of young people in the United States no longer support the system of capitalism".

humanrebar 9y ago
I suspect people are meaning different things when they say "capitalism". Most of its detractors are against corporate cronyism, which I think almost everyone is against. I also think the effects of that cronyism are unfairly attached to capitalism when, as you are alluding to, there's nothing in capitalism itself about the specifics people complain about in the status quo. Here's capitalism: a recognition of certain human rights (oriented around property) and a thesis that crowd-sourcing economic choices is better than centrally controlling them. I'd be interested in hearing someone who is against capitalism argue against either of those things.
- dandare 9y ago
  I think you said it better than me.
- mmsimanga 9y ago
  Agree 100%. To add my own take. No I haven't read Marx just my observations. Humans, rather human nature is the weakest link with whichever system is implemented. Communism seems to result in dicatorships. Cronyism exists in both communism and capitalism. I honestly think very few people once in power can resist starting to believe in their own hubris. This often results in all sorts problems including wars and cronyism. I think electoral systems that limit people to a few years in power are the only way. Same should apply to cooporate entities unless you founded the company.
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    I don't think we need to limit execs in companies...but we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... ---this should be for all upper management... There could be variations based on job growth...new jobs added over previous years...could raise their take or give them a bonus... The end goal: Increase jobs + Increase wage lower the gap between highest/lowest wage earners in America. Also capitalism results in Oligarchy usually which isn't much better than Dictatorship... 1% own everything and control every aspect of society from the shadows... it's one big game of monopoly for them.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > ...we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... Won't they just find more loopholes to circumvent these rules? Maybe they take small salaries and get paid in transferrable, no expiration stock options. It seems like the way to level the playing field is to figure out ways to help small companies, including startups, to compete with big players.
      - gremlinsinc 9y ago
        During the New Deal era -- I believe there was something like a 90% tax on anything above 10 mill. If you taxed all earnings above a certain threshold for CEO's...then they'd be better off putting it back into their companies..but things are a bit different now adays.. Still something needs to change in 1980 it was 100-200x average employee salary.. since then average worker wages haven't gone up at all, but CEO pay has gone up to 450X the average worker... Trickle down hasn't worked...at all. The middle class is the new 'poor'.. I earn 60k as a jr developer and still money issues are tight.. I shiver to think what'd happen if I lost my job or went to a lower paying job.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  The concept that "property" is a human right makes no sense. Why should something belong only to me, and what should I need to give to society to attain it? The logical answer is "the fruit of my work," but in any practical example that is not what happens. And it is the acceptance of "property" that leads to cronyism.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Expanding on this, the crises of capitalism (people without food or homes, or being exploited for their work and given little to nothing in return) that continually arise throughout history as well as today can be seen as a symptom of this very fundamental assumption of property and its place in a society. This is what defines capitalism along with the freedom to pay (or not) a voluntary amount for any good or service. This will always lead to the concentration of wealth and if left unchecked will progress to bring far more suffering on the many to the benefit of the few than many feel comfortable accepting from an ethical standpoint. One can always propose regulations but it's a steep uphill battle to close every last loophole that people have to extract wealth from a population, usually unethically. People against capitalism are usually for something else, and they propose to change the fundamental properties of the economic system at hand to one that puts ownership directly in the hands of labor (socialism), is inherently redistributional (communism), or never supposes the need for redistribution in the first place (elimination of private property such as in pure anarchism). Those against capitalism have seen the endless failed attempts to patch the system, but the bugs are built into what makes the kernel work. Political processes are too slow to respond to the crafty and conniving, and are anyhow weak to the siren's call of having a higher economic status and so sacrifice their morals way more often than they are comfortable. Cronyism is built into the distributional properties of capitalism because of this assumption of private property.
icebraining 9y ago
the dictatorship of the proletariat I'm not an expert, but I believe this is a misunderstanding of Marxism. According to Marx, the modern State is itself dictatorial ("the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery" -- Critical Notes on "The King of Prussia"), with the Bourgeoisie being the dominant class. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional revolutionary period in which the State still exists (hence the dictatorship), but the proletariat becomes the dominant class instead. This is followed by the abolishment of classes and of the State itself. (Note: I'm not actually interested in discussing the merits of Marxism, I just think one should properly represent a position before having an opinion on it)
- dandare 9y ago
  Interesting, I never read Marx, I was just born in Eastern Europe and I used to hear that phrase a lot as a child. The way I understood it is that proletariat must control all other classes for communism to exist. (I am not sure if I agree with "State is dictatorial" because a state is not a "person", but I certainly agree that democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.)
  - cisanti 9y ago
    I'm was born during the soviet union in Eastern Europe and I always understood the phrase the same. I wasn't too keen on the forced Marxist studies, though.. :)
  - lucideer 9y ago
    The view that Communism === Authoritarianism is understandably common in Eastern Europe (my s/o is also and we have had a few fun debates about this). It's a difficult one to falsify because they have historically usually coincided. One could even reasonably propose that Communism may necessarily lead to Authoritarianism in all cases but they are at least theoretically distinct. Anarcho-Communists in particular would take issue with this. > I certainly agree that democracy is a dictatorship of the majority Yes!
  - open_bear 9y ago
    Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (people, who control the wealth and means of production - factories, companies, banks). They dictate their will to the proletariat (people working for wage who have no control over how business is run and how profits of their labor are sold), via press/TV/government/police-military actions/lobbying/family ties; many are directly working for the government. Socialism happens when proletariat becomes the ruling class and distributes the wealth upon all the citizens of the country, providing healthcare, education, housing, enough wage to feed everyone. As proletariat are the majority, socialism becomes a proper democracy, where people can control their own livelihood, not some fat senator who received a 100k 'lobbying gift'. Communism happens when all the signs of the capitalism vanish (no exploitation of people by other people, no money - goods are produced based on needs and distributed to everyone). It happens when people get rid of bourgeoisie thinking via education and personal experience of having society without hungry, homeless, uneducated people. This happened before (we see slave-owning societies of the past with disgust and feudal states with horror), it just took over several hundred years each time.
igravious 9y ago
Funny how you claim that debates concerning capitalism indiscriminately conflate economics and politics and then proceed to do the very same thing for communism. If I plug the term "communism" into Google I get the following definition: “a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.“ Nowhere in that definition do I see anything about the political dictatorship of the proles. That's a whole other thing. I think it is far more useful to think of communism opposing the central notion of private property rights in capitalism. (Most?) communists retain the notion of personal property rights but I'm not sure how the distinction is cashed out in practice. > And there is not a single Western state with purely capitalist economy Straw man? Nobody sensible is really arguing that Western economies are purely capitalist. Everybody sensible will acknowledge that they are mixed. > I would really like to see which one of the central characteristics of Capitalism - private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, price system, competitive markets I imagine that it is the _capital accumulation_ part, aka wealth inequality – article says that “And a solid 55% of Americans of all ages believe that capitalism is fundamentally unfair.” – ergo it's presumably the (unequal) capital accumulation part that people object to. Or to put it in Piketty terms, we're worried about r > g getting so out of hand that it's causing unnecessary social hardship and division.
lucideer 9y ago
> As usual with most debates about Capitalism, this article indiscriminately mixes economic systems with political ideologies. > Capitalism is not the opposite of Communism, Democracy is I find this comment very odd as in my experience the opposite is true of most debates: what most get wrong is mixing economic systems with political ideologies by framing Communism as the opposite to Democracy (when it is in fact the opposite of Capitalism). You may be thinking of Authoritarianism > (one of the core ideas of Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat) This particular line highlights your misunderstanding. Firstly, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term often used to describe a proposed/potential intermediate state of moving from Capitalism to Communism - it is not a core component of either. Secondly, the word "dictatorship" is used facetiously in this phrase, it is not an actual state of dictatorship.
- dandare 9y ago
  As I said above "I never read Marx, I was just born in Eastern Europe and I used to hear that phrase a lot as a child." What was supposed to be the decision making mechanism of ideal Communism if not a dictatorship of top to bottom decisions? How did Soviets (councils) work or supposed to work? A consensus of the majority - aka Democracy? I don't think so.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Marx was dead before Soviets ever appeared. If you want to read on a society he actually knew and praised, search for the Paris Commune.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >How did Soviets (councils) work or supposed to work? A soviet is supposed to be an elected legislative assembly, like a senate or parliament. The true soviets died with the Bolshevik coup, when Lenin declared them unnecessary now that his party was in charge. A military coup was what set up a dictatorship, and that is hardly unique to communism.

humanrebar 9y ago

I suspect people are meaning different things when they say "capitalism". Most of its detractors are against corporate cronyism, which I think almost everyone is against. I also think the effects of that cronyism are unfairly attached to capitalism when, as you are alluding to, there's nothing in capitalism itself about the specifics people complain about in the status quo. Here's capitalism: a recognition of certain human rights (oriented around property) and a thesis that crowd-sourcing economic choices is better than centrally controlling them. I'd be interested in hearing someone who is against capitalism argue against either of those things.

dandare 9y ago
I think you said it better than me.
mmsimanga 9y ago
Agree 100%. To add my own take. No I haven't read Marx just my observations. Humans, rather human nature is the weakest link with whichever system is implemented. Communism seems to result in dicatorships. Cronyism exists in both communism and capitalism. I honestly think very few people once in power can resist starting to believe in their own hubris. This often results in all sorts problems including wars and cronyism. I think electoral systems that limit people to a few years in power are the only way. Same should apply to cooporate entities unless you founded the company.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  I don't think we need to limit execs in companies...but we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... ---this should be for all upper management... There could be variations based on job growth...new jobs added over previous years...could raise their take or give them a bonus... The end goal: Increase jobs + Increase wage lower the gap between highest/lowest wage earners in America. Also capitalism results in Oligarchy usually which isn't much better than Dictatorship... 1% own everything and control every aspect of society from the shadows... it's one big game of monopoly for them.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > ...we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... Won't they just find more loopholes to circumvent these rules? Maybe they take small salaries and get paid in transferrable, no expiration stock options. It seems like the way to level the playing field is to figure out ways to help small companies, including startups, to compete with big players.
    - gremlinsinc 9y ago
      During the New Deal era -- I believe there was something like a 90% tax on anything above 10 mill. If you taxed all earnings above a certain threshold for CEO's...then they'd be better off putting it back into their companies..but things are a bit different now adays.. Still something needs to change in 1980 it was 100-200x average employee salary.. since then average worker wages haven't gone up at all, but CEO pay has gone up to 450X the average worker... Trickle down hasn't worked...at all. The middle class is the new 'poor'.. I earn 60k as a jr developer and still money issues are tight.. I shiver to think what'd happen if I lost my job or went to a lower paying job.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
The concept that "property" is a human right makes no sense. Why should something belong only to me, and what should I need to give to society to attain it? The logical answer is "the fruit of my work," but in any practical example that is not what happens. And it is the acceptance of "property" that leads to cronyism.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Expanding on this, the crises of capitalism (people without food or homes, or being exploited for their work and given little to nothing in return) that continually arise throughout history as well as today can be seen as a symptom of this very fundamental assumption of property and its place in a society. This is what defines capitalism along with the freedom to pay (or not) a voluntary amount for any good or service. This will always lead to the concentration of wealth and if left unchecked will progress to bring far more suffering on the many to the benefit of the few than many feel comfortable accepting from an ethical standpoint. One can always propose regulations but it's a steep uphill battle to close every last loophole that people have to extract wealth from a population, usually unethically. People against capitalism are usually for something else, and they propose to change the fundamental properties of the economic system at hand to one that puts ownership directly in the hands of labor (socialism), is inherently redistributional (communism), or never supposes the need for redistribution in the first place (elimination of private property such as in pure anarchism). Those against capitalism have seen the endless failed attempts to patch the system, but the bugs are built into what makes the kernel work. Political processes are too slow to respond to the crafty and conniving, and are anyhow weak to the siren's call of having a higher economic status and so sacrifice their morals way more often than they are comfortable. Cronyism is built into the distributional properties of capitalism because of this assumption of private property.

icebraining 9y ago

the dictatorship of the proletariat I'm not an expert, but I believe this is a misunderstanding of Marxism. According to Marx, the modern State is itself dictatorial ("the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery" -- Critical Notes on "The King of Prussia"), with the Bourgeoisie being the dominant class. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional revolutionary period in which the State still exists (hence the dictatorship), but the proletariat becomes the dominant class instead. This is followed by the abolishment of classes and of the State itself. (Note: I'm not actually interested in discussing the merits of Marxism, I just think one should properly represent a position before having an opinion on it)

dandare 9y ago
Interesting, I never read Marx, I was just born in Eastern Europe and I used to hear that phrase a lot as a child. The way I understood it is that proletariat must control all other classes for communism to exist. (I am not sure if I agree with "State is dictatorial" because a state is not a "person", but I certainly agree that democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.)
- cisanti 9y ago
  I'm was born during the soviet union in Eastern Europe and I always understood the phrase the same. I wasn't too keen on the forced Marxist studies, though.. :)
- lucideer 9y ago
  The view that Communism === Authoritarianism is understandably common in Eastern Europe (my s/o is also and we have had a few fun debates about this). It's a difficult one to falsify because they have historically usually coincided. One could even reasonably propose that Communism may necessarily lead to Authoritarianism in all cases but they are at least theoretically distinct. Anarcho-Communists in particular would take issue with this. > I certainly agree that democracy is a dictatorship of the majority Yes!
- open_bear 9y ago
  Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (people, who control the wealth and means of production - factories, companies, banks). They dictate their will to the proletariat (people working for wage who have no control over how business is run and how profits of their labor are sold), via press/TV/government/police-military actions/lobbying/family ties; many are directly working for the government. Socialism happens when proletariat becomes the ruling class and distributes the wealth upon all the citizens of the country, providing healthcare, education, housing, enough wage to feed everyone. As proletariat are the majority, socialism becomes a proper democracy, where people can control their own livelihood, not some fat senator who received a 100k 'lobbying gift'. Communism happens when all the signs of the capitalism vanish (no exploitation of people by other people, no money - goods are produced based on needs and distributed to everyone). It happens when people get rid of bourgeoisie thinking via education and personal experience of having society without hungry, homeless, uneducated people. This happened before (we see slave-owning societies of the past with disgust and feudal states with horror), it just took over several hundred years each time.

igravious 9y ago

Funny how you claim that debates concerning capitalism indiscriminately conflate economics and politics and then proceed to do the very same thing for communism. If I plug the term "communism" into Google I get the following definition: “a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.“ Nowhere in that definition do I see anything about the political dictatorship of the proles. That's a whole other thing. I think it is far more useful to think of communism opposing the central notion of private property rights in capitalism. (Most?) communists retain the notion of personal property rights but I'm not sure how the distinction is cashed out in practice. > And there is not a single Western state with purely capitalist economy Straw man? Nobody sensible is really arguing that Western economies are purely capitalist. Everybody sensible will acknowledge that they are mixed. > I would really like to see which one of the central characteristics of Capitalism - private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, price system, competitive markets I imagine that it is the _capital accumulation_ part, aka wealth inequality – article says that “And a solid 55% of Americans of all ages believe that capitalism is fundamentally unfair.” – ergo it's presumably the (unequal) capital accumulation part that people object to. Or to put it in Piketty terms, we're worried about r > g getting so out of hand that it's causing unnecessary social hardship and division.

lucideer 9y ago

> As usual with most debates about Capitalism, this article indiscriminately mixes economic systems with political ideologies. > Capitalism is not the opposite of Communism, Democracy is I find this comment very odd as in my experience the opposite is true of most debates: what most get wrong is mixing economic systems with political ideologies by framing Communism as the opposite to Democracy (when it is in fact the opposite of Capitalism). You may be thinking of Authoritarianism > (one of the core ideas of Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat) This particular line highlights your misunderstanding. Firstly, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term often used to describe a proposed/potential intermediate state of moving from Capitalism to Communism - it is not a core component of either. Secondly, the word "dictatorship" is used facetiously in this phrase, it is not an actual state of dictatorship.

dandare 9y ago
As I said above "I never read Marx, I was just born in Eastern Europe and I used to hear that phrase a lot as a child." What was supposed to be the decision making mechanism of ideal Communism if not a dictatorship of top to bottom decisions? How did Soviets (councils) work or supposed to work? A consensus of the majority - aka Democracy? I don't think so.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Marx was dead before Soviets ever appeared. If you want to read on a society he actually knew and praised, search for the Paris Commune.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >How did Soviets (councils) work or supposed to work? A soviet is supposed to be an elected legislative assembly, like a senate or parliament. The true soviets died with the Bolshevik coup, when Lenin declared them unnecessary now that his party was in charge. A military coup was what set up a dictatorship, and that is hardly unique to communism.