3 ms·

The right is just as bad as history and have mostly manage to erase the economic system Smith wanted abolished, and according to Marx had re-emerged after Smith

The right is just as bad as history and have mostly manage to erase the economic system Smith wanted abolished, and according to Marx had re-emerged after Smiths dead. Or to put it differently capitalism was never envisioned as a critique of socialism, but as a critique of nationalist mercantilism, which is the same system international socialism was supposed to tackle a century after Capitalism had failed. Though by then Imperialism had replaced mercantilism as the common name for a system where one large property owners competed with each other for world supremacy with little regard for mere renters/workers. Once could argue that capitalism was revived after the two wars to end all wars finally managed to wipe out the old feudal order(at least in Europe) but one could also argue that the european disaster merely reset the clock and gave rise to a new (mostly American) aristocracy which is now finally becoming visible as a aristocracy. For a lot of 3rd world the end of European hegemony after world war 2 was perceived more a handover from one set of foreign owners to a new one, then "freedom and democracy", and the us have toppled more democracies then it helped build, giving some credence to the theory of the US as a mercantilist empire rather then capitalist democracy. In a lot of ways the problem is that few modern politicians(and that economist is in practice often a subclass of politician) dare to leave the confines of circular logic where morality can be a simple matter of good vs evil and history is a consistent narrative going from the bad old times to the brave new world. Which gives rise to an extremely toxic debate culture of fractions yelling general insults of each other, using words that have long since lost any resemblance of coherent meaning.

nickik 8y ago
Honestly I have no idea what you mean by the words you say. By no strech of the imagination was did capitlaism fail. In fact the strech from 1870 to 1914 was the largest and strongest period of growth thanks to capitlaism and increasing trend, specialisation and so on. Feudalistic order as a system of economics had long stopped in most of western Europe and even in Russia. The feudalistic titles still being around and having some meansing does absoutly not make the economics system feudalistic. I am not defending imperalism, of course those nations that were under fogin occupation did not really participate in this system and therefore could not get the same benefits. However it is equally false to say that capitlaism only worked because of imperalism. In fact, as Adam Smith said, it would be better if everybody were equally capitalistic. The raise of nations like Japan, Taiwan and so many others made us all richer. I wish nations in Africa and Latin America would also manage to adopt a better system.
- Stranger43 8y ago
  To pretend that 1870 to 1910(also known as the long depression in literature) was some kind of glory period of equality and democracy is only almost plausible because of the complete dissater that follows, and completely at ods with just about every credible history book written about that period. Wars of conquest still happen doing that period, and new colonies are still being formed. Where the myth of the glorious 19th century comes in is that it's fundamental to america's founding myth that it was a democracy(as defined by the modern UN) prior to or even doing the 1st world war, and did not evolve into one almost as gradually as the Europeans empires. Dickens and Rasputin is from the late 19th century, as is the term rubber baron and banana republic and America main foreign policy activity is to topple Latin American states and patrol china in defense of American corporations(in colaboration with Britain, germany and Japan an event that's forgotten in the US but definitely not in china). The traditional agrarian feudal order with serfs and knights are of cause gone, replaced by mercantist national companies like the British east India company targeted by the Boston tea party and the primary subject of Smiths criticism, but the aristocratic system is still in place and it's a low point in terms of economic equality not a high point(for the west equality peaks sometimes between Nixon taking office and Reagan leaving office, where as global equality might actually be increasing). But of cause if you are one of the many who have bought the myth that Smiths wealth of nations is about socialism(the fact is that smith never writes a single word about socialism), and that the long depression never happened we are of cause not even talking the same language but thats of cause the core problem with our political discourse. And the reason that the old ideals about the good king/dictator/chairman keeps reemerging as the lone alternative to the bad power brookers corrupting the system. My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace
  - nickik 8y ago
    > also known as the long depression in literature Modern research agree that there was no 'long depression'. Its an invention of depression era economists who just looked back in history and said 'there was deflation, therefore there was a depression'. There have been multiple books on this but somehow this myth never dies because the left has put it as part of their narrative. It was a period of sustained growth with recession in between but a strong avg. I don't really care about inequality and I have never said it was a period of equality, if inequality was high during this period is because it was a new age of globalism and mass production. Of course the first people into that are gone be richer, but if you look at the consumption for everybody its absolutely clear that it was a period of improvement for most people. Inequality does not automatically mean that the system was unfair or bad. Secondly, its not wrong the imperialist polices by the US and others gave them some access amount of money and some people profited from that. However, you simply can not explain the amount of growth by point to exploitation of Banana republics, the numbers simply don't add up. Claiming that companies like the East India were a replacement or somehow economically equal in effect to feudalism is totally wrong. In fact the amount of government granted monopoly was far, far lower during that time. Domestic monopolies were largely removed and trade monopolies were in fact far weaker then most people seem to think. It was possible in the umbrella of the East India company to have basically independent business and trade voyages. This is also how the stock market was invented in the Netherlands (btw without government protection or approval). I never said a single thing about socialism and I would never claim that Smith was a socialist. I have no idea based on what you made that up. > My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace I do not accept this 'balance' view just because its balance. Growth does not magically happen when technology is around and their is peace. These things have actually been studied by economists and there are tons of country back then and now that live in peace and that have access to those technologies, and you they don't have growth. Also, technological progress is not automatic, its not a magical thing that just happens. Technological progress comes when people and companies try to improve their position in the market and produce things cheaper or better. People like the 'evil' Robber Barron were actually some of the most important in that. Standard oil made a lot of innovations in all stages of oil production and so on. However it is not just them but millions of people who lived and worked back then. Global capitalism and the global gold standard was an unqualified success that produced the largest growth spit in human history up to that point and it was not slowing down before WW1.

nickik 8y ago

Honestly I have no idea what you mean by the words you say. By no strech of the imagination was did capitlaism fail. In fact the strech from 1870 to 1914 was the largest and strongest period of growth thanks to capitlaism and increasing trend, specialisation and so on. Feudalistic order as a system of economics had long stopped in most of western Europe and even in Russia. The feudalistic titles still being around and having some meansing does absoutly not make the economics system feudalistic. I am not defending imperalism, of course those nations that were under fogin occupation did not really participate in this system and therefore could not get the same benefits. However it is equally false to say that capitlaism only worked because of imperalism. In fact, as Adam Smith said, it would be better if everybody were equally capitalistic. The raise of nations like Japan, Taiwan and so many others made us all richer. I wish nations in Africa and Latin America would also manage to adopt a better system.

Stranger43 8y ago
To pretend that 1870 to 1910(also known as the long depression in literature) was some kind of glory period of equality and democracy is only almost plausible because of the complete dissater that follows, and completely at ods with just about every credible history book written about that period. Wars of conquest still happen doing that period, and new colonies are still being formed. Where the myth of the glorious 19th century comes in is that it's fundamental to america's founding myth that it was a democracy(as defined by the modern UN) prior to or even doing the 1st world war, and did not evolve into one almost as gradually as the Europeans empires. Dickens and Rasputin is from the late 19th century, as is the term rubber baron and banana republic and America main foreign policy activity is to topple Latin American states and patrol china in defense of American corporations(in colaboration with Britain, germany and Japan an event that's forgotten in the US but definitely not in china). The traditional agrarian feudal order with serfs and knights are of cause gone, replaced by mercantist national companies like the British east India company targeted by the Boston tea party and the primary subject of Smiths criticism, but the aristocratic system is still in place and it's a low point in terms of economic equality not a high point(for the west equality peaks sometimes between Nixon taking office and Reagan leaving office, where as global equality might actually be increasing). But of cause if you are one of the many who have bought the myth that Smiths wealth of nations is about socialism(the fact is that smith never writes a single word about socialism), and that the long depression never happened we are of cause not even talking the same language but thats of cause the core problem with our political discourse. And the reason that the old ideals about the good king/dictator/chairman keeps reemerging as the lone alternative to the bad power brookers corrupting the system. My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace
- nickik 8y ago
  > also known as the long depression in literature Modern research agree that there was no 'long depression'. Its an invention of depression era economists who just looked back in history and said 'there was deflation, therefore there was a depression'. There have been multiple books on this but somehow this myth never dies because the left has put it as part of their narrative. It was a period of sustained growth with recession in between but a strong avg. I don't really care about inequality and I have never said it was a period of equality, if inequality was high during this period is because it was a new age of globalism and mass production. Of course the first people into that are gone be richer, but if you look at the consumption for everybody its absolutely clear that it was a period of improvement for most people. Inequality does not automatically mean that the system was unfair or bad. Secondly, its not wrong the imperialist polices by the US and others gave them some access amount of money and some people profited from that. However, you simply can not explain the amount of growth by point to exploitation of Banana republics, the numbers simply don't add up. Claiming that companies like the East India were a replacement or somehow economically equal in effect to feudalism is totally wrong. In fact the amount of government granted monopoly was far, far lower during that time. Domestic monopolies were largely removed and trade monopolies were in fact far weaker then most people seem to think. It was possible in the umbrella of the East India company to have basically independent business and trade voyages. This is also how the stock market was invented in the Netherlands (btw without government protection or approval). I never said a single thing about socialism and I would never claim that Smith was a socialist. I have no idea based on what you made that up. > My point is that both sides is essentially working from a historic narrative thats more myth then reality, and that it's really hard to explain the incredible increase in wealth that we have seen since the last war to end all war ended as a result of anything but technological developments and prolonged peace I do not accept this 'balance' view just because its balance. Growth does not magically happen when technology is around and their is peace. These things have actually been studied by economists and there are tons of country back then and now that live in peace and that have access to those technologies, and you they don't have growth. Also, technological progress is not automatic, its not a magical thing that just happens. Technological progress comes when people and companies try to improve their position in the market and produce things cheaper or better. People like the 'evil' Robber Barron were actually some of the most important in that. Standard oil made a lot of innovations in all stages of oil production and so on. However it is not just them but millions of people who lived and worked back then. Global capitalism and the global gold standard was an unqualified success that produced the largest growth spit in human history up to that point and it was not slowing down before WW1.