Why is capitalism considered a good thing?

[mindlight]

It looks like some people don't get it.

Capitalism - an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned.

Socialism - an economic system in which the means of production are not privately owned.

If you add any more to either definition you are only describing a particular form of capitalism or socialism and any comments you have, positive or negative, only really reflect that particular form of capitalism or socialism.

Statement like "CAPITALISM (Focus on effective stewardship, society of aspiration, reward for work done and for a good or timely idea, wealth creation)" apparently ignores the fact that it is entirely possible for all of those statements to be true of a socialist society, as if a socialist society doesn't care about creating wealth, effective stewardship of the economy and offers no scope for aspiration or reward.

And frankly, I couldn't care less what Jesus thought was the best way to organise an economy. A peasant man from turn of the first millennium Palestine is in no real position to offer advice on how a 21st century industrial/post-industrial economy could or should be organised.

By your Marxist definitions e.g. in terms of ownership of means of production, there are no capitalist societies on earth as in practice as even in the USA various so called private companies depend on public money to survive. Also there are various too big to fail to companies in various countries around the world where the level of public regulation, the scale of operations and the level of politics involved in operations make their operations virtually indistinguishable from publically owned enterprises. Whats the difference between RBS and Barclays for instance in your practical experience. The values I associate with Capitalism are difficult in a socialist society in which the focus is on social justice but I happen to believe that seeing the two socalled polar opposites in terms of their core values makes it easier to reconcile the strengths from both. Marxism and its definitions are simply not practical which is why Marxism always fails in practice I suppose.

 

[bricklayer]

Capitalism is not a good thing,
it is however the least worst thing.

 

[ACougar]

Capitalism is all Horse, no cart... Communism is all Cart, no horse.

The least worst thing is enough Capitalism to keep the cart moving and enough Communism to carry liberty, justice and opportunity for everyone.

Capitalism is not a good thing,
it is however the least worst thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Socialism's great fault, like communism, is that it destroys individual incentive to produce. Everyone sits back waiting for their "share" of everyone's else's production, all the while producing as little as they can get away with. Capitalism, in it's basest form, is a mad scramble to get more for self, which automatically produces a productive economy. This means working your butt off or risking your money (capital), or both. With the individual or corporate accumulation of wealth (more money than others) come the production of the trappings of wealth: mansions, fancy cars, private airplanes, yachts, etc. that wouldn't exist under a true socialist economy. While capitalism creates many tiers of individual income, it affords the opportunity for those at the bottom to climb to the top; a future that socialism denies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Capitalism is a good thing because it allows creative energies to be unleashed and to propel production forward. Something that State Socialism, unless voluntarily taken upon, cannot achieve. In its purest form, however, it is anarchic, and probably immoral, which is why some specified degree of regulation is necessary, so as to protect the consumer and non-business participants, and to address the externalities of business practice. Unfortunately though, at this point many people seem to confuse Keynesianism for Socialism.

 

[ACougar]

Capitalism isn't at all about affording opportunity to others, it's about getting yours and stepping on those weaker than you. It's the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.

While capitalism creates many tiers of individual income, it affords the opportunity for those at the bottom to climb to the top; a future that socialism denies.

And everyone who buys lottery tickets eventually wins millions, look it doesn't work that way for most people... just the lucky few and those lucky few were able to make it because they had access to opportinity that wouldn't have existed were it not for some sort of wealth redistribution. Without public education, social security, access to health care, ect... we'd be another 3rd world bannanna republic. With a lot of wealth concentrated at the top and everyone else fighting over scraps.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Capitalism is a good thing because it allows creative energies to be unleashed and to propel production forward. Something that State Socialism, unless voluntarily taken upon, cannot achieve. In its purest form, however, it is anarchic, and probably immoral, which is why some specified degree of regulation is necessary, so as to protect the consumer and non-business participants, and to address the externalities of business practice. Unfortunately though, at this point many people seem to confuse Keynesianism for Socialism.

Good point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Capitalism isn't at all about affording opportunity to others, it's about getting yours and stepping on those weaker than you. It's the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.



And everyone who buys lottery tickets eventually wins millions, look it doesn't work that way for most people... just the lucky few and those lucky few were able to make it because they had access to opportinity that wouldn't have existed were it not for some sort of wealth redistribution. Without public education, social security, access to health care, ect... we'd be another 3rd world bannanna republic. With a lot of wealth concentrated at the top and everyone else fighting over scraps.

Basic 'wealth distribution' is only possible if the country has wealth. Social programs like you've described underpin most groups of people, so there is a basic equality. What individuals do from there is up to them. We are not a third world economy where most scramble for crumbs. We have LOTS of wealth to scramble after. Yes , it is dog-eat-dog, but there is enough for all the dogs. No one here starves because someone else eats too much. If carefully done most people can obtain a good measure of wealth in their lifetime. Problem is impatience. If they can't have it right now they think they are being deprived.

 

[clirus]

Ar Cosc quote

And socialism is not purely about gaining power for politicians. This is a bit of an ignorant attitude. Nobody in their right mind would want to run something as complicated, controversial, and downright messy as a health service or education system, just for the kick of having some power over someone. Politicians are just people, not some sort of unearthly parasites who can only survive by feeding on the freedom of others.

Response

I have always worried about the democratic party when they discuss peoples needs. I am reminded of what was said about Jesse Jackson in the book Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson" by Kenneth R. Timmerman. Mr. Jackson uses the misery of the masses to enrich himself and his associates.

When there are government programs, there are government workers that run the programs. These new government workers are usually a payoff to political supporters.

Right now the most of the jobs being created in America are government workers to run all the new Obama programs.

Government is a necessary evil but Republicans want minimum government and democrats want maximum government, thus Republicans are better at running the government.

Republican are always less intrusive in peoples lives. For responsible people, less intrusion is good, but for irresponsible people, they want the government to feed them.

 

[clirus]

Capitalism is a good thing because it allows creative energies to be unleashed and to propel production forward. Something that State Socialism, unless voluntarily taken upon, cannot achieve. In its purest form, however, it is anarchic, and probably immoral, which is why some specified degree of regulation is necessary, so as to protect the consumer and non-business participants, and to address the externalities of business practice. Unfortunately though, at this point many people seem to confuse Keynesianism for Socialism.

The question is, Who does the regulation.

I believe the regulation should be Christianity, with Civil Law being used to execute those that violate Civil Law.

The commandments/doctrines of the Bible provide the bases for a good life, a good business and a good nation.

Regulations are always shutting the barn door after the horse has gotten away. Commandments/doctrines represent prevention of evil by the base concepts of honesty (not lying, cheating and stealing).

Society is like a ship on a wild sea. The ship is democracy, the sails are Capitalism, the rudder is Christianity and the protection is the military. Without sails the ship is dead in the sea. Without a rudder the ship will crash and burn. Without the military the ship will be robbed and raped.

 

[DuneSoldier]

Republican are always less intrusive in peoples lives. For responsible people, less intrusion is good, but for irresponsible people, they want the government to feed them.

I disagree. "Republican are always less intrusive in peoples lives", first of all the Democrats don't intrude on my life or lifestyle any more than the Republicans do. Second of all I hear many Republican's, including you based on your posts, that want the government to intrude more in people's life's trying to enforce certain religious guidelines.

 

[Subordinationist]

?

I am always hearing how great and awsome capitalism is, and how evil socialism is. Why?

I don't consider capitalism a good thing, it works, (unlike socialism in the long term) but only because it plays off of mans biggest flaw, greed. How can that be a good thing? It's a necesary evil at best.

The early Christians, the ones immediatly following Christ, used socialism. They shared what they had, and gave to anyone who was in need. Why has it become a bad thing that people don't own anything, and share everything with everyone.?

Dear Freemind,

You are missing one essential ingredient in your critique of capitalism and your example of early Christian "socialism" as found in the Book of Acts. That is: the voluntary nature of both.

Capitalism is simply what people voluntarily do when you leave them alone (hence the term laissez-faire, French for "let do"). This is not to be confused with corporatism, where corporations effectively become governments, or team-up and form "partnerships" with governments. A government is an organization with a monopoly on the use of force, aggression or coercion. When a company becomes so greedy that it starts using aggressive force to garner profits, it becomes governmental, not capitalistic. Otherwise, a capitalist enterprise can survive and prosper only via mutually voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions between individuals.

The "socialism" as found among the early Christians was also purely voluntary, if one wished to leave the Christian community one was free to do so, and if a Christian wished to abstain from giving to or taking from the community pot one could also so choose. They were also relatively small, say, several thousand people each. These early Christian "communes" were in no sense "bad" (such Christian communities still exist by the way), in fact they were for those who were seeking a deeper, higher, wider, richer fellowship with their brethren in Christ Jesus. That is, they were simply not for everybody. And that's the same point for contemporary times: how can an entire nation, via democratic, majoritarian policies, compel the unwilling minority to live socialistically without violating their inalienable liberties? The early Christians did not even force fellow-believers (let alone unbelievers) to live in their socialistic community, so then why should a Mao Zedong or even a Eugene V. Debs?

As Milton Friedman once pointed out, do you really believe that greed is more in effect in a so-called capitalist country like the U.S. than in a so-called socialist country like the former U.S.S.R.? Greed is everywhere, and potentially inside everyone. It is a symptom of sin.

 

[IntolerantSociopath]

I am always hearing how great and awsome capitalism is, and how evil socialism is. Why?

Capitalism is private property and the customary legal principle that a person is at liberty so long as he does not commit torts or violate contracts. So, if you like civilization, it's pretty good.

 

[marshlewis]

Capitalism is private property and the customary legal principle that a person is at liberty so long as he does not commit torts or violate contracts. So, if you like civilization, it's pretty good.

Except that soviet russia was undoubtably a civilisation.

 

[Vylo]

Capitalism is private property and the customary legal principle that a person is at liberty so long as he does not commit torts or violate contracts. So, if you like civilization, it's pretty good.

Actually that goes directly against civilization. When someone says "free civilization", it is something of an oxymoron. The more civilized a country is, the less free it can be to function. The higher the population density becomes, the more freedoms have to be constricted in order to keep people safe and healthy.

An example: I have a friend who lives in a very rural area of pennsylvania. People in his town can burn trash in their yards. Does it produce much of a hazard or annoyance? Not really. Now imagine everyone in NYC burning their garbage on the sidewalks outside their apartments. It would be unlivable.

This is why people from cities favor more liberal politicians and policies, and rural areas favor conservatives. Rural conservatives have little use for liberal restrictions on their freedoms, and city liberals want to avoid the bedlam that rampant personal freedoms have in confined spaces.

 

[tanzanos]

?

I am always hearing how great and awsome capitalism is, and how evil socialism is. Why?

I don't consider capitalism a good thing, it works, (unlike socialism in the long term) but only because it plays off of mans biggest flaw, greed. How can that be a good thing? It's a necesary evil at best.

The early Christians, the ones immediatly following Christ, used socialism. They shared what they had, and gave to anyone who was in need. Why has it become a bad thing that people don't own anything, and share everything with everyone.?

Ahem! Most of this planet does not share the fear of socialism that they do in the USA! I think it has to do with the standard of social maturity!

 

[Subordinationist]

Actually that goes directly against civilization. When someone says "free civilization", it is something of an oxymoron. The more civilized a country is, the less free it can be to function. The higher the population density becomes, the more freedoms have to be constricted in order to keep people safe and healthy.

An example: I have a friend who lives in a very rural area of pennsylvania. People in his town can burn trash in their yards. Does it produce much of a hazard or annoyance? Not really. Now imagine everyone in NYC burning their garbage on the sidewalks outside their apartments. It would be unlivable.

This is why people from cities favor more liberal politicians and policies, and rural areas favor conservatives. Rural conservatives have little use for liberal restrictions on their freedoms, and city liberals want to avoid the bedlam that rampant personal freedoms have in confined spaces.

Dear Vylo,

Your statement that freedoms must be curtailed in densely populated areas is incorrect. As is your general assessment that densely populated areas favor liberals and rural areas favor conservatives.

First, consider your example of trash-burning. The reason trash-burning is allowed in rural areas is because when a rural-dweller burns his trash on his private property, no one else's private property is nearby to be harmed by said trash-burning ("wide open spaces"). Whereas in a densely populated area, trash-burning on one's private property would immediately harm one's neighbor's private property. To say that this is a restriction on freedom is incorrect: the "freedom" to harm another's private property is not a freedom.

Second, the largely rural state of Oregon is notoriously liberal-voting. Whereas the large urban areas of a Texas, an Arizona or a Florida may tend to vote conservative. The largely rural states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, New Mexico and Michigan tend to vote liberal (for judging which state is or is not largely rural see http://www.dailyyonder.com/files/images/YonderUSASpring.pdf). In fact, voting tendencies, whether rural or urban, have far less to do with living environment and more so do to with people's beliefs, that is: hearts and minds. What is the difference between the very rural and very red state of Wyoming and the very rural and very blue state of Vermont? The difference between largely rural Idaho, Kansas or Nebraska and largely rural Minnesota or Maine? (see all the different kinds of red vs. blue maps at Red states and blue states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Consider: Hong Kong is a mega-city and one of the most densely populated places on earth, it also happens to be the economically freest territory/area/region in the world (it is technically a "Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"), maintaining the ranking of #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom since 1995 until this very day (see Hong Kong information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more).

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Consider: Hong Kong is a mega-city and one of the most densely populated places on earth, it also happens to be the economically freest territory/area/region in the world (it is technically a "Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"), maintaining the ranking of #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom since 1995 until this very day (see Hong Kong information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more).

If you're extremely wealthy, Hong Kong is a great place to be.

If you're working-class, you live like a medieval serf.

 

[Subordinationist]

If you're extremely wealthy, Hong Kong is a great place to be.

If you're working-class, you live like a medieval serf.

Dear TheNewWorldMan,

The working-class, are, indeed, just that: a class of people who spend most of their time working, whether in Canada, France, Japan or Hong Kong their case is quite similar. Yet the overall composition of Hong Kong is that of a rather middle-class society, not one that is composed of the "extremely wealthy" and the hordes of the "working-class". Indeed, the personal average income of Hong Kong is roughly the same as that of Spain (Total Personal Average Income - International Comparison).

Interestingly, if one takes a look at the daily life of a medieval serf (1 Day of Being a Peasant), the average serf worked around 11 and a half hours per day. That's only 3 and a half hours more than the average contemporary 9-to-5 worker. During the winter most serfs could wake up two hours later (at 8am), that's two hours less of work. Serfs usually went to bed around 10pm and woke up around 6am (that's a good 8 hours of sleep), with an hour worth of breakfast time; beginning work around 7am, with breaks in the mid-morning and in the afternoon, and finished work around 8pm. Also, the medieval serf had at least as many and if not more holidays (which were vigorously kept) free from labour than the contemporary worker: in addition to Sundays (which were almost always no-work holidays), the serf had around 8 weeks per year of holidays without work. (see Medieval Peasant)

 

[Vylo]

Dear Vylo,

Your statement that freedoms must be curtailed in densely populated areas is incorrect. As is your general assessment that densely populated areas favor liberals and rural areas favor conservatives.

Really? Do you know why we have a senate? It is so that low population states will have a more equal vote and representation against high population ones. If the senate and their electoral votes were eliminated, conservatives would be completely marginalized. Rural states would have virtually no say in what happened on a national scale.

Example on a state level:

Notice a trend?

First, consider your example of trash-burning. The reason trash-burning is allowed in rural areas is because when a rural-dweller burns his trash on his private property, no one else's private property is nearby to be harmed by said trash-burning ("wide open spaces"). Whereas in a densely populated area, trash-burning on one's private property would immediately harm one's neighbor's private property. To say that this is a restriction on freedom is incorrect: the "freedom" to harm another's private property is not a freedom.

You just reinforced my point. Being able to just burn your trash in your yard, burning leaves etc is a freedom. And it has been taken away from people as urban/suburban areas begin to move into their farmland in order to protect the population.

Second, the largely rural state of Oregon is notoriously liberal-voting.

The urban areas vote liberal, the rural vote conservative, see here:

Whereas the large urban areas of a Texas, an Arizona or a Florida may tend to vote conservative.

Prima county, one of the most urban areas in a republican stronghold was won by Obama.

The largely rural states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, New Mexico and Michigan tend to vote liberal (for judging which state is or is not largely rural see http://www.dailyyonder.com/files/images/YonderUSASpring.pdf). In fact, voting tendencies, whether rural or urban, have far less to do with living environment and more so do to with people's beliefs, that is: hearts and minds. What is the difference between the very rural and very red state of Wyoming and the very rural and very blue state of Vermont? The difference between largely rural Idaho, Kansas or Nebraska and largely rural Minnesota or Maine? (see all the different kinds of red vs. blue maps at Red states and blue states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

All of this reinforces my point. There is a massive trend towards liberal voting in urban areas and conservative in rural. It isn't to say some votes won't go the other way, but the trend is very clear. You are being willfully blind if you don't see it.

Consider: Hong Kong is a mega-city and one of the most densely populated places on earth, it also happens to be the economically freest territory/area/region in the world (it is technically a "Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"), maintaining the ranking of #1 on the Index of Economic Freedom since 1995 until this very day (see Hong Kong information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more).

Economic freedom =/= personal freedom.