At 1/23/15 02:49 PM, Huddud wrote:
At 1/23/15 03:04 AM, Seasons wrote:
I blame Ayn Rand for instilling this reactionary, fearful mindset.
Regardless of whether your opposition is making assumptions or not, you shouldn't start making assumptions about said opposition yourself.
The Ayn Rand thing was just a bad joke. I don't actually go crazy with making assumptions about people.
I'm aware that in socialist circles, Capitalism and a society ruled/controlled/owned/[term] capitalists are similarly interchangeable terms, but in broader political discussion this is not the case, and Capitalism does not necessarily lead to some sort of Plutocracy.
That's a fair point. I'm willing to admit that I simply don't agree with the idea that capitalism can exist without leading to a plutocracy. To me, those terms are more interchangeable than "capitalism" and "free market."
The best example is, obviously, the U.S. It's true there have been measures to help improve capitalists' capabilities to employ a plutocracy (the passing of citizens united, for example), but at the end of the day, we're a capitalist country doing capitalist things, so everything we do is a result of that. You said that this might not be true "in broader political discussion," and I'm sure there's some respectable theory out there that says it's possible for capitalism to not lead to a plutocracy, but so far that just hasn't been the case. Capitalists get what capitalist want because money is power.
Does a free market always have to lead to capitalism, or is it possible for one to exist without it? Any thoughts on this?
Using your definition of capitalism: No.
Assuming a free market ... you would eventually wind up in a situation with one group of natural monopolies, where economies of scale (amongst other things) make that more efficient than competing companies, and one group of any number of companies competing with each other and thus trying to keep their product as cheap as possible (and thus, again, making things cheaper for everyone).
At least that's the basic long-term theory.
Right. Free market will lead to the building of businesses, competition, the accumulation of wealth, and so forth. Naturally, that society would then be considered e a capitalist one. I'll admit I can't really argue against that.
Finally there's the misconception that profit can only ever be hard cash earned by soulless suit-wearing dragons hell-bent on collecting the largest stash of gold in the realm, which is untrue.
Economic gain, or profit, can come in any number of ways.
Assuming the validity of economic theory, if I were to donate a million dollars to feed the hungry, I would have profited by doing so because I, as a rational person with full information, decided I would get the maximum utility from my money and/or time by doing this.
To me, that's just a flimsy argument for the altruism behind capitalism. I don't believe that every "capitalist" is a soulless devil only out to make more and more cash, but the system itself is what enables so many problems to exist in the first place. If somebody is making millions by running a company that destroys the environment or gives people cancer, and then donates some money to a good cause, they're hardly of good moral standing, and that's pretty far from being a good societal operation. A better system would account for all the negative aspects that come along with the accumulation of wealth to begin with in an attempt to avoid them. Sure, you can make some more money by building a new pipeline, marketing your cancerous productive as safe to use, or by controlling what's written in a kid's textbook, but should you? Is that really advancing our society?
Again, it's not the individual's morality that's the real issue; the fact is that capitalism is what creates these problems to begin with, so any attempt to put a band aid over the wound just seems silly.
I'm sorry if it's not entirely coherent. I'm tired and only half paying attention to this tab, but if you want me to elaborate or explain anything, please say so.
You seem quit intelligent, and you're likely more well-versed in economic theory than I am. It's just hard for me to defend or see eye to eye with capitalism because all I see are its inherent problems.
At 1/23/15 03:58 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/23/15 03:04 AM, Seasons wrote:
Capitalism is when private industry control society for the sake of profit.
I'm not sure if I agree with this definition.
Fair enough. Honestly, I hardly remember making this thread (drunken post), and I'll admit my definition is a bit hyperbolic.
The biggest problem with how you go about defining such complex systems is that definitions themselves only go so far as to describe the state or nature of an object/idea; there is not a single country on earth that is either entirely capitalist or entirely socialist, and each country executes the interpretation of such systems uniquely
Agreed 100%
That all being said, free markets can absolutely exist in a country that executes a predominately socialist economic system. The best example of this is China ... No matter how you look at China it cannot be said that the country is "capitalist" in the way the US uses the term, but it's certainly nowhere near as "socialist" as the former USSR or the accompanying satellite states.
Damn fine point. I've got no disagreements here.
tl;dr, yes, free markets can absolutely exist outside of predominately capitalist economies, and while I would say that doesn't necessarily mean there's an inevitable insurgence of capitalist sympathizers wherever there is free markets inside socialist countries, that's all highly subjective and probably impossible to answer in broad terms
Good stuff. I can't stop nodding my head in agreement. You've helped me clarify some of my confusion and understand my bias. You're a good dude.
At 1/23/15 02:19 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
At 1/23/15 03:04 AM, Seasons wrote:
Capitalism is when private industry control society for the sake of profit.
People love to throw around labels like these without thinking of greater context.
Capitalism is a relative term, like heat.
It seems you're saying the same things as @Feoric
I understand it's a relative term, but it does have a somewhat solid definition when viewed through our own cultural lenses, which is the one I was using when I started this thread.
