I
IWantGod
Guest
Is there any practical Alternative to Capitalism?
- Status
J
joemel
Guest
Some might say that capitalism could remain in place if certain aspects were made more compatible with Catholicism. But others might argue that, while not perfect, distributism is a better alternative to capitalism. However, I worry that make any changes for the better is almost impossible.
R
runningdude
Guest
“Capitalism” is not a single ideology, but a rough collection of policies that have been proven to work through trial and error over centuries.
For comparison, “Communism” was invented in the late 1800’s based on how philosophers thought things should work. When implemented, it failed spectacularly, with millions of people dying as a result.
Facism/totalitarianism has also proven heavy on bloodshed. History has also shown these regimes eventually fail.
Totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that a small group of people will work to make everything better for everyone. In practice, they work to make things better for themselves. Communism is rooted in the idea that people will work together to make things better. However, it requires a central government that forces every one to work together. In practice, that central government works to make every make the government’s life better.
Capitalism, in contrast, is rooted in the idea people basically want to make their own lives better, with minimal interference from others. No one, however, thought that “capitalism” needed to be imposed with force on others. It just kind of happened. Philosophers/politicians/economists have theorized about ways to make improvements. Some policies worked, some did not.
However, government is generally small enough to be responsive to these changes, to allow new ideas to be tested. This is in contrast to communist/totalitarian regimes, that impose uniformity by force (think China destroying its agricultural sector in the mid 20th Century. Big government, bad idea, tragic results.
Thus “Capitalism” is really just pragmatism. It might be described as the absence of rigid theory and ideology. Is there a better way? NO! However, Capitalism is subject to continually refinement and improvement.
I will briefly comment on European-style socialism. It is basically still capitalism, but based on those nations particular histories. In wealthy nations such as France and Germany, it works OK. In less wealthy nations such as Greece, it works less well. Some people ask why we do not implement socialism in the United States, and it is basically because we are a collection of small, responsive government and individual economies, where some policies will work, and some will not. The United States is comparable in size to Europe as a whole, and contains within it a micro-chasm of all the various issues that Europe experiences when you ignore national boundaries. To say that Finland successfully implemented universal healthcare, while balancing its budget means that the United States could too, ignores that Greece has universal healthcare and cannot balance its budget. Each nation has different skills and resources, and some are successful, and some are less so. Capitalism basically accepts this premise, and allows each country to do what it thinks is best, accept the consequences for those risks, and allow it and other to learn from those experiments.
For comparison, “Communism” was invented in the late 1800’s based on how philosophers thought things should work. When implemented, it failed spectacularly, with millions of people dying as a result.
Facism/totalitarianism has also proven heavy on bloodshed. History has also shown these regimes eventually fail.
Totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that a small group of people will work to make everything better for everyone. In practice, they work to make things better for themselves. Communism is rooted in the idea that people will work together to make things better. However, it requires a central government that forces every one to work together. In practice, that central government works to make every make the government’s life better.
Capitalism, in contrast, is rooted in the idea people basically want to make their own lives better, with minimal interference from others. No one, however, thought that “capitalism” needed to be imposed with force on others. It just kind of happened. Philosophers/politicians/economists have theorized about ways to make improvements. Some policies worked, some did not.
However, government is generally small enough to be responsive to these changes, to allow new ideas to be tested. This is in contrast to communist/totalitarian regimes, that impose uniformity by force (think China destroying its agricultural sector in the mid 20th Century. Big government, bad idea, tragic results.
Thus “Capitalism” is really just pragmatism. It might be described as the absence of rigid theory and ideology. Is there a better way? NO! However, Capitalism is subject to continually refinement and improvement.
I will briefly comment on European-style socialism. It is basically still capitalism, but based on those nations particular histories. In wealthy nations such as France and Germany, it works OK. In less wealthy nations such as Greece, it works less well. Some people ask why we do not implement socialism in the United States, and it is basically because we are a collection of small, responsive government and individual economies, where some policies will work, and some will not. The United States is comparable in size to Europe as a whole, and contains within it a micro-chasm of all the various issues that Europe experiences when you ignore national boundaries. To say that Finland successfully implemented universal healthcare, while balancing its budget means that the United States could too, ignores that Greece has universal healthcare and cannot balance its budget. Each nation has different skills and resources, and some are successful, and some are less so. Capitalism basically accepts this premise, and allows each country to do what it thinks is best, accept the consequences for those risks, and allow it and other to learn from those experiments.
L
Lovinglight
Guest
No as it goes against the nature of humanity.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Capitalism is a pretty recent innovation. Mercantilism can be seen as a forebearer, but capitalism as we know it didn’t really evolve until the early modern period.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
That depends on what you want from society.
E
exnihilo
Guest
What are your goals? Capitalism produces the most amount of material goods for the most people and allows people to move up and down in society. But, if your goals are that a specific group of people have more of particular goods then you need another system. Or if your goals are that the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich then you need another system.
N
niceatheist
Guest
It strikes me that Capitalism has ably enabled both outcomes; that some have more of particular goods, and the poor very often do remain poor.
The problem, of course, is that unregulated Capitalism would be just as bad as any other system, which is why pretty much ever Capitalist society is to one extent or another a mixed economy; with Central Banks to control monetary policy, regulatory frameworks to prevent the more egregious abuses, and progressive tax systems to at least try to prevent concentrations of wealth (the latter hasn’t exactly been that successful).
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t see that. At one time the US was the most capitalistic society and was the most mobile. One could argue there were other factors but I think the more capitalist economy made a difference. You see in other countries as they embrace more capitalism the mobility increases. What are examples of capitalism that keeps people poor?
Central Banks and regulation are designed to entrench the monied elite. The fascism/corporatism of modern economies is all about maintaining the status quo. Progressive tax systems hurt the middle class. They keep them from moving up while keeping the upper class safe.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Only if you have no idea how economics works, which is usually where you start getting the “gold standard” crowd coming in.niceatheist:
I don’t see that. At one time the US was the most capitalistic society and was the most mobile. One could argue there were other factors but I think the more capitalist economy made a difference. You see in other countries as they embrace more capitalism the mobility increases. What are examples of capitalism that keeps people poor?
Central Banks and regulation are designed to entrench the monied elite. The fascism/corporatism of modern economies is all about maintaining the status quo. Progressive tax systems hurt the middle class. They keep them from moving up while keeping the upper class safe.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Economies worked just fine on the gold standard. The only reason we aren’t on it today is modern governments wanted to print money to pay for their overreaching, expensive programs (particularly war) and were restrained by gold.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As an economic system? Of course. Socialism is an obvious alternative, although virtually non-existent in purest form. And the way central control is affected can vary wildly.
I understand your concerns. Capitalism is naturally classist and destructively hyper-consumptive.
The best system obviously appears to be a system somewhere in between the two as that’s what pretty much every nation on earth uses (except for maybe Somalia. If you enjoy genuinely unregulated markets and extremely limited government, Somalia is the only nation on the planet that lives under both philosophies. And it’s a hell-hole unless you’re the war-lord).
Capitalism, overall, seems to raise the standard of living faster, ceteris paribus. Socialism is more sustainable due to the (generally) lower consumption of goods.
As I said, there are virtually no systems on the planet that use either solely.
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, it really didn’t. The Great Depression happened while the US was under the gold standard, and honestly, why would you think pegging the value of a currency to how much gold is in the vaults? Why would the value of a currency be better pegged to overall economic activity?niceatheist:
Economies worked just fine on the gold standard. The only reason we aren’t on it today is modern governments wanted to print money to pay for their overreaching, expensive programs (particularly war) and were restrained by gold.
B
buffalo
Guest
Distributism…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Which is capitalism where the property owners are limited in how much property they can own.
It’s what we’d have if we actually enforced anti-trust regulation and broke-up companies when they became so large, “large” having a rather low thresh-hold.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The most recent depression happened under fiat currency. The hyperinflation of Germany happened under fiat currency.
The central bankers and the state have pushed hard money as the cause of depression. But I think the explanation for the GD is the contraction of the money supply after the huge increase to fund the war effort.
Your last question is one that’s can only be asked after fiat money has been established. The real question is why would anyone accept as a store of wealth a piece of intrinsically worthless paper printed up by the state or a banking cartel at their whim. Paper money became a medium of exchange only because it was tied to gold. Otherwise it would be as worthless as Monopoly money.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Gold isn’t really worth what it has been historically assessed at. It’s a valuable metal in technology and industrial processes, but really the gold standard is simply an agreement to peg currency to something with scarcity. There are far more scarce minerals out there if that’s what you want, but ultimately the gold standard is arbitrary.
As to hyperinflation in Germany, that was because the economy was in a post war collapse, and some think that other nations sticking to the gold standard, particularly as Germany was being forced to pay vast reparations, took a bad situation and made it worse.
Scarcity is no basis for a currency
As to hyperinflation in Germany, that was because the economy was in a post war collapse, and some think that other nations sticking to the gold standard, particularly as Germany was being forced to pay vast reparations, took a bad situation and made it worse.
Scarcity is no basis for a currency
E
exnihilo
Guest
Relative scarcity isn’t the only consideration. Gold and silver became the standard because gold and silver were used in coins. Those were used in coins because people valued it, it is easily divisible and some other reasons I’m no doubt forgetting.
Hyperinflation in Germany was due only to Germany printing money. They did owe a lot, but owing money doesn’t increase the money supply.
Hyperinflation in Germany was due only to Germany printing money. They did owe a lot, but owing money doesn’t increase the money supply.
V
vincentleo
Guest
The term “Capitalism” sort of carries some baggage with it. Maybe it is better, more broadly, to refer to a “market system”.
Is there a practical alternative to the modern market system? Well, not really.
Socialist and communist systems are not practical alternatives. These are totalitarian systems that violate human nature on a number of points which inhibits the ability to produce efficient economic activity (e.g., no reward for incentive, laws of supply and demand ignored, absence of private property, etc…).
There is this idea of Distributism out there, so perhaps this is a practical alternative. But it hasn’t ever been done anywhere, to my knowledge, so it would depend on whether there is a strong case for how it would work.
There may be other alternatives out there, but they aren’t well known. There are older systems from prior eras in history (e.g., agragrian economies), but these would have to be signficantly modified to operate in the modern context.
Is there a practical alternative to the modern market system? Well, not really.
Socialist and communist systems are not practical alternatives. These are totalitarian systems that violate human nature on a number of points which inhibits the ability to produce efficient economic activity (e.g., no reward for incentive, laws of supply and demand ignored, absence of private property, etc…).
There is this idea of Distributism out there, so perhaps this is a practical alternative. But it hasn’t ever been done anywhere, to my knowledge, so it would depend on whether there is a strong case for how it would work.
There may be other alternatives out there, but they aren’t well known. There are older systems from prior eras in history (e.g., agragrian economies), but these would have to be signficantly modified to operate in the modern context.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Not really. A lot of people who say they don’t like capitalism are unwilling to make the sacrifices for their non-capitlaist philosophy to work.
- Status