NationStates Jolt Archive

we're studying Socialism in my Political Thought module at the moment, and Marx believes that capitalism is but one stage in the development, evolution, or one-way progress of economic systems, with communism being the utopian end-point (his Historical Materialism theory). anybody either reckon that's right, or... conversley think that capitalism is, in fact, the end-point of economic evolution? that capitalism is the best system there is?

wasn't it Churchill who said (something along the lines of)
"Capitalism is the best system we have tried so far"?

i'll chime in my opinions in a bit (otherwise people always seem to argue with me from straight from post #2 onwards...)

The funny thing about evolution is it always surprises you. You never know where it's heading. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

I agree with Marx

Can I argue with the term evolution being applied to economic systems. Economic systems are reactive, yes, but not to the environment per se, nor do the changes actually move the system as a whole. They just rearrange internally.. Also evolution implies progress by gradual change. Any change away from capitalism would require, at least in Marx's view, revolution, not evoultion.

The funny thing about evolution is it always surprises you. You never know where it's heading. I guess all we can do is wait and see.
ah bugger. perhaps shouldn't have used the word 'evolution' then.... maybe economic sytemic progression or something that sounds equally shite ;)

are you saying that Marx's 6 era materialist history is wrong then? that we don't know what the next stage is going to be? (sorry i'm reading a book atm with lots of questions in... i think its rubbing off on me). that is what you are saying, right, and its true - we can't tell. however we can predict what the next stage is going to be much as we can't tell the weather tomorrow, but we can predict it using historical data & observations.

I can say that capitalism is the zenith of human economic relationships, given current human genetic structures.
Why?
Since the system has been developed, economic growth has been phenomenal, when compared to similar periods of time in other societies.
Even when the Roman Empire had expermiental capitalism(not the system we see today), scienticists were churning out amazing new products...like the first jet engine prototype...

It brings up another question, of course; what type of capitalism? The Romans had the jet, but they never employed it because there was no incentive to. Why? Slaves and the goal of full employment. Obviously, worker mobility is needed, which is something that we did not pick up on until very modern times(even though we saw the concept validated again in the 1920s)

Capitalism is the zenith, but, pure capitalism obviously does not work. We've tried that, too; the results were very poor.

No.

Economy exists because items are scarce. Once you end economical scarcity, you have Communism. But only market economies provide the efficiency and gronth needed to end economical scarcity.

Can I argue with the term evolution being applied to economic systems. Economic systems are reactive, yes, but not to the environment per se, nor do the changes actually move the system as a whole. They just rearrange internally.. Also evolution implies progress by gradual change. Any change away from capitalism would require, at least in Marx's view, revolution, not evoultion.
surely the change from one general system to another must be gradual - more of x type of production or good z being produced over the years than in the previous system - and thus evolution may be applicable here.
the system does change, i would argue. the structure of an economic system can be very different from the last; the structure behind the hunter-gatherer economic system is going to be very different from today's, for example. its not just internal mechanics that change - exogenous factors can be brought in in the change between systems, to regulate or alter the economic sytem works in a way that cannot be achieved inside the system, such as governments.
yes, Marx argues for revolution rather than evolution, but that's not the point (besides, Marx's socialist predecessor Robert Owen argued for a very long term approach to the process of building a socialist state). the point is, 'is capitalism the end-point of what we have witnessed in economic systems change so far throughout all of (pre-)history?' or is Marx right (doesn't matter whether it requires revolution or not... the change is the important thing, 'evolution' is just a word.)?


Economic systems are reactive, yes, but not to the environment per se
eh? :confused:

Since the system has been developed, economic growth has been phenomenal, when compared to similar periods of time in other societies.
Even when the Roman Empire had expermiental capitalism(not the system we see today), scienticists were churning out amazing new products...like the first jet engine prototype...

this is surley a matter of technological progress, or application of information and technology. the romans were centuries ahead of their time (or after their fall Europe was cast backwards in the technological stakes) and modern capitalism "evolved" during the agricultural and industrial revolutions in Europe, hence our 'phenomenal growth-rate' is linked to our technological progress and application in industry.

however, another interesting question would be whether 'phenomenally high' rates of growth are, indeed, desirable? what of sustainability? what about the fulfilment of the happiness of the people? is high growth truly linked to being happy (standard of life is another issue)? would we be happier, as a whole, under another system (even if this is the zenith of economic systems progression). does this mean that Marx's revolution is vindicated as we cannot achieve the true zenith 'naturally'? so many questions..... :confused:

this is surley a matter of technological progress, or application of information and technology. the romans were centuries ahead of their time (or after their fall Europe was cast backwards in the technological stakes) and modern capitalism "evolved" during the agricultural and industrial revolutions in Europe, hence our 'phenomenal growth-rate' is linked to our technological progress and application in industry.

however, another interesting question would be whether 'phenomenally high' rates of growth are, indeed, desirable? what of sustainability? what about the fulfilment of the happiness of the people? is high growth truly linked to being happy (standard of life is another issue)? would we be happier, as a whole, under another system (even if this is the zenith of economic systems progression). does this mean that Marx's revolution is vindicated as we cannot achieve the true zenith 'naturally'? so many questions..... :confused:

Im glad you brought up that issue. Its something that for many years alot of people in the US and other wealthy nations had been blind to. Lately, Ive seen a change in direction. The campaign on TV for taking back your vacation is a great example. People are finally realizing that happiness has almost nothing to do with money. The US is the most wealthy nation on the planet, but its people are among the most unhappy. Obviously something is wrong. I agree, capitalism is the best method for acquiring vast amounts of wealth, but ultimately all the wealth you acquire is irrelevant because it isnt making anyone happy. As people continue to realize that all of this money isnt making them happy I think things will continue to shift away from the greed focus of capitalism and may open their minds to other systems.

we're studying Socialism in my Political Thought module at the moment, and Marx believes that capitalism is but one stage in the development, evolution, or one-way progress of economic systems, with communism being the utopian end-point (his Historical Materialism theory). anybody either reckon that's right, or... conversley think that capitalism is, in fact, the end-point of economic evolution? that capitalism is the best system there is?

wasn't it Churchill who said (something along the lines of)
"Capitalism is the best system we have tried so far"?

i'll chime in my opinions in a bit (otherwise people always seem to argue with me from straight from post #2 onwards...)

A: Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government on Earth... except for all the others." For some reason strict capitalists like to replace the word democracy with capitalism as though the two are interchangable.

B: The idea that there is such a thing as "more" or "less" evolved is inherently flawed, but even if it wasn't capitalism would not be the apex of the economic systems. Even monkeys (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm) have an instinctual recognition of the idea that things have a value and that bargaining for a good "price" is your right as the owner of a given thing. To think that 5000 years of human evolution and civilization has led up to a culmination in culture and sophistication equal to that of a capuchin monkey is, to my mind, a little disheartening.

we're studying Socialism in my Political Thought module at the moment, and Marx believes that capitalism is but one stage in the development, evolution, or one-way progress of economic systems, with communism being the utopian end-point (his Historical Materialism theory). anybody either reckon that's right, or... conversley think that capitalism is, in fact, the end-point of economic evolution? that capitalism is the best system there is?

wasn't it Churchill who said (something along the lines of)
"Capitalism is the best system we have tried so far"?

i'll chime in my opinions in a bit (otherwise people always seem to argue with me from straight from post #2 onwards...)
and churchill was a relative crackpot, but thats another matter

i cant see how a system that encourages: lying, cheating, stealing, and murder (more or less) aka do whatever it takes to get ahead and get more money is the high point of the economic evolutionary chain

Im glad you brought up that issue. Its something that for many years alot of people in the US and other wealthy nations had been blind to. Lately, Ive seen a change in direction. The campaign on TV for taking back your vacation is a great example. People are finally realizing that happiness has almost nothing to do with money. The US is the most wealthy nation on the planet, but its people are among the most unhappy. Obviously something is wrong. I agree, capitalism is the best method for acquiring vast amounts of wealth, but ultimately all the wealth you acquire is irrelevant because it isnt making anyone happy. As people continue to realize that all of this money isnt making them happy I think things will continue to shift away from the greed focus of capitalism and may open their minds to other systems.
The people in the USA are among the most unhappy?

If happiness can be measured, according to this survey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3157570.stm) America is nowhere near the bottom.

the system does change, i would argue. the structure of an economic system can be very different from the last; the structure behind the hunter-gatherer economic system is going to be very different from today's, for example. its not just internal mechanics that change - exogenous factors can be brought in in the change between systems, to regulate or alter the economic sytem works in a way that cannot be achieved inside the system, such as governments.

If it is a factor that is exogenous, then the change is not evolution. That was the point that I was heading toward. External regulation can result in overal change of an economic system. Internal adjustment to external factors can not change the basis of the system. Without some sort of decision from outside, market forces will maintain the existence of the market itself.
This is why I was objecting to the term evolution. (Along with the second point that is addressed below)

yes, Marx argues for revolution rather than evolution, but that's not the point (besides, Marx's socialist predecessor Robert Owen argued for a very long term approach to the process of building a socialist state). the point is, 'is capitalism the end-point of what we have witnessed in economic systems change so far throughout all of (pre-)history?' or is Marx right (doesn't matter whether it requires revolution or not... the change is the important thing, 'evolution' is just a word.)?

I do not subscribe to the Marxist inevitable future history view. But I also do not think that we have reached the apogee of economic sophistication. A lot depends on our future technological discoveries. Particularly in nanotechnology and space exploration. If we can provide space to live and the needs of the masses cheaply and easily, then we could see a more socially responsible form of economic system developed. If this does not happen, then population pressure, excess demand etc. will almost certainly lead to an even less just market system, probably with an equivalent of a caste social system.

Oh, the confused, bit, I was just thinking out loud as I went. Probably makes no sense at all.

I agree, capitalism is the best method for acquiring vast amounts of wealth, but ultimately all the wealth you acquire is irrelevant because it isnt making anyone happy.
wrong. capitalism is making a few people very happy, while most of the rest of us work on such a (income) level we cannot hope to reach theirs. people aren't particularily happy - or those that are are blissfully ignorant ;) (to coin a phrase).

A: Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government on Earth... except for all the others." For some reason strict capitalists like to replace the word democracy with capitalism as though the two are interchangable.

ah, yeah i have mis-quoted that before :(
B: The idea that there is such a thing as "more" or "less" evolved is inherently flawed...
why?

i cant see how a system that encourages: lying, cheating, stealing, and murder (more or less) aka do whatever it takes to get ahead and get more money is the high point of the economic evolutionary chain
yay! this gives you a vital clue as to my thoughts on this subject... ;)

Sadly only a few systems are self perpetuating when humans are concerned. Capitalism is not self perpetuating and not the “final answer” for economic systems. However it is the most successful.

The end result of an un-regulated capitalistic system is the monopoly. The company that is run better, by smarter wiser managers will do better. The company that can achieve high productivity with lower and lower pay to its workers will do better. The larger the company the better off the company is. So the Profit-Loss engine that’s driving a free market economy churns out monopolies.

So sure there may be a better system but the economic models of socialism in particular and communism in general do poorly in comparison. The successful socialist models produce less than a capitalistic one but they are friendlier to the average human. Unrestrained capitalism is bad for the environment, bad for the health of the worker, etc. Socialistic models are healthier for the environment and worker but produce less, cost more and are less efficient.

The study of the industrial revolution authors is important but we have one hundred years of working examples to look at as well. Essentially most of us agree they made bad, incorrect, predictions about the economic systems.

The base line strength of Capitalism is motivation. If you are able to reward yourself through your work, you will work harder. If you own your property, you are willing to develop it for use. If you work is not specifically rewarded, you don’t work as hard. If you are in charge of land you do not own, you are not motivated to develop it.

If it is a factor that is exogenous, then the change is not evolution. That was the point that I was heading toward. External regulation can result in overal change of an economic system. Internal adjustment to external factors can not change the basis of the system. Without some sort of decision from outside, market forces will maintain the existence of the market itself.
This is why I was objecting to the term evolution.
ah i see now. fair point, but only the violent revolution of Marx can be considered an external factor. a government is surely an internal factor, built in by the people for their own regulation? if the government is considered to be external, then this would mean that evolution of economic systems stopped several thousands of years ago. what is the government or exogenous factor, anyway? a contemporary democratic government, a monarchy, a tribe cheiftan? was there ever a point in human history where there wasn't this external factor, or is government natural? if it's natural, it cannot be discounted as a factor influencing the indipendant economic system as it is, was, and always will be part of that same system. plus, the government changes over time, reflecting the economic system - the change is not just one-way - so how much does the exogenous factor alter the system if shaped to compliment that system?
(hope that made sense... kinda went off on one :) )


I do not subscribe to the Marxist inevitable future history view. But I also do not think that we have reached the apogee of economic sophistication. A lot depends on our future technological discoveries. Particularly in nanotechnology and space exploration. If we can provide space to live and the needs of the masses cheaply and easily, then we could see a more socially responsible form of economic system developed. If this does not happen, then population pressure, excess demand etc. will almost certainly lead to an even less just market system, probably with an equivalent of a caste social system.
'a more socially responsible form of economic system' and an 'even less market system', meaning that capitalism definatley isn't the end of the line, or the best there is. hope the space exploration goes well ;)

The end result of an un-regulated capitalistic system is the monopoly. The company that is run better, by smarter wiser managers will do better. The company that can achieve high productivity with lower and lower pay to its workers will do better. The larger the company the better off the company is. So the Profit-Loss engine that’s driving a free market economy churns out monopolies.

not quite true. only certain industries should form monopolies (naturally, due to market forces) as, while a monopoly can benefit from 'economies of scale' (such as high productivity, lower pay, etc), it can also suffer 'diseconomies of scale' when too large. this is from X-ineficciencies which are normal ineficiencies (hope im spelling that right) (such as too many levels of management - the 'chinese whispers' problem, or external DeoS such as congestion) caused by a lack of incentive to be efficient. if the monopoly truly has no competition, and there are barriers to entry for that market, then the monopoly need not worry about its prices, doesn't need to focus on efficiency and ultimatley the consumers loose out by paying higher prices.

[QUOTE=Calnevzona]The successful socialist models produce less than a capitalistic one but they are friendlier to the average human. Unrestrained capitalism is bad for the environment, bad for the health of the worker, etc. Socialistic models are healthier for the environment and worker but produce less, cost more and are less efficient.
is that not a sufficient price to pay?

In my opinion, with the advancement of technology capitalism must eventually die. When we get to a point that robots can do the vast majority of the jobs that humans used to do, only a few will have to work and the rest will be unemployed. Under pure capitalism, these people would be blamed somehow for their situation and starve to death, which obviously would not happen - people would just not accept it.

Until that point, I think the most humane economic model is a balance between capitalism and socialism. People who discredit socialism really need to realise that even countries like the US have some socialist elements - such as free health care to the poor, welfare and social security. The only problem is finding the right balance.

this is surley a matter of technological progress, or application of information and technology. the romans were centuries ahead of their time (or after their fall Europe was cast backwards in the technological stakes) and modern capitalism "evolved" during the agricultural and industrial revolutions in Europe, hence our 'phenomenal growth-rate' is linked to our technological progress and application in industry.


Yes, it is due to technological progress. The question is, what system encourages this type of economic growth?
It isn't impossible for a bureacratic society or a socialist system to develop technologically...in fact, for most of human existence, government intervention was NECCESSARY to have growing technology.

But, in modern eras? Attempts for the bureaucracy to manage the economic growth of a country have paled in comparison to letting the general free market dictate how the economy will flow.
Now, anarcho-capitalism will not work. I believe in worker rights, too(because if employers own employees, then there is no incentive to advance technologically)
But, attempts to control economic growth and send it to certain sectors have usually recieved poor results. The ability for people to invest in capital goods and take personal responsibility(thus giving incentive) and having poor markets weeded out generally leads to greater economic wealth and a greater standard of living.


however, another interesting question would be whether 'phenomenally high' rates of growth are, indeed, desirable? what of sustainability? what about the fulfilment of the happiness of the people? is high growth truly linked to being happy (standard of life is another issue)? would we be happier, as a whole, under another system (even if this is the zenith of economic systems progression). does this mean that Marx's revolution is vindicated as we cannot achieve the true zenith 'naturally'? so many questions.....
I like economic growth; it generally means the average European in 1600 had 5 times as many goods as on in 1550. It also means that I do not have to farm. Economic growth generally correlates to technological progress. There are rough patches...but, hey, in the long run, it is the best system.
I also would argue that higher economic growth DOES tend to correlate to greater happiness, because it correlates with technological progress, which correlates to less work.
But, if the workers are continually saddled with more work, than economic mobility will actually go down, regardless of what some numbers may say. Workers rights, mobility, and consumer demand must always be factored in.

Capitalism is hardly the zenith of evolution. The straight dope is that it isn't nearly as great as it's made out to be. While it certainly works, the same could be said for slavery and feudalism. The reality is that if you can afford a computer, you have not seen the worst aspects of capitalism (though you may have seen some truly bad stuff, it is far from the worst). Everyone of us is lucky and we all have it quite well compared to many people.

If you seriously study capitalism and ignore the impulse to rationalize things away, you'll find that the saintly economic system you believe in simply does not exist. A good place to start would be the 1800s (you'll be surprised at just how violent capitalism once was and where the stereotype of anarchists as terrorists came from). The sweatshops of today are also a good thing to research.

In short, no, capitalism is hardly the "zenith of economic evolution" any more than feudalism was so 500 years ago. It is arrogant to think we have reached the apex of evolution. 500 years ago, people believed feudalism and monarchy were the supreme systems and 500 years from now, I can guarantee capitalism will be looked back on as a primitive predicessor to the One True Economic System that actually fits human nature.

we're studying Socialism in my Political Thought module at the moment, and Marx believes that capitalism is but one stage in the development, evolution, or one-way progress of economic systems, with communism being the utopian end-point (his Historical Materialism theory). anybody either reckon that's right, or... conversley think that capitalism is, in fact, the end-point of economic evolution? that capitalism is the best system there is?

wasn't it Churchill who said (something along the lines of)
"Capitalism is the best system we have tried so far"?

i'll chime in my opinions in a bit (otherwise people always seem to argue with me from straight from post #2 onwards...)
If you are likening capitalism to biological evolution I think a more correct analogy would be to consider socialism cancer. A runaway cellular mutation which can be terminal if untreated.

If you are likening capitalism to biological evolution I think a more correct analogy would be to consider socialism cancer. A runaway cellular mutation which can be terminal if untreated.

Truly sickening. Genuine freedom dismissed as a cancer. Socialism is only harmful to rich white men. If you are nothing more than the sum of your inheritance, you don't have much of a life, anyway.

Truly sickening. Genuine freedom dismissed as a cancer. Socialism is only harmful to rich white men. If you are nothing more than the sum of your inheritance, you don't have much of a life, anyway.
No, 90% of wealth is owned by people who did not inherit it. Communism is nothing more than state sponsored theft. Socialist is like communism-lite. Only a little bit of theft.

I suppose theft does afford a certain amount of freeness, but only to the person doing the stealing. The sickening part is to think that anyone would think theft is a good model for government.

No, 90% of wealth is owned by people who did not inherit it. Communism is nothing more than state sponsored theft. Socialist is like communism-lite. Only a little bit of theft.

I suppose theft does afford a certain amount of freeness, but only to the person doing the stealing. The sickening part is to think that anyone would think theft is a good model for government.

it werkz.

More seriously though, part of the trouble the left has in this debate is that they label every free market system with property rights "capitalism". Our free market system is, and will continue, to evolve on its own. And for the better.

Just look at the differences since marx came up with his justification for stealing. We now have seperation of control and ownership, bankruptcy protections, more efficient capital markets, generally accepted accounting and reporting guidelines and much more. The rights of minority stockholders have also vastly expanded. This has given us a system that has lifted more people out of poverty anywhere at any time, as well as granted unimaginable standards of living to a number of people more efficiently than marx could ever have dreamed of.

Also, despite the dire warnings of the left, the modern free market continues to lift people out of poverty worldwide every year.

Marx and his gang of theives always talked about the workers owning the means of production. Under the modern system of efficient capital markets and seperation of control and ownership, our modern system makes this more of a reality everyday. Indeed, in the past fifty years there has been an explosion in the number of stockholders in the US - and the number of vehicles to own stock- along with an explosion of wealth. How can even socialists argue with that result.

Yes, it is due to technological progress. The question is, what system encourages this type of economic growth?
It isn't impossible for a bureacratic society or a socialist system to develop technologically...in fact, for most of human existence, government intervention was NECCESSARY to have growing technology.
agreed.

But, in modern eras? Attempts for the bureaucracy to manage the economic growth of a country have paled in comparison to letting the general free market dictate how the economy will flow.
Now, anarcho-capitalism will not work. I believe in worker rights, too(because if employers own employees, then there is no incentive to advance technologically)
hmm you raise a good point. necessity is the mother of all invention, so perhaps a reason why we have such great technological change at the moment is, at least in part due to the vast quantities of natural resources we use up through industry. any type of system - free market or centrally planned - would face the same crisis of what to do in that situtation, and arguably both would opt for technological advancement as the most logical or only choice of action.
however, it is consumers' constantly changing demands that really drive technological progress today. hence, technological progress under socialism may be much slower than we have now.


I like economic growth; it generally means the average European in 1600 had 5 times as many goods as on in 1550. It also means that I do not have to farm. Economic growth generally correlates to technological progress. There are rough patches...but, hey, in the long run, it is the best system.
I also would argue that higher economic growth DOES tend to correlate to greater happiness, because it correlates with technological progress, which correlates to less work.
high economic growth may be desirable in the short- to medium-term, but they are distinctly unsustainable. do we want high-growth, high standards of living now, or an economic system & environment we can pass on to the next generation to allow them to be as prosperous as us?
plus, you don't have to farm due to specialisation of labour by process, and technological advancements in farming (agricultural revoltion), which have caused higher growth rates and more prosperity for all - it is not necessarily the economic growth that means you don't have to farm (your own food, i guess).

Capitalism is hardly the zenith of evolution. The straight dope is that it isn't nearly as great as it's made out to be. While it certainly works, the same could be said for slavery and feudalism. The reality is that if you can afford a computer, you have not seen the worst aspects of capitalism (though you may have seen some truly bad stuff, it is far from the worst). Everyone of us is lucky and we all have it quite well compared to many people.

If you seriously study capitalism and ignore the impulse to rationalize things away, you'll find that the saintly economic system you believe in simply does not exist. A good place to start would be the 1800s (you'll be surprised at just how violent capitalism once was and where the stereotype of anarchists as terrorists came from). The sweatshops of today are also a good thing to research.

In short, no, capitalism is hardly the "zenith of economic evolution" any more than feudalism was so 500 years ago. It is arrogant to think we have reached the apex of evolution. 500 years ago, people believed feudalism and monarchy were the supreme systems and 500 years from now, I can guarantee capitalism will be looked back on as a primitive predicessor to the One True Economic System that actually fits human nature.
nicely said :) my thoughts exactly. just because this is the current system doesn't mean its either the best or most advanced. in a discussion with my flatemate yesterday about socialism (shut up ;) ) he simply could not comprehend the idea that what we have now is constantly changing and will change into something else. as you say (and i said last night :p ), 500 years ago we had feudalism, where can we be in the next 500 years? i say its time we started thinking about where we'd like to be by then and get planning as to how to achieve it.

one of my favourite qotes of all time is from Dave Mustaine, of the band Megadeth:

Yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions