• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Why isn't capitalism regarded as utopian?

E

EndlessSleeper

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
62
Location
Brisbane
Capitalists, specificaly the Capitalist Magazine style capitalists assert with absolute certaint and with great passion that capitalism the only system that can work. This would imply that the mixed economy can't work, which from looking out my window I observe to be incorrect.

I'm not feeling particularly eloquent right now so I can't manage mach more of an explanation of my question than this; If capitalism is supposed to make everyone's lives better, the general economy more efficient and the grass a little bit greener why isn't this seen as a utopian view?
 
Psychedelics_r_best said:
because not everyone ahs the same ideas, and as long as someone doesnt like it, its not utopia.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Are you saying that as long as someone doesn't like capitalism it's not a utopia? A lot of people don't like communism and it is seen as a utopian theory.
 
I believe John Maynard Keynes said it best:

"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the betterment of us all."

So yeah, it is kind of a utopia for those of us born into the right social class :)
 
From my limited knowledge , it would be because profit is the motive , hence you get a situation where the owners of the means of production screw over people as much as they can to make a profit.
Resources are distributed based on ability to purchase not need.
hence you get an imbalance.
But on the other hand competition leads to a better deal for consumers theoretically.
I could be wrong about all of what i've said , as i really don't know a hell of a lot about what I'm talking about.

:/
 
You know a lot more than most of the idiot drones out there do, anyone that uses the phrase "means of production" in casual conversation is ok in my book =D

--- G.
 
>>From my limited knowledge , it would be because profit is the motive , hence you get a situation where the owners of the means of production screw over people as much as they can to make a profit.
Resources are distributed based on ability to purchase not need.
hence you get an imbalance.>>

Neoliberal ideologues certainly would not argue this. :)

ebola
 
EndlessSleeper said:
Capitalists, specificaly the Capitalist Magazine style capitalists assert with absolute certaint and with great passion that capitalism the only system that can work. This would imply that the mixed economy can't work, which from looking out my window I observe to be incorrect.

I'm not feeling particularly eloquent right now so I can't manage mach more of an explanation of my question than this; If capitalism is supposed to make everyone's lives better, the general economy more efficient and the grass a little bit greener why isn't this seen as a utopian view?
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at it this way, almost any model for economics and society that has been heralded in a fairly large scale can be seen as utopian. I think it's not considered as such because it is functioning at the moment and it's our reality now. If we lived in a communist society (even if it wasn't working perfectly either), and capitalism was a novel and alien concept to us, no doubt it'd be considered utopian too. I think it's a matter of perspective.

We've already built in the lack of altruism and voluntary redistribution of wealth in the capitalist system, but we have yet to absorb the inevitable occurence of inequity of power in communist systems, as we have observed. I do believe that exceeding a certain population figure, there can never be a perfect system of government.
 
Draic said:
From my limited knowledge , it would be because profit is the motive , hence you get a situation where the owners of the means of production screw over people as much as they can to make a profit.
Resources are distributed based on ability to purchase not need.

I could be wrong about all of what i've said , as i really don't know a hell of a lot about what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

See the thing is, capitalism DOES, in fact, get resources where they need to be, however, when we use the word "need," we often imbue it with a moral connotation. Sure, dehydrated orphans could use the water, but it is needed to produce a hundred more pairs of shoes... I'm not saying I necessarily think that's a good thing, but economically, capitalism is the most effective system for delivering goods where they need to go. Theoretically, under a "perfect" capitalism, those orphans would get the water through one means or another. A "utopian" capitalism by the way we see things would require a great deal of charity to be involved in every day life. A quasi-socialist capitalist system with charity-based welfare is my idea of what utopia would be.

And for the record, it's clear you know more than the average bear on this topic. ")
 
It's funny how the countries that embrace free market capitalism the most are also the most impoverished. I think the reason people don't think of it as utopian is because they either A) directly benefit from the system B) don't realize how far the richer countries have deviated from the free market model.
 
>>See the thing is, capitalism DOES, in fact, get resources where they need to be, however, when we use the word "need," we often imbue it with a moral connotation. Sure, dehydrated orphans could use the water, but it is needed to produce a hundred more pairs of shoes... I'm not saying I necessarily think that's a good thing, but economically, capitalism is the most effective system for delivering goods where they need to go.>>

How the hell are we operationalizing "need" on this picture?

ebola
 
kittyinthedark said:
See the thing is, capitalism DOES, in fact, get resources where they need to be, however, when we use the word "need," we often imbue it with a moral connotation. Sure, dehydrated orphans could use the water, but it is needed to produce a hundred more pairs of shoes... I'm not saying I necessarily think that's a good thing, but economically, capitalism is the most effective system for delivering goods where they need to go. Theoretically, under a "perfect" capitalism, those orphans would get the water through one means or another. A "utopian" capitalism by the way we see things would require a great deal of charity to be involved in every day life. A quasi-socialist capitalist system with charity-based welfare is my idea of what utopia would be.
Click to expand...

This is my point. If capitalism is supposed to make everything more efficient and yet leaves behind the dehydrated orphans it is dysutopian in practice just like communism, but in theory it proposes that everything everywhere will be wonderful if only we can adopt capitalism; thus a utopian ideal.
 
Capitalism is ideal for working with people, since it, like that excellent quote shows, makes the worst of people for only selfish reasons work toward the greater good. But for the same reason Communism is utopian, capitalism must be regulated. Hence, taxes and government.

Would you trust Wal-Mart to sell you an army when you needed one? Would you even be willing or able to buy an army, were one available to defend against Commies seeing a ripe plum and sailing merrily across the ocean to pick it?

Also, it might help to define utopia for you people :

Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary

Communism is utopian because it is ideal for ideal mankind, the kind that does not cheat or steal. However, since we are the kind that cheats and steals, harnessing all that 'negative energy' and turning it into a supply and demand working economy is natural.

If the government decides what to produce and when, the products will take too long to produce, not get distributed fast enough, and the goods won't be appropriate for the wants and needs of the consumer.

But concentrated on a few key goods, like welfare, armies, highways and roads, it excels with serving the needs of the public. Thus, the water (and homes) gets to the orphans who aren't allowed to work anyway.
 
Also, most economists and businessmen know capitalism alone is never going to feed all the orphans. They just don't care. They might think it will make the world more efficient but they define efficiency in a weird way. For instance, privatizing a water system might reduce beuracratic overhead by like 10% or something and make it much tougher for the general public to get water. To a right wing economist, this would be more efficient, and therefore, closer to the ideal. A lot of economists don't seem think of a utopia in terms of a world that makes everyone happy, they think of it in terms of a GDP that is constantly rising or waste making up 0% of the economy.
 
ebola! said:


How the hell are we operationalizing "need" on this picture?

ebola
Click to expand...

If something is a necessity to someone, they will find a way to get it. Resources go where they have the highest demand along with the highest means of obtaining them - where they are "needed."
 
EndlessSleeper said:
This is my point. If capitalism is supposed to make everything more efficient and yet leaves behind the dehydrated orphans it is dysutopian in practice just like communism, but in theory it proposes that everything everywhere will be wonderful if only we can adopt capitalism; thus a utopian ideal.
Click to expand...
just because a very basic abstract understanding of a certain system is utopian, doesn't mean that the system itself shares any of the characteristics in the real word or in real practice. Catpitalism could never be considered utopian by itself because it is self destructive. The nature of capitalism (the people w/ the means of production can only survive if they minimize their costs of production. Which means to lower wages or increase technology) .....the nature of capitalism is self destruction. Since this is the generator of profit, it will eventually create such a stratified economy that the masses wont be able to buy the products that they made themselves. They won't be able to fulfil their basic human needs (food, shelter, health care).

so pure capitalism is inherently flawed b/c it's mechanics bring about it's own end. But it is important to note the vast improvement in technology that is due to capitalism. The theory (marx) is that capitalism is a neccessary prerequisite for utopian communism b/c it will increase the technology to the point where everyones basic neds can be met fairly easily. so no, capitalism alone isn't by any means a utopia, but it's self destructive nature, plus increases technology, might be the cause of a utopian economy.

This whole capitalistic style of thinking came out of the assumption that there is universal truth in socioeconomic matters as well as in science. That is to say truth with a capital T (no pun intended). This means that it will never change. They assume to discover truths like, people are rational decision makers and self interested. Sure that may be true, but certainly might change with evolving morality or brain chemistry. Suppose developed brains hcould kinetically connect with other human minds. That would certainly create an empathetic form of reasoning.

My point is that socioeconomic "laws" are assumptions or observations that are still subject to change. The invisible hand? give me a break, where was adam smith when IBM happened?
 
^^^^
good exposition.
...

>>Resources go where they have the highest demand along with the highest means of obtaining them - where they are "needed.">>

ah...then things are making sense. I have hesitations, though, about putting means within our definition of "need". The system of needs-satisfaction (capitalism) constructs our means to attain what is needed, so if we include these means in our definition of what is needed, our definition of need takes on a partial tautological quality.

ebola
 
The basic tenet of life is that it grows to its fullest extent. All populations of all life will increase their numbers until birth/death ratios are even and when the environment shifts, they adjust to maintain. Our tool-making ability means we can possess evolutionary advantage as tangible objects and knowledge and share it with not just our offspring, but other non-family members. Because of this, we had the power to instantly create populations of new 'pseudo-species', e.g. men wielding flint-tipped spears among men wielding carrion bones. The sharing of technology was bartered for with manpower, the alliance formed with the promise of greater survival for both.

Now to the present. This practice is essentially unchanged. Knowledge and its practical twin, power, are still traded for labor, only now the myriad of transactions every day are so entwined, you could spend a lifetime learning how to work it to your advantage, and some do. They are called capitalists. Capitalist's are the peak of human evolution having created, or been given and grown, a complex power producing machine consisting of a series of interwoven 'pseudo-species' working in harmony towards one purpose, greater survival for both.

The government's of countries mean little to capitalists, they are a set of do's and don'ts that require understanding and subsequent circumvention. Even communism could not contain them. They are as omnipresent as any force of nature and they should be classified as such because 'The Man', the corporate alliance, will continue to exist despite any concerted attempt to kill it bar human extinction.

So, is it utopia? For anyone within the alliance, it is, as long as you follow the rules laid out before you or find a way around them. Anyone else is prey.
 
The support of capitalism is not an example of utopian thinking, because capitalists believe that the competetive nature of man will naturally leave some behind. That is the price we pay for the production of goods and a division of labor.

I think the modern capitalist societies are pretty close to utopia...but there is always a flip-side; some people get screwed. For example, peripheral nations which feed the capitalist machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top