A world without capitalism

Originally posted by finnegan

Let's take the internet, for example. Without the drive of capitalism, couldn't it be said that the internet wouldn't be as advanced as it is, because the financial reward wouldn't be what is without capitalism

In reply I suggested that this forum has debated the role of the state versus the private sector in the internet, so suggested a di ...[text shortened]... . It is competition, not profit, that can (in the right conditions) work for the benefit of all.

On your assertion on mixed economies, it is convenient to keep capitalism as a scape goat, to blame when government managed things go wrong.

Originally posted by finnegan

Let's take the internet, for example. Without the drive of capitalism, couldn't it be said that the internet wouldn't be as advanced as it is, because the financial reward wouldn't be what is without capitalism

In reply I suggested that this forum has debated the role of the state versus the private sector in the internet, so suggested a di ...[text shortened]... are the one who offered up an isolated example - I actually widened the scope of the discussion.

Point taken. By "isolated examples", I only meant examples that aren't representative of the norm. Like saying women aren't physically weaker than men, because of some woman on the news who may have beat up a man. However, when you put your genome example in the context of patents, I see your point, and it's a good one.

Try driving a car without a road. Is it not astonishing that within such a few decades it was possible to drive your car from California to New York without it being destroyed in a huge pot hole? How were all those roads and bridges and all put into place? And who polices the rules for safe driving?

My argument is not that government or the private sector play absolutely no role in the modernization of society. My argument is that the degree to which we have advanced would not have happened without capitalism. You brought up the building of roads; but mass production of vehicles is what legitimized the building of roads. And what was the drive for mass production? Money. Not idealism, not patriotism or scientific dreams, but cold hard cash.

As for television, most European countries have radio and television that developed under state ownership and control. The BBC remains outstanding as a supplier of good quality and diverse TV and radio.

That's fine, but don't the producers of the TV shows produce them because of profit? Even if the government has the last word on what exactly gets shown, money is still the drive, right? Do European governments actually use tax dollars to hire actors and news anchors?

Look profit has a place, private enterprise has a place, most versions of "capitalism" entail a "mixed economy" to some degree or another. On its own however profit does not drive innovation. What drives that is COMPETITION. Now look again at my genome example, If a private company had been allowed to claim credit for unravelling that code and been allowed to secure patents on its discoveries, then that would have established a monopoly, whereas when the public sector won that race and made the information freely available, then that permitted competition. Can't you see that profit, left to its own devices, is a dangerous force that does not serve the public good? It has to be regulated and one excellent way to regulate the profit sector in the public interest is to insist on securing effective, competitive markets. It is competition, not profit, that can (in the right conditions) work for the benefit of all.

Agreed. When I refer to capitalism, I mean exactly that--competing in a fair market. You're outlining capitalism when people start to corrupt a system to gain an unfair advantage. But I suppose that's your overall point--that people will always seek to take advantage of a system in order to gain an advantage, even at the cost of corrupting it, with capitalism as a glaring example. Right? But that's another issue. That's more of a matter governments failing to keep this corruption in check. With your genome example, it seems that it would be common sense that such a thing shouldn't be patented. But unfortunately, a lot of common-sense things slip though governments (especially in the U.S., where one company was allowed to patent seeds, making it illegal to plant crops using those seeds, without that company's permission).

Originally posted by vivify
Point taken. By "isolated examples", I only meant examples that aren't representative of the norm. Like saying women aren't physically weaker than men, because of some woman on the news who may have beat up a man. However, when you put your genome example in the context of patents, I see your point, and it's a good one.
[b][quote]Try driving a car witho ...[text shortened]... t seeds, making it illegal to plant crops using those seeds, without that company's permission).

"When I refer to capitalism, I mean exactly that--competing in a fair market."

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. (Wikipedia)

Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc.

Originally posted by JS357
OK. I have a problem pulling capitalism out of its context and seeing it as a central causal force -- it seems more like a stage of cultural evolution. The History of Capitalism Wikipedia entry has this:

Quote:

Stages of Capitalism

It is an ongoing debate within the fields of economics and sociology as to what the past, current, and future stages of c ...[text shortened]... an asset, credit, rents, and earning interest, rather than actual productive processes.[51][52]

Vivify wrote this:

For this thread, I'm merely addressing how the world has modernized as a result of capitalism, and the idea that this would wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced without capitalism as a drive to bring such technology about.

You reasonably enough comment as follows

I have a problem pulling capitalism out of its context and seeing it as a central causal force -- it seems more like a stage of cultural evolution.

I agree. The problem with Vivify's proposal is that it is totally bland. It is hard to see how one can discuss the social history of capitalism separately from the history of Western society in the past two or three centuries, because by and large western society has been capitalist, but it has also had a mixture of political systems, such as military dictatorship, fascism, laissez faire liberalism, social democracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy...

Presumably the opposite of capitalism would have to be communism. Stalin's five year plans and Mao's great leaps were awe inspiringly terrible failures and they were in communist societies but they were also in totalitarian regimes, in that respect not without comparison to Japan's militaristic nationalism or Germany's National Socialism when both were certainly capitalist rather than communist. Of course, Germany for example, with a complex history before the Nazis and only a very brief period of democracy from 1918 to 1933, produced some of the world's very greatest scientists and saw the development of industrial giants which have survived to our own day, such as Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, etc. Complexity is not helpful for those seeking simple answers. But history is complex.

Interesting indeed to see if we can subsume all the complex and fascinating developments of the modern era to some simplistic, cardboard cutout panacea that is the answer to every challenge, like that slippery word "capitalism." Yet this is attempted over and over again, especially in America. I think for example of "Why the West Has Won" by Victor Hansen, or maybe Fukuyama and the End of History, as just two of many examples.

You know, just one example of a different approach to this argument is to attribute modern achievements to the end of religion and either the values of the Enlightenment or the values of Newtonian Science with a capital S in Science. Even the Renaissance was a move towards humanism instead of religious bigotry. Now I do not want to pursue that theme, I only want to identify that "capitalism" is not the only panacea and simplified solution in town. It is not even the most convincing.

Originally posted by vivify
Point taken. By "isol.............
[b]

As for television, most European countries have radio and television that developed under state ownership and control. The BBC remains outstanding as a supplier of good quality and diverse TV and radio.

That's fine, but don't the producers of the TV shows produce them because of profit? Even if th ...[text shortened]... ve, right? Do European governments actually use tax dollars to hire actors and news anchors? .[/b]

Yes. And yet the Government in the UK (for example) does not have any say whatever on what gets shown. Surprised?

Originally posted by JS357
"When I refer to capitalism, I mean exactly that--competing in a fair market."

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. (Wikipedia)

Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc.

"Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc."

I'm really glad you made that distinction. The evils can and do effect any economic or social system. However, I would posit that capitalism rarely if ever creates those corruptions, which often are cited as part of capitalism.

Strictly speaking capitalism only entails an economic system, where money (capital), or machinery (capital), or land (capital) are used as part of the means of production. Capital enhances the production making it more productive, and enabling the hiring of additional workers, and increasing their compensation, and earning extra profit for the provider of the capital.

Illustrating the difference between capitalism and social job making, Milton Friedman is said to have quipped give them spoons instead of shovels if the purpose was to create jobs. The analogy is said to have been used by others http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/.

Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral by itself, but its motivational aspects tends to support the assertions that most modern progress is attributable to the presence of capitalism.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc."

I'm really glad you made that distinction. The evils can and do effect any economic or social system. However, I would posit that capitalism rarely if ever creates those corruptions, which often are cited as part of capitalism.

Str ...[text shortened]... support the assertions that most modern progress is attributable to the presence of capitalism.

Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' is one demonstration that capitalism is indeed immoral by and in itself. That is why it requires regulation. Milton Friedman's advice has been taken up by several governments (Pinochet's Chile, Britain's Thatcher) with baleful results.

Originally posted by finnegan
Vivify wrote this:

For this thread, I'm merely addressing how the world has modernized as a result of capitalism, and the idea that this would wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced without capitalism as a drive to bring such technology about.

You reasonably enough comment as follows [quote]I have a problem pulling capitalism out of its contex ...[text shortened]... sm" is not the only panacea and simplified solution in town. It is not even the most convincing.

"Presumably the opposite of capitalism would have to be communism."

That distinction has to do with the identity of the owners of capital and the means of production, and therefore who should be the beneficiaries of excess profits if any. Capitalism with the workers as owners is can be compatible with communism in theory, although I don't think in reality it has yet been compatible with workers ownership on a national scale, since the "interim" leadership never seems quite able to deliver on and/or transfer those benefits.

But my main point to what I quote of yours is this: we can compare capitalism with what we think is it opposite, but the OP allows comparison with a world in which the evolution of economic system stopped at a stage before capitalism. That would be the first comparison I would make. It is hard to imagine national-scale projects of any kind being possible without the accumulation and investment of large amounts of capital. The step forward of capitalism was to fund these projects privately for the financial benefit of the actual investors. I am here to learn about this if it i of interest to look at a 2014 world that never evolved capitalism as private capital earning private profit.

Originally posted by finnegan
Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' is one demonstration that capitalism is indeed immoral by and in itself. That is why it requires regulation. Milton Friedman's advice has been taken up by several governments (Pinochet's Chile, Britain's Thatcher) with baleful results.

The distinction between capitalism being evil, and capitalism being no barrier to evil, results in pretty much the same dilemma: how do we limit the evil while maximizing personal freedom to benefit from the use of one's capital? So I'm not sure the distinction is worth much debate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Al Gore didn't create the Internet, you silly goose.

The ARPANET was funded by the US govt until 1984. At that time, the US govt decided to sell it off to private service providers and the then-ARPANET became what we now call the Internet. The man who oversaw that transaction was a Senator named Al Gore.

That's why nerds all talk about "algorithms" [oops, sorry about that]

Originally posted by JS357
"When I refer to capitalism, I mean exactly that--competing in a fair market."

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. (Wikipedia)

Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc.

"monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion."

Occur in the absence of capitalism.

Originally posted by vivify
Point taken. By "isolated examples", I only meant examples that aren't representative of the norm. Like saying women aren't physically weaker than men, because of some woman on the news who may have beat up a man. However, when you put your genome example in the context of patents, I see your point, and it's a good one.
[b][quote]Try driving a car witho ...[text shortened]... t seeds, making it illegal to plant crops using those seeds, without that company's permission).

Capitalism isn't defined by the desire for money in a free market. It's more specific than that. Capitalism is about making money BY INVESTING MONEY. In other words, capitalism is where rich people get paid for not working.

Originally posted by finnegan
Thomas Piketty's 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' is one demonstration that capitalism is indeed immoral by and in itself. That is why it requires regulation. Milton Friedman's advice has been taken up by several governments (Pinochet's Chile, Britain's Thatcher) with baleful results.

You do realize that Friedman's "suggestion" was in jest?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Capitalism isn't defined by the desire for money in a free market. It's more specific than that. Capitalism is about making money BY INVESTING MONEY. In other words, capitalism is where rich people get paid for not working.

Their money, property, or machinery works for them, and assists workers to be more productive.

Originally posted by JS357
"When I refer to capitalism, I mean exactly that--competing in a fair market."

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. (Wikipedia)

Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc.

"Capitalism can exist in a fair or unfair market. It can exist with monopolies, fascism, corruption, extortion, etc."

Absolutely, and in most cases some unfairness exists as well as interruption and binding by government favoritism and meddling, usually in the name of "fairness".

It is also worth noting that in controlled economic systems (socialism, communism, and fascism) those same evils exist usually in greater measure.