-Capitalism Is NOT A Social System-
Capitalism is an economic system. As such it is not designed to create an acceptable social system. It is a tool. It is, like any other tool, supposed to serve a specific purpose. It is, as are a great many other tools, very dangerous when misused or not controlled properly or when used for the wrong purpose; one for which it was never intended to be used. You may think of it as being like fire; a wonderful servant when properly controlled but a horrible master when control is lost. It is a tool that must be owned, and work for, a society.
Many people in our society genuinely feel that capitalism is superior to other economic systems that have previously existed and also to some that have only been proposed. I agree with them on most of that. Too many people who support capitalism seem to have difficulty separating, in their minds, our economic system from our social system, however. Since capitalism depends upon competition, they think that society should also depend upon competition.
They are forgetting that our society is made up of human beings who share many of the same needs, likes, desires, goals, and abilities. We all have need of things like schools, hospitals, health care, roads, emergency services, police services, fire-fighters, and a whole host of things. When there is no society, each person must assume full responsibility for all his needs and wants. We come together in societies so as to share the load for those things that we share a need for.
Recently I’ve been hearing more and more people express the idea that “some shouldn’t have to pay for the needs of others” by way of social programs and medical care; even Social Security for pensioners who have paid into it all their lives, has come under fire. They make the classic error of wanna-be right wingers who have no idea of the meaning of the term "society."
It is not now, and it has never been, a matter of "some" paying the bills of others. It HAS been, just as it is in any properly operating company, a matter of all contribute - according to their skills, abilities, and health.
ALL CONTRIBUTE! - Got that part?
Some contribute in cash, some in social working ways, some by doing their jobs faithfully, some just by being the ones who buy those products that the company YOU work for makes. It behooves ANY civilized society to realize that we are all, always, interdependent on each other. That's the way successful companies work and that's the way a successful society works.
Our society is "broken" at the moment because we didn't ensure that it worked properly to meet the shared needs of all of its members. We let the tool gain the upper hand. It is now our master.
I am a dedicated capitalist. I am also, as are we all, part of something more; a company, a community, a social class, a nation, a world, etc. We co-operate with each other in many ways because that is the most efficient way of ensuring that many good things will be there for us when we need them. That is the social system we find most efficient.
To suggest that our social system ought to work along the lines of, and by the principles of, our capitalist economic system is sheer nonsense. Societies work best by co-operation. Economic systems work best by different principles. To try to force our society into the mold of our economic system is like trying to bathe by the techniques of auto-repair.
To those who would try to force this upon us, I have this to say to you; if you can't see the value of co-operation in certain areas of life, then how can you see the value of co-operatively built/funded roads, hospitals, police and fire departments, etc.? Why not hire your own cops and fire-fighters; train & equip them too, while you're at it. Build your own roads. Buy yourself a hospital, with all its trained staff and expensive equipment.
Not so doggone independent now, are you?
There is plenty of room for all the independence and individualism you can handle in our economic system without trying to bring it on over into those areas where we all, you included, have a common interest. Hey, if you're going to be a capitalist, at least try to learn where competition ends and co-operation begins...... for VERY personally independent reasons!
.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Spike The Chicken
older/exasperated
hyblaean- Julie
Poor Woman
CynMaRose
SpiritManSF
Salon.com
Comments
ALL other comments are welcome and appreciated. Thankee muchly!
.
Great to read such an extensive analysis on a site that -- like any ?"social media"? site -- inevitably (and often welcomely) also contains a lot of quick back-and-forth and repartee. [*]
Unlike you, I am _not_ "a dedicated capitalist". Sorry, guy, but I was early brainwashed by a -- wudja believe -- Trotskyite. HISTORY Professor! I thought of capitalism as something that had replaced feudalism around the 16th century. I have _enormous_ respect for all you've accomplished as "a dedicated capitalist" and when I look around my ludicrously dishevelled home environment could wish maybe I'd been one too. :-(
-/-/-
My question to you -- "of the moment":
How do you see the current generally-worldwide-accepted money/power "capitalism" system evolving or changing adequately to meet all the needs of all peoples? Or is that possible? [pace Malthus & etc.?]
Any way, great to find this post this morning. Happy January 9, "across the border neighbor" ;-)
Yes. Economic systems may work best by competition but always, always, always must economic systems be subject to the social system and its goals. The tool must not become the master. A lesson we have learned, to some degree, in the last few years.
phyllis,
Yes but keep in mind that the fat-cats are not the only capitalists - in fact they are only a tiny percentage of all capitalists. The 99% are mostly capitalists too. Contrary to Faux News commentators blather, they are NOT looking to turn the country over to the socialists. They just want capitalism to be controlled so as to offer a reasonable chance for all of us to be OK.
Po,
The present capitalist system is making a serious adjustment right at the moment. The world is changing from a nation-centred world to a money-centred world. Nations and their quarrels are little more than a welcome diversion that keeps people's attention focused away from the economic coup that is being staged by the financial, industrial, military complex. That's what all these stupid little wars are about - red herrings.
What absolutely terrifies the big money boys is the possibility that their wealth would no longer have value enough to be used as toilet paper if the people overthrow the economic system, as they usually do, when they dump the social system.
Their minds cannot even conceive of a world where they would not always be on top. They just "know" that they belong there and they're firmly convinced that this would be so in any world they lived in. It is pretty much a religion with these folks. As usual you can see the cracks in it where their "real life" fear of losing their wealth shines through these beliefs.
.
i dont want capitalists running the government - nor do i want socialists running capitalists out of business.
capitalism creates jobs, invents new products and medicines, and creates wealth.
the governments job is administer a secular democracy under the rule of law - not redistribute income on the notion that working hard and creating wealth is inherently unfair.
r./
R♥
Capitalism which turns "investment" into a casino based on hyping the next sucker into paying more for nothing beyond the value of speculation, while those who've accrued the most money are able to manipulate the government into the least possible oversight of their scams? Ethical corruption of the lowest sort.
Dealing with a situation where those who've done that *can* buy their own hospitals, cops and provide for their needs with a mere tiny fraction of that which they otherwise can spend on unimaginable (to anyone else) excess, hubris and political manipulation?... Not at all priceless. They can pay for it and do. With 94% of elections won by those who spend the most, something beyond what's legitimized by the current system is going to have to give.
I vote for finding those outside that system one can create something positive with and re-channeling as much of your productivity and resources out of that sewer and into a form of "beneficial capitalism" (which may just turn out to look a bit like socialism, but hey, I can deal with being called names).
Rated.
Yes. And until we understand that they are indeed VERY different things, we'll have a hard time understanding how each effects the other.
baltimore,
Thanks for participating. I agree that business should never run government. I disagree that capitalism creates anything at all. People create those things. They can do so under almost any circumstances. Do you think that there were no millionaires in the communist USSR? Or there are none in communist China?
The government's job is to do whatever the population wants it to do. I have no problem with it not re-distributing wealth - nor do I have a problem with it doing so - its 'job' is to do what the citizens tell it to do; it works for us - not the other way around. If the citizens tell it to pass laws to ensure that everybody in a society gets a fair piece of the pie then that is what it should do. If everybody agrees that government should get its ass out of the way and let us all fight like dogs for every scrap of value, then it should do that.
It is not the place of government to tell us what kind of society we ought to have; it is our place to tell government what kind of society we want it to build. And it is also OUR JOB to make damn sure that our government does as it's told!
tr ig thunder,
It's all well and good to say that when the tool is not working as it should, but two things need to be taken into consideration; one: is the tool at fault or is it how it is being used, and; two: what have we got that will adequately do the job of that tool if we toss it?
onislandtime,
One of the most difficult things to convince Americans of is that there really is a big, rich, world out there beyond American shores. Wall street just isn't that big a deal in world terms. The real power lies with those wealthy and powerful enough to manipulate Wall Street and all such markets, the huge international corporate and financial interests that have no use for national boundaries and operate around the world.
It is no longer a matter of one nation having a revolution and overthrowing a bad regime. Everything is connected. Everything is intertwined with everything else. And "Big Wealth" is undergoing fundamental internal changes right now as well. I can't even begin to guess where that will lead us.
Spike,
Yes. We must first become aware of the elements of each and where they impact each other. Most "revolutions" overthrow both together. I see no need to do that unless that is our choice. I am convinced that we need to establish social goals - "what kind of world do we want to live in and leave to our children?" Once we've done that, then we can look at our economic system and ask it, "How can you get us to where we want to be?" If it can't answer that then it has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced by an economic system that we think CAN do that. Economic systems are only "good" or "bad" in light of how well they can serve us, the people. Not just a few of us, but ALL of us.
phyllis,
Yes, I understood you. That sort of thing is the result of the society not being in control of all aspects of the economic system. There are capitalist countries where that can't happen. They regulate where businesses can open up. The communities affected have a voice also. Americans might scream like hell about being "regulated" in that manner but the good of the society comes first. As it always should.
FusunA,
Thank you so much dear Fusun. You always seem to know the exact moment when a nice belly rub and pat on the head is needed! ;-)
Jonathan,
How could they not? The trick is to ameliorate and moderate those influences so that they are as little harmful to the whole society as possible. It constantly amazes me how those who advocate "no regulation" cannot see that this would work against them in a really serious manner if they ever got that. It's all very well to advocate "might is right" when you have a gun and your neighbour only has a stick; it's a different thing altogether when the neighbour has a howitzer!!
.
I'm with you 100% In fact I've even gone so far as to put forth my "design" for one in an attempt to get others to do likewise. (I called mine "Citizens' Capitalism") But here's the brick wall you'll keep hitting. Most Americans, like most people everywhere, only have experience of THIS "greed capitalism". They cannot usually imagine that there could possibly even BE a different form of capitalism, let alone what shape that form might take. 'Tiz a hard nut to crack.......
.
We as individuals under the Constitution grudgingly agree to forgo our "nature" to enforce our individual notions of what is right by allowing the government a certain amount of authority to use force to assure fair dealings and public safety (nb- NOT public welfare) .
The government is specifically NOT allowed the authority to enact "social engineering". That is the prerogative of our "communities of faith" (be they based on deity or rationality- (mind or spirit)) among their various adherents. Hence the separation of the responsibleness of "church" ( community) from state ( body of enforcement).
It isn't that "social conservatives" lack the humane characteristics of altruism and compassion. It is that we express these through our religious communities. We object strenuously to the attempted takeover of these functions by the unauthorized expansion of the "authority' of what is essentially a collusion of crony capitalists and career politicians in our federal government. Most of us are quite happy with our local governments- if not, we change them.
What we object to is the Milo Minderbinder colossus in Washington that claims it works for everyone, and thereby isn't responsible to help anyone. It then pursues it's own conspiracies and collusions at our expense.
As a marketing tool capitalism has little competition and it's also a great control mechanism as is religion.
I'm a Born Again Capitalist,mainly because if shit was worth anything poor people would be born with aRseholes.
"And from time to time FRed(tm) every tool needs servicing,sharpening etc. Plus when it's not policed properly then we're all fLucked."
Rated with an Ug.
I presume that you meant to say, "if shit was worth anything then poor people would be born without aRseholes."
Ain't it the truth..........
.
The idea of the Commonweal is reflected in our Declaration of Independence; to wit, "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare". Faux conservatives are willing to support the former purpose lavishly -- at least to date, but they act as though the latter purpose is somehow evil.
Yes. They seem unable to understand that the rules of an economic system simply cannot be applied to a social system. It is all very well to be keenly conscious of the bottom line in economics; it is a disaster to give it priority in a social situation. The two have been blended-in-spirit in our society for far too long. It's time to re-think that bit of jiggery-pokery. If you ever want to draw a blank stare from someone, just say to them, "You know that our economic system is capitalism, right? What is our social system?"
The dog-eat-dog greed capitalists have so confused people that they no longer think that there is a difference. Such a shame.
.
What the likes of our UK government call 'the Big Society' is a concept that may never receive enough funding for our society to change and pull together?
"FRed(tm) you're a Fascist Siamese and beyond help. Now press send please and get orf the bloody lapTop."
Rated.
As I understand it, this is a republic, so I suppose our form of govt is republicanism. We commonly call this a democracy, but it isn't -- as the electoral college makes plain.
Over the last thirty years America has become more and more a fascist oligarchy, so you might say our form of govt is fascism. I might prefer the term neo-feudalism, save that under the old form of feudalism, peasants had a chance of feeding themselves -- not so under this regime.
Given that, I suspect the vast majority of Americans will soon be living under a totally new form of government -- futilism.
Exactly! Not only is there a great effort to make us confuse our economic system with our social system there is also a great effort expended in making us think that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. The freedom of capital to do as it pleases is not supportive of democracy and is, in fact, the antithesis of democracy. Democracy and social wellbeing cannot co-exist with unregulated, uncontrolled capitalism. The fire must be kept under control if it is to serve mankind. A raging inferno that gobbles up the wealth created by all in a society and burns the members of that society is NOT a good thing . This is becoming more than obvious in our world today.
Rebecca,
Yes! It is unfortunate that most people think of the whole thing as being a choice between capitalism or socialism. Since the only example of capitalism with which they are familiar is our horrible Greed Capitalism, and since socialists present what seems to be an alternative that is more human and humane, they are beginning to convince a lot of people that the baby must be thrown out with the bath water.
I'd prefer to see the 'tool' used properly and kept under proper control, than see the whole structure torn apart and then re-built as a socialist state. A state, by the way, that uses the exact same pyramidal structure as greed capitalism uses; the high positions of power and control remain in place with only the players changing seats.
BOKO,
If I had tried I could not have provided a better example of how the mixing of concepts has derailed many people's thinking on this.
There is no doubt that the economic system has a strong influence upon the social system. So too does the social system influence the economic system. The amalgamated mish-mash we presently have has allowed the major portion of the social wealth to be accumulated by a few giant corporate/financial entities.
The position you appear to take - that "the rich" ( as individual people) are robbing the 'workers' of their justly earned wealth is pretty outdated. That concept represented reality in times past but does not reflect present day reality in more than a passing way.
"The Rich" of today are not so much individuals as they are corporations/financial institutions. Most wealth is held in corporate shares - not in cold hard cash as was the case in the 19th century. The majority of those shares are owned by such things as pension funds and other organizations. How does one think about things when the same profitable company that is paying one's son or daughter a miserable wage is also the company in which one's pension fund is the major shareholder? One wants better wage to be paid to one's offspring, surely. But one ALSO wants his pension funds located in secure and profitable corporations.
There is also a need for a certain percentage of the profit of a company to be re-invested so as to keep up to date in its methods of production. It costs as much to do this in a socialist society as it does in a capitalist one. Yet socialists decry this 'development capital' as surplus value stolen from the workers. It is not. The interests of the worker are not served by allowing the company they work for to fail to prepare for future financial needs.
There is also no particular reason why individuals cannot earn profit UNLESS in doing so others are harmed. In a properly regulated capitalist system no one need be harmed in any way by profit being earned by others. The wealth produced by a modern system such as ours is more than sufficient for all to partake of it. But we need to understand that it is OUR job as citizens to ensure that capitalism does not run amok with desire for profit. It is not modest profit that causes harm, it is excessive, needless, greed oriented profit that causes harm. Since we certainly know that capitalism can get out of control - indeed ALWAYS makes serious efforts to slip out from under social control - then we need to establish very strict and stringent controls. Fire must be treated with respect and caution in order for it to be a useful tool.
You have made other point that I have not addressed in this response but "sufficient unto the day.....".
Rwoo5g,
........and?
Tom,
I may be wrong, but it seems to be that one of the signs of an economic system getting too big for its britches is that it warps the social system so as to give itself more control of that system instead of being controlled by it. This gives rise to fascist/oligarchic situations. Our own situation is a prime example. The tool, through bribery and subversion, has gained control of the user.
In our case it was able to do so because we use a basically undemocratic method of selecting those who will act oh our behalf, i.e., will 'govern' us. Elections are a terrible way to put people in management positions. All an election does is determine who has the ability and skills to get elected. That skill set has nothing whatsoever to do with the skills needed to govern. Nor does it speak to the notion that those who come to occupy governing positions will, in fact, govern faithfully on behalf of those who elected them.
Political parties, whose interests are NEVER those of the electorate, control who we get to vote for in 99% of cases. This makes their interests dominant. If they sell out to financial or other interests, as in our present situation, we no longer have anything resembling a democratic nation.
What you call "futilism" is what I'd call slavery. Since the goals of capital have come to predominate over social goals, there is no doubt that capital will be best served by absolute control of the workforce along with providing only the barest means of survival of that workforce. Slavery meets that requirement better than anything else. This is why I see it as essential that society have absolute control of the economic system and that the economic system be subservient to social goals.
We, as a society, might have an easier time understanding this if we were to determine a few major social goals upon which we could all agree. One cannot know if one is "making progress" towards one's goals if one is not even aware of what those goals are. As I've said already, we need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in and leave for our children to live in. Then, and only then, will we be able to determine what kind of economic system will best serve our needs.
.
Our UK government has. We learnt it from India.
Money is just paper/entries on a screen until it's turned into power and absolute power corrupts absolutely (allegedly) ?
"Now FRed(tm) who owns the US and UK debt? Oh yes, China.
So lets be 'sociable' and imagine American's all have passports to experience overseas social systems and we Brits all have brains."
Learnt it from India? I thought you'd had royalty much longer......
.
The 'Big Society' continues unfunded though.
As you might expect, the answer to that is a resounding, "NO!".....
.
Man is, by nature, a social creature. We live in societies. So why do some folks scream in fear when the word Socialism comes up? Because it's another economic system, in and of itself where the means of production is owned by the state instead of the other way around in capitalism where the means of production is vested, generally, in the individuals.
In both cases, there has to be some redistribution of wealth in order to provide for the common benefit. But societies cannot exist without some form of socialism in that people work together for a common set of percieved interests and needs, where we are willing to sublimate our individual points of view for an overall greater common interest that keeps society running.
Captialism cannot exist, like Socialism cannot exist, without a society to power it. I think your premise and point are well made and hopefully plenty of folks out there will see it's common sense and clarity for what it is -- truth.
--r--
Thank you for your interesting addition to this discussion. I agree with 99% of your comment and would only decry your use of the word "socialism" when referring to the co-operation of people to accomplish their goals. Socialism has a much greater implication than mere co-operation, don't you think?
.
Hey! Those are the qualifications for being a politician or a preacher! Doesn't matter which party or religion, all politicians and preachers want the same.
(Even the Nigerian Princesses? I didn't know that that kind of "tail" interested you.)
;-)
.