Why blaming Capitalism for everything is irrational

[MellowDem]

Post after post after post on here purports to know what is wrong with our world. The authors can point to one enemy, which makes it rather easy and convenient: Capitalism. Ah yes, Capitalism. It is evil, poisonous, and the cause of all of our problems today. The BP oil spill? Blame Capitalism. Global warming? Blame Capitalism. Wars? Capitalism. Recession? Capitalism.

But delve a little deeper (you don't have to go far) and you see that these same problems happen in non-capitalist societies.

Research a little more and you will see that this Great Satan has infested even the most liberal/progressive nations on Earth, often deemed to be the fairest, equalest, happiest, best places to live by many on here, and a good place to run to as the US capitalist empire collapses.

So what gives? How can these contradictions exist if Capitalism is the evil force that it is? The truth is that they can't. The truth is that these authors are wrong. There are many causes to the problems we have today, and blaming them all on this economic theory is a good way to miss a lot of them. But this is a hard truth that people don't want to hear. They want a simple, easy, identifiable enemy. Just look at the Tea Party and their demonization of Socialsim/Communism. The demonization of Capitalism seems to follow their form exactly. Not only is there a general ignorance of what Capitalism actually is, there is a paranoid sense that every problem in the world can be traced back to its evil ideas.

When it comes to demonzing Socialism/Communism, the right points to the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and North Korea as evidence and proof that it is an evil, failed policy. And when bad things happen in America, they point to the increasing power of these evil theories as the blame. And those who would defend the idea of Socialism/Communism will say that Soviet Russia was a distortion of Communism, not real Communism, and that is why it didn't work.

When it comes to demonizing Capitalism, the strategy is eerily similar. As pretty much every nation is capitalist in the modern world, any problem is blamed on it, and perhaps it is more believable because Capitalism is pretty much the only game in town (though there are such things as mixed economies that are really what most of the world is). Successful nations are deemed "socialist", even though they are capitalist as well, while unsuccessful nations are capitalist, despite the fact that they may have elements of socialsm. And defenders of Capitalism will say that the reason Capitalism fails in some places is because it is a distorition of Capitalism, and not real Capitalism.

The problem with this way of thinking about problems is that it is oversimplified and doesn't address the real causes of the problems we have. It is a comforting way of thinking, because it allows for lazy thinking and easy explanations, not to mention the hope for easy solutions. If the problems of the world can be traced to one evil ideology, then all that we have to do to live happily ever after is defeat this ideology, or so the saying goes. That's what many thought of Communism, but then the end of the Cold War came, and people began to realize that the world is more complicated than two competing economic theories or ideologies.

I suggest we don't fall into that comforting trap and continue to think critically about the problems that plauge us.

[madville]

1. Small scale capitalism was great

Back when we had independently family owned restaurants, furniture manufacturers, shoe, appliance, and clothing stores, etc. People made a few bucks and provided local jobs. Now we are all slaves to foreign manufacturers and large scale distributors, no other options. Capitalism works when you are buying domestically manufactured goods from domestic distributors, we're well past that now.

[MellowDem]

4. Capitalism still works...

it's just whether it works in a way that is good for people or not. And the only thing that controls that factor is the government that regulates it.

[RKP5637]

2. I think you make a good point that the problems we face are quite complex and

not simply solved by a shift to another ideology. What I see today is runaway Capitalism, I've seen this growing over the past 30 years or so with the extreme empire building we now have with many corporations leading to numerous oligopolies. We also have revolving doors between politicians and corporations, a shrinking middle class and skewing of the wealth of the country to a few percentage points holding great power. IMO what we have is an unbalanced capitalistic model due to lack of regulations and gaming the system.

[MellowDem]

5. I agree...

and I think a lot of that, if not all of that, can be blamed on our government and conservative policy that it has pursued over the last couple decades.

[daleanime]

3. Yes, we don't want to fall into any comfortable traps...

might kept the rain off our heads.:sarcasm: If you want to 'continue to think critically about the problems that plauge us.', you first have to restrict/limit/modify our capitalism system. Because money frames the debate in all the MSM. Simply check the cat food committee for that truth.

[MellowDem]

8. I agree...

but calling capitalism an evil that has to be destroyed effectively removes any sort of critical thinking is all I was saying. The problem is absolute, as is the solution.

The truth is that there is not much of a real "debate" on capitalism in our society. Or the government policies that regulate it. A lot of the reason for that is the lack of class conciousness in American society and in its place is a hyperconsciousness of culture. Hence the culture wars, instead of class wars. Hence people consistently voting against their best economic interests in the name of moral wedge issues. There is class awareness, but not nearly as much as elsewhere. And the conservatives have subverted the idea of class into the idea of culture. Now the rich are the elite and the liberal, the poor are the liberal's parasite brethren, and the "hard-workin' American" working class are the conservatives, according to conservatives.

[anarch]

6. greed, ignorance, and delusion have forever been the roots of our problems

It's just that capitalism institutionalizes and sort of glorifies these qualities.

[MellowDem]

10. No, it doesn't...

Our government does that.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. Who're the winners in a capitalist system?

The greediest. Otherwise stated as the one's who make the most money. It's certainly not the one's who have the general population's best interests at heart. The ideals of capitalism is to make as much money as possible and, at BEST, ignore everyone else. Step on and destroy any competition and at WORST, screw over everyone else because everyone else is a potential competitor. Contrast that with the IDEALS of a socialist state.

Edited to flesh out the thought.

[MellowDem]

46. Not necessarily...

There are quite a few successful companies that aren't the greediest. And the greediest companies aren't necessarily the most successful. The way our government is set up, a few people with lots of resources can unduly influence the process of government to get what they want. That is a failure of government. Whether you have capitalism or not, you'll have people trying to get the government to help them out especially, even at the expense of others. They'll do what they can to control and influence government.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. So I guess the government is supposed to

"regulate" capitalism? How does that work when capitalists have enough money to BUY the government? Greed is greed. There can be only degrees of greed. It's a system that's based on getting as much as you can from a customer, no matter what the cost of production. That's greed.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Individual greedy actors are supposed to produce optimal results

without gummint regulation. They don't. And as you point out, large capital formations quickly repurpose government regulation to create barriers to competition, unless a vigilant population uses their electoral power to prevent that, which we certainly failed to do.

But the system is not sustainable. We have reached its limits and the crisis we are in is the long end game of its demise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Capitalism might be OK if it weren't for the goddam capitalists.

[MellowDem]

9. Anarchy would be OK if it weren't for anarchists breaking Starbuck's windows

;-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. You can bet the capitalists will make a profit from it.

BTW Anarchy does not equal Anarchism. Not that some Anarchists aren't every bit as much assholes as some capitalists.

[MellowDem]

18. I know, just poking fun! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. So am I.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. thsm;dr

Title has straw man; didn't read.

[MellowDem]

22. Straw man of what?

I didn't link to any positions to misinterpret, now did I? But thanks for taking the time to reply. :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

27. title has straw man

"Why blaming Capitalism foreverything is irrational."

That seems to be a gross mis-characterization of the current criticism of our socio-economic system. Grossly misstating an argument in order to attack that misstated position is 'constructing a strawman'.

Is that clear?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. Thx

:hi:

[MellowDem]

35. ..for playing

:hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. See my sig line?

Despite what it says, it's not just for creationists.

[MellowDem]

42. It's for yourself as well?

OH SNAP!

See how easy that is?

Have a nice day!

:hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. "I know you are but what am I" arguing really betrays your age.

Your mental one, at least.

Bye.

[MellowDem]

34. Not at all...

There are SOME who do indeed blame capitalism for practically everything. This post is addressing that argument. I never said that this was about the "current criticism of our socio-economic system", whatever that is or however that is defined. By you I guess?

So you defining what the argument is doesn't make sense. Is that clear?

[Warren Stupidity]

37. So in addition to your not being terribly well versed on what capitalism is

you also do not understand why mis-characterizing an argument is a dubious rhetorical dodge. The fact that you might be able to find one poster who once claimed that capitalism is causing every know bad thing to happen does not justify the title of your OP. Instead the title of your OP is a strawman argument.

[MellowDem]

40. I mischarachterized no argument...

and your own post even suggests that. I fully understand why mischaracterizing an argument is a dodge. I also understand why you are trying, unsuccessfully, to make it look that way. My post is addressing this specific argument, which does exist. That is not a straw man. Why that rankles you so much I don't know. I know there are multiple posts that criticize capitalism but are rational about it. This isn't about those posts.

In addition, you then accuse me for not being well-versed on capitalism as a sort of distraction or "backup" to your claim that I don't know that a straw man is a dubious rhetorical dodge. And provide no explanation.

Have a nice day!

:hi:

[JHB]

12. That's the point to stress, isn't it?

That there's more than one kind of capitalism, and more than one kind of socialism. The real question isn't either/or, but "what's the mix?"

We used to have a mix that promoted wide-spread prosperity and asset-building. By the '70s it needed some "course corrections", but the push in politics wasn't to fix things but to dismantle them. Since then we've had a version that has promoted liquidation and speculation. Terrific for some, but at terrific cost.

[Fumesucker]

13. Capitalism is like fire..

It is a powerful tool but a fearsome master.

In the USA as currently constituted capitalism has become the master rather than the tool it should be.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. Capitalism is what it's proponents

SAY it is. Have you EVER heard a capitalist say, "REGULATE ME!"? Ergo what we've been moving toward since Reagan (unregulated business controlled by capital)is what capitalism IS. It will ALWAYS seek to become the master BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

That's one way that the fall of the USSR was a bad thing. Although not really that socialistic in practice, at least it's IDEALS gave the world a counter and a CHECK on what capitalism ALWAYS seeks. No regulation on capital and the markets.

[Fumesucker]

48. The big companies like government regulation in some respects..

It keeps out the riff-raff smaller companies who might compete with them but for the high fixed costs of complying with government regulations. The larger your market share the easier it is to comply with regulations in terms of percentage of your total effort.

And fire always seeks to engulf what it can reach to burn, that's why it is a fearsome master, if you let it get away from you it will burn you to a smoking cinder.

As will capitalism if we let it get away from us. I personally think this has already happened.

[David__77]

15. This is an ideological question.

What is capitalism? What is socialism? If you're a Marxist, then socialism is merely a transitional society on the way to communism, retaining many capitalist characteristics. If you are a social democrat, then socialism is really another word for capitalism. Either way, socialism and capitalism are very similar as social systems.

[rug]

16. The only thing irrational about it is capitalism itself.

Unless, of course, you're into rationalizing.

[MellowDem]

24. Well, that explains it...

At least, it explains why people have only one sentance replies.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. The limit to growth is the end of capitalism as we know it.

We are there. It doesn't matter if you love our socio-economic system or hate it, its fundamentals are at odds with reality. Civilization cannot continue to base itself on the invisible hand of a system motivated by greed and dependent on perpetual growth.

The current system functioned well enough for the last 250 years or so, because we humans and our socio-economic system were a small enough part of the planetary eco-system for the 'perpetual' growth model to function as if we had infinite resources to consume and infinite space to discharge the toxic by-products of that consumption. It is painfully obvious that this is no longer the case. We are running out of the resources that literally fuel our consumption and we are killing ourselves and the rest of the planetary eco-system with our toxic excretions. As a civilization we have demonstrated essentially a complete lack of political will to change, so change will instead be forced on us by circumstances.

We will change and re-organize on a vastly more self-aware basis or we will collapse as a civilization. Other civilizations before us have collapsed, and they have done so in fairly short order when their fundamentals ceased to be in harmony with the reality of their existence.

[MellowDem]

26. Capitalism doesn't require greed or unlimited growth. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Yeah actually it requires perpetual growth

and is organized around the greed motivated behavior of individual actors, which is a non self-aware organization, Smith's 'invisible hand'. I did not say 'unlimited'.

[MellowDem]

33. The invisible hand refers to the free market...

and how the invisible hand of the market will most efficiently allocate resources. Part of the reason this will happen is self-interest. Some will say there is a difference between self-interest and greed. I would say there is.

Where that says that capitalism requires perpetual growth is beyond me. You could just as easily say that the want for sustainable growth involves self-interest.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. You need to google invisible hand

Here I'll do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

Where free markets are concerned, Smith felt that if capital was able to flow naturally on its own accord that it would, without the assistance of government, flow to the most productive hands; as the individual simply strives to better his own condition.

All those individuals independently striving to 'better their own conditions' are an aggregation of uncoordinated greedy actors. Smith is right in that capital flows to where it is most productive, but 'most productive' is measured by how large a pile of wealth can be accumulated at the fastest rate. If 'greed' is too emotional a term for this, fine, use some other word, but the concept remains the same. Millions of actors all trying to increase their own wealth accumulation rates, whatever you want to call that, is what this system is based on, and that model is at odds with the carrying capacity of the planetary eco-system.

We cannot continue in the current fashion without causing a catastrophe.

[MellowDem]

43. Whether striving to better one's own condtion is greed...

is the qeustion. Do you think immigrants are greedy people for seeking a better life? Of course not. So the term can be interpreted a couple of ways.

Capitalism doesn't say that you have to strive to better your own condition through hurting others. You could, of course. But you could also better your own condition through improving society as a whole and helping others. The system is based on supply and demand as well. And supply can be finite and still allow capitalism to exist. So can demand, for that matter.

[FreakinDJ]

19. The system we have now is NOT Capitalism

[The Northerner]

20. True

From what I see, it's mostly crony capitalism.

[murdoch]

21. Capitalism is not an ideology...

...it is a system of production.

Ten thousand years ago people lived as hunter gatherers. Many in the Americas still did when Columbus landed here five centuries ago. A handful of hunter-gatherer bands still exist in scattered remote areas of the world.

Then ten thousand years ago, all over the world almost simultaneously, people began farming. Why they did makes little sense, hunting and gathering is far superior to *primitive* farming in almost every way imaginable. But they began farming, improved their methods and soon you had the giant slave latifundias of Athens and Rome.

Time goes on and Europe becomes a network of lands with peasants, kings and churches - feudalism in the Middle Ages.

Italian city-states like Florence have large ports with trading, and mercantile capitalism comes into play, which eventually takes hold in England with the industrialization of the textile trade where we have modern industrial capitalism. One might even say we are in the midst of another leap from that, from industrial capitalism to a modern service-based monopoly capitalism.

In 1871, Paris created a commune with a non-capitalist form of government. In 1917, Russia began attempting to form a non-capitalist government. In 1936, Spain began forming a non-capitalist government (which failed partly to communists and anarchists shooting one another instead of the fascists). In 1949, China moved away from capitalism. And so on.

These are all different methods of production, not "ideologies". There were idealogues in the various systems, but almost all the well-known ones had ideas that were in tune with the dominant system of production. To allude to Joseph Campbell's observation, this goes back to Cain the farmer killing Abel the shepherd, with Cain then being forced to abandon farming and wander the earth. Perfectly in tune with the wandering Semitic society of that day.

[Better Believe It]

23. Socialism is also a system of production and yes it is a political ideology, just as much as there

is a political ideology in defense of capitalism.

[MellowDem]

29. Couple of things...

Why people began farming makes a lot of sense.

And Fascists aren't Capitalists. They are National Socialists, and their ideas of the methods of production would be deemed rather "socialist" all in all.

[murdoch]

54. Primitive farming makes no sense

If you have some unique knowledge of why 10,000 years ago people all over the world began farming at the same time, then you should come forward as you would certainly be laying a bombshell in the fields of anthropology, history, genetics etc.

As I said, switching from hunting and gathering to farming made no sense. We did not have the crops we have today, wild grasses were domesticated for tens of thousands of years to create the crops we have today.



At the time there were no pack animals (which had not been domesticated yet), no farm implements, no crop rotation, and no modern crops. Less necessary was modern irrigation, fertilizer etc., but those were lacking as well.

If the immediate switch to farming made sense, why did so many tens of thousands of years go by before people began farming? You are comparing today to back then, not back then to back then.

I don't know of any major (or minor) anthropologist who would disagree with me...

[MellowDem]

60. There are lots and lots of possible reasons...

but to say that it "makes no sense" makes no sense. There are many possible reasons why it made sense and a lot of theories out there. And farming did not begin all over the world at the same time 10,000 years ago. There are definite spans of time between the use of agriculture in different regions.

I think that between the climate change in certain regions and the population pressure in certain regions there are plenty of possible reasons that make good sense as to why agriculture developed in the way it did.

[inna]

62. So you have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about.

"And Fascists aren't Capitalists. They are National Socialists, and their ideas of the methods of production would be deemed rather "socialist" all in all."

Fascists did NOT have socialist methods of production.

That was one of the most deeply ignorant claims I've EVER read at DU.



Done with this thread.

[RedCloud]

25. How many must live in misery to create one millionaire?

[jp11]

30. Capitalism called me lazy then took my lunch money.

:cry:

[RadiationTherapy]

32. The word "everything" is irrational. The assertion that a person could blame "everything"

on anything is irrational.

[MellowDem]

38. It's a turn of phrase that is quite popular, at least where I am from...

It means "practically" everything rather than "literally" everything.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. The land of the absurd where A is not A?

Now you are not well versed on rhetoric, misinformed regarding capitalism, and not really much for logic either. Good show!

[JoseGaspar]

49. The OP is not actually asking for a discussion of the subject...

...which would be impossible in this type of forum in any case. Instead the OP invites a recitation of the Civic Catechism ("Capitalism is the very best system ever created by God or Man, etc. etc."). The OP may find that this recitation is far easier when it is lubricated by prosperity and cold cash; in an era in which middle-classes are being created and not destroyed.

Still, this does not prevent the OP from decrying the "demonization" of capitalism because that is "oversimplified and doesn't address the real causes of the problems we have".

Really?

Presumably, we are about to quote Malthus on "over population" or once again talk sadly about "human nature". No mere "ideology" compares.

But Capitalism is much more than an ideology; it is an economic system.

At last count, there were something like 20 million unemployed and 4 million houses foreclosed or under foreclosure. Eight million jobs have been permanently eliminated and the Gulf of Mexico has been transformed into a petroleum storage basin. Virtually every social gain and program is under siege... and, to date, not a single geophysical, or other natural cause has been found to account for it.

If this is not contemporary capitalism on display, it is an astonishing example of mass hypnosis... with the hypnotic spell centered on the dismissal of all that is so obviously true as a "comforting trap"... probably accompanied by walking on all fours and barking like a dog.

Ever read Ionesco?

[Warren Stupidity]

53. ^ what he said ^

[Hydra]

55. +1000

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[JoseGaspar]

56. Thank You

I've actually been here for 3 years.

I just don't normally say much.

Thanks, anyway, though...

[Hydra]

57. Heh, I used to lurk a lot

So belated welcome, and excellent post.

[inna]

63. Thank you for an Excellent post, and....

you really should post more often! :) Seriously, we need more intelligence and critical thinking, here and in the society in general. :hi:

[harun]

65. Good post.

[Kievan Rus]

50. Corporatism is an extremist version of capitalism

It's essentially what al-Qaeda is to Islam or what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity...an extremist off-shoot.

[Hydra]

58. Natural progression

On its way to becoming too big kill and too big to exist.

[inna]

64. Precisely.

We're in uncharted territories, really. :scared:

We're not dealing with some Robber Barons here. This is a highly evolved (or devolved, rather), nightmarish, high-tech, militarized version; with highly efficient methods of population control. High Capital has more power and wealth and control and global reach than ever before. The limits to growth appear to be reached, or close.

These are going to be some interesting times...

[Electric Monk]

61. plauge?