Capitalism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Capitalism » Capitalism

Capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Capitalism

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 427

Posted 04/27/09 - 07:04 AM:	#21
Kamerynn It depends whether you see economics and our relations to them as the all-governing factor of our lives, like Marx, or whether you see humans as more socially governed animals. I would say yes, the society we live in does limit our freedoms and persuade, maybe not force us to become capitalists. We are brought up to believe that you have to have money to do what you want and to achieve freedom. Fried Egg Is the choice really ours? We need 'material goods,' like food, water and shelter. Capitalism operates a cash nexus, in that it makes profit out of the things humans require the most to survive. I guess that capitalism has an advantage over socialism as you get competition over the pricing of food etc. But for those that are poorest, does it really make a difference if Tesco sells bread 5p/cents cheaper than Walmart? Capitalism controls basic human rights and subjugates them in favour of profit. Capitalism breeds materialism, ironically because more people are better off than in other types of societies. Its got its good points and bad points, but I personally think we can do better than capitalism in terms of individual freedoms.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 390

Posted 04/27/09 - 07:32 AM:	#22
Capitalism combined with restraints and regulation is what best enables people in choosing life and degree of activity. I opt for strong government including police that also cares for those who fail to fulfil life's obligations, ie. social benefits-programs. There is an abyss in USA today, I sense, in that some people are chained to "stupid" work without being compensated enough for it. I hope this changes so that respect completely permeates every society. I think the future consists in capitalism that merges with socialism toward the centrist position. The fringe is, of course, Russia and China as they are a little chaotic, but they will come around. It's funny to observe how politicians always close in on the middle of political discussion as the election day nears. Anarchy is not an option! It fails to give the people in such a system qualities in life. It's usually both corrupt and chaotic, only upheld by pockets of people who agree on projects and duties.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:34 PM:	#23
@ Fried Egg. Basically, I feel it's two questions. Firstly, it's the question of evil, which taints every possible economic system, and maybe shouldn't be brought up anymore since it's so constant. Secondly, before capitalism, people had things. When capitalism began, these people has an advantage over equally matched opponents. This forms a loose chain of favoritism (ala the Rothschilds) in which I can't beat this guy because he's a multimillionaire, and his money's been in his family for six-hundred years, since the king of England stole it from someone and gave it to his great-great...grandfather. Which isn't really a capitalist approved advantage.
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England

Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2963

Posted 04/27/09 - 01:19 PM:	#24
sheps Is the choice really ours? We need 'material goods,' like food, water and shelter. Hang on a minute, one minute capitalism is being blamed for turning us into wage slaves and then when I point out that this is only so far as we are dependent on others to produce the things that we want, you point out that we really need these things and so don't have a choice. If there are things that we intrinsically need, then it is not capitalism doing the enslaving because we need these things in whichever system is in place. In an autarkic system we would have to produce these things for ourselves. At least in capitalism we can better supply ourselves with the things we really need because even if we can't produce those things ourselves, we can produce something else that someone else wants in exchange. Of the things we don't really need to survive, we do have a choice and if we want to have those things (and cannot produce them ourselves) we must become "wage slaves" (although the use of the word slave here really isn't appropriate). Capitalism operates a cash nexus, in that it makes profit out of the things humans require the most to survive. Capitalism doesn't make a profit. People do by supplying those things that people most want and need. It ensures that the things people want/need the most get them (as long as they can produce things that other people want in return. But for those that are poorest, does it really make a difference if Tesco sells bread 5p/cents cheaper than Walmart? Damn right it does. Capitalism has driven down the cost of food and other goods and services making things available to the poorest segments of society that they never would have had in the past. PontificatingChauncy Basically, I feel it's two questions. Firstly, it's the question of evil, which taints every possible economic system, and maybe shouldn't be brought up anymore since it's so constant. I'm not really sure I see a question here? Secondly, before capitalism, people had things. When capitalism began, these people has an advantage over equally matched opponents. This forms a loose chain of favoritism (ala the Rothschilds) in which I can't beat this guy because he's a multimillionaire, and his money's been in his family for six-hundred years, since the king of England stole it from someone and gave it to his great-great...grandfather. Which isn't really a capitalist approved advantage. Yes, prior distributions of wealth mean that we didn't all start playing the rules of capitalism fairly (even judged from the point of view of the market) and even now, wealth is ammassed by people, not because they have served the markets well, but because they have secured favourable government intervention that weakens consumer sovereignty. But as I have said already, in a properly functioning market economy, wealth is maintained only by investing in ways which serve the markets well. It is a gradual shift towards a more meritocratic distrubition of wealth.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 04/27/09 - 03:54 PM:	#25
Fried Egg wrote: Damn right it does. Capitalism has driven down the cost of food and other goods and services making things available to the poorest segments of society that they never would have had in the past. Well, when it comes to food in the United States, it's heavy government subside (tax money) that lead to the appearance of reduced food cost since WWII. Combine with food stamps (more tax money), those below the poverty line are pretty much getting their food for free. The market really has little to do with the food availability here. Also, privatization doesn't always lead to reduce cost. Certain things, no matter how inefficient, are still better run by the government. Enron and the energy crisis in California is one example of when capitalism goes wrong. Health insurance is another one of those example, when compare with other developed countries, the health system in the United State cost way more and cover much less. Edited by 123savethewhales on 04/27/09 - 04:06 PM
Keep it simple.

timw
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 451

Posted 04/27/09 - 07:48 PM:	#26
I'm ignorant on these matters of capitalism, communism, and socialism. But I'm pretty sure these are just labels for theories. Would the OP consider recasting his question in terms of real, existing systems and conditions? The original question reads: Capitalism, necessary for freedom? What society in what country is free, if any? In what country is capitalism practiced, if any? I assume that strictly speaking the answer to both questions is none, and probably for good reason. Could we start with a good (and short) working definition of freedom for this discussion, where it's found in it's most realized form, and how the economy in that place facilitates, grounds, and supports that freedom?