Has capitalism failed, if so why? : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Has capitalism failed, if so why? » Has capitalism failed, if so why?

Has capitalism failed, if so why?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Has capitalism failed, if so why?

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 10/07/09 - 02:40 AM:	#11
Do you mean you agree with my rant? Please be careful, I know really nothing about economics. I'm just a silly relativist! Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 10/07/09 - 05:15 AM:	#12
The problem is that we neither have capitalism nor socialism, but a mixture of both, so you can't point to the world and say, look this was caused by capitalism, or look, this was caused by socialism, simply because that is something we have currently. We don't. It is like putting a tiger and a lion in a house without watching them and then when after a day when releasing them and enter the house we find marks on the wall and say, "look, the tiger did this, since there was a tiger in the house" or "look, the lion did this, since there was a lion in the house".
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 421

Posted 10/07/09 - 05:24 AM:	#13
keda wrote: The problem is that we neither have capitalism nor socialism, but a mixture of both, so you can't point to the world and say, look this was caused by capitalism, or look, this was caused by socialism, simply because that is something we have currently. We don't. It is like putting a tiger and a lion in a house without watching them and then when after a day when releasing them and enter the house we find marks on the wall and say, "look, the tiger did this, since there was a tiger in the house" or "look, the lion did this, since there was a lion in the house". Haven't we in the recent past, and even still now, been leaning more towards capitalism than socialism? The free market STILL dominates, the stock exchange is still central to our lives and superficial fetishisation of goods is still rampant. I agree with you to an extent, but I think that a lurch to the left would do us all some good. We have a mixture now, but its a very liberalistic, individualist, competitive; essentially, capitalist mixture.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 10/07/09 - 05:36 AM:	#14
sheps wrote: Haven't we in the recent past, and even still now, been leaning more towards capitalism than socialism? I would say the exact opposite, but it doesn't matter which we lean more to. A problem could still be caused by the other. The free market STILL dominates, the stock exchange is still central to our lives and superficial fetishisation of goods is still rampant. Superficial fetishisation of goods has nothing to do with capitalism. The only way to figure out what caused the marks, is twofold: 1. look at the marks i.e. the characteristics of the problem caused, and 2. look at the claws of the beast i.e. the theoretical characteristics of cause. If the mark doesn't match the claws, then we can safely say it wasn't caused by that beast. So, if we don't look at the claws first (i.e. what free market capitalism actually entails, or what socialism actually entails) we can't say it was caused by either. And in this case, to attribute superficial fetishisation of goods I think is a mischaracterisation of free market capitalism.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 421

Posted 10/07/09 - 05:47 AM:	#15
It is an undeniable feature of modern capitalism that people always want a product which professes to look better or be more efficient; hence why fashion trends are created. However, you're right, I wouldn't put this down to free market capitalism solely, but would rather say that it is a requirement of capitalism that new technologies continue to be developed, and that these technologies make their way into the consumer market. People are made to want them through clever advertising techniques - it is this which keeps capitalism going. Whether this would be the same under socialism, an economic system which also places high importance upon technology and the idea of the industrialised city, is difficult to say. Captialism has 'improved' itself, in my view, in recent years, because it is delivering technological changes which mostly seem to benefit consumers, not just encouraging people to have the latest clothes or fashion accessories, which are of no use whatsoever. I believe in fact that both capitalism and socialism could lead to fetishisation of goods; I do not believe that consumer fetishes are part of human nature. What do you believe the cause of fetishisation of goods to be, Keda? Better technology?
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

magnusmay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/07/09 - 12:00 PM: Subject: Has capitalism failed, if so why?	#16
Another case of "the tyranny of the minority" John Stuart Mill (if I remember correctly). However, if we think about it in terms of a political mandate being given to those who have (i.e. big business, the wealthy etc) instead of the electorate, maybe not! A true democracy is impossible to achieve, but as a normative concept, if we live in a democratic country, we should be striving to achieve as true a democracy as possible. I do not think this is happening (if it ever was). As objective structures economic and political systems will never suit all the people all the time I agree. The "state" is a subject in itself, but in the eyes of its people it will always be objective.

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 421

Posted 10/07/09 - 02:12 PM:	#17
magnusmay wrote: Another case of "the tyranny of the minority" John Stuart Mill (if I remember correctly). Tyranny of the majority; I believe Mill was arguing that in a democracy, smaller groups would always be persecuted against. This is early Mill, really. Again, this is from my rather unreliable memory, its been a long time since I read him. But I think it was him who made this quote like you say - if it wasn't, it was someone like Herbert Spencer or the other political liberals. Another nice Mill quote I like is "the despotism of custom."
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 10/08/09 - 11:12 AM:	#18
sheps wrote: It is an undeniable feature of modern capitalism that people always want a product which professes to look better or be more efficient; hence why fashion trends are created. However, you're right, I wouldn't put this down to free market capitalism solely, but would rather say that it is a requirement of capitalism that new technologies continue to be developed, and that these technologies make their way into the consumer market. People are made to want them through clever advertising techniques - it is this which keeps capitalism going. Capitalism is merely the idea of having private property rights protected. Capitalism isn't relying on clever advertising techniques. There are deceptive people whether in socialism or in capitalism, but in capitalism such are punished for engaging in fraud. What we have is not really capitalism but corporatism, which means the private property of a few are protected while they exploit the rest, as they have bought and paid for the government that enables them to do this. In capitalism nobody is exploiting someone else but all cooperation is mutual, not onesided like it is now. I believe in fact that both capitalism and socialism could lead to fetishisation of goods; I do not believe that consumer fetishes are part of human nature. What do you believe the cause of fetishisation of goods to be, Keda? Better technology? I wouldn't blame technology, but certain kinds of people, the witchdoctors who put the spell on the people, as well as the people who buy into it.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

magnusmay
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/08/09 - 11:21 AM: Subject: Has capitalism failed, if so why?	#19
I am sure it is the "tyranny of the minority". Mill argues that minority groups tend to have "axes to grind" and therefore more often get their views heard than the apathetic majority.

sheps
Assistant Professor

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

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 421

Posted 10/08/09 - 06:30 PM:	#20
magnusmay wrote: I am sure it is the "tyranny of the minority". Mill argues that minority groups tend to have "axes to grind" and therefore more often get their views heard than the apathetic majority. Fair enough, if you're sure. This is what democracy tends to evolve into anyway, especially representative democracy. A deformed oligarchy, like we've got in the UK.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.