Poll: Capitalism dying?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I note that 'WorkingClassBro' is repeating one of Marx's more hilariously wrong predictions.

Capitalism is more a slur than a well-defined economic term

It's useful as an economic-term-in-historical-perspective because it isn't as though there's another word lying around to be used, and as new jargon is invariably terrible.

I like market economy, that's a term which I understand the definition of. Whenever people talk about capitalism they're usually being very political and very emotional and I'm not sure EXACTLY what it means. It seems to often be something like "United Fruits shooting union members in Latin America"

Political economy is a political subject. Any descriptive term used for the positive analysis of economic systems will inevitably be used to make normative claims. I am not exactly sure what defines a market economy, which is a term that strikes me as a shibboleth for those on the right.

It's certainly true that capitalism is an obsolete term that only has a clear meaning when we're talking about the 19th or early 20th century. Political economy was pretty cut and dry then: the only industrialized nations with functioning markets in all arenas of life were characterized by nightwatchman states. Now the most meaningful questions of political economy are not centered upon deciding whether or not markets should exist but rather what values markets should embody. Even radical Marxists agree that markets should exist: their argument is that computing power should facilitate capital flows or that worker-owned firms should be responsible for the decisions made by "capitalists".  The idea of the "command economy" is defunct.

I agree that capitalism is a defunct firm from a different era but all substitutes for the term are heavily politicized. For instance, I think that "neo-liberalism" or "late capitalism" are very descriptive and useful terms but that they've been ruined because they've been used pejoratively by activists.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.

I think you did not take my meaning clearly. First of all I'm not speaking of my views, but recognizing what I see as a cogent position, even though it need not be shared by others. Second when I speak of a feature I don't mean that it's a goal to maintain a class of poor people, but a recognition that a system that promotes social and economic mobility must perforce have individuals who are better off than others. Hence it's a feature.

Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?

I used the second person as a rhetorical device, which was pretty unclear of me. I certainly understand that line of reasoning but it's always struck me as a facetious argument. There's no real political opposition to a limited level of inequality in which doctors have higher living standards than the unemployed but many believe that it's desirable for millions of Americans to be reduced to privation so long as the labor market remains flexible and economic growth is increased.

I reject the premise that "nature" plays a major role in the existence of inequality but I understand your point.