Socialism: The Natural Result of Capitalism

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

So I’m studying business in Hong Kong, and one of my professors (who I often disagree with) brings up the idea that the inevitable end of a successful capitalist nation is… socialism.

My first reaction was to point to the US, but I had to admist he has a point. Most well developed nations have a well developed welfare system. Communism fails, but Europe displays that social-democracy is alive and well. America is pretty much the lone outlier, in my opinion because entrepreneurialism and individualism are bred into our national culture. But even we are moving, seemingly inexorably, to the left.

Yes, I realize this was what Marx was getting at, but I think my professor is pointing at something practical, not involving a revolution.

I realize there’s no such thing as entirely capitalist, or entirely socialist (well… there is… but pretty much every modern nation is a mix of the two), but I am seeing a historical slide to the left, as economies become more and more developed.

I think most on this forum believe a slide to socialism is a bad thing. To you believe the US is consigned to this fate?

2

Not necessarily. The constitution is very well written and has safe guards against such things taking over. The founding fathers were no dummies. That being said, that doesn’t mean in can’t happen here, it just would have to happen much more slowly and such matters are more difficult to get done than say, in Chile or Venezuela.

In those countries you can strong arm congress and force and threaten to get your way. You cannot do that here and that is usually how it happens. Here you need a favorable congress and one that will be around for a while. 2 years can do damage, but not undoable damage.

3

I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

4

[quote]orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

[/quote]

I see it the other way around: capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy

5

[quote]valiance. wrote:
orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

I see it the other way around: capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy[/quote]

Can´t be, because historically capitalism preceded modern democracies and a lot of non-democratic capitalist societies are alive and well.

6

Capitalism can only result in a free society. Democracy doesn’t necessarily lead to free society.

Democracy will result in socialism because it tends to direct policy at the lowest common denominator.

7

[quote]Otep wrote:
So I’m studying business in Hong Kong, and one of my professors (who I often disagree with) brings up the idea that the inevitable end of a successful capitalist nation is… socialism.

My first reaction was to point to the US, but I had to admist he has a point. Most well developed nations have a well developed welfare system. Communism fails, but Europe displays that social-democracy is alive and well. America is pretty much the lone outlier, in my opinion because entrepreneurialism and individualism are bred into our national culture. But even we are moving, seemingly inexorably, to the left.

Yes, I realize this was what Marx was getting at, but I think my professor is pointing at something practical, not involving a revolution.

I realize there’s no such thing as entirely capitalist, or entirely socialist (well… there is… but pretty much every modern nation is a mix of the two), but I am seeing a historical slide to the left, as economies become more and more developed.

I think most on this forum believe a slide to socialism is a bad thing. To you believe the US is consigned to this fate?[/quote]

Your prof is spot on. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. As long as people can vote, they’ll not vote to be unemployed so that capitalism can flourish. Notice how as the right to vote got expanded to women and the poor, America began a strong drift toward socialism.

So, capitalists abscond with the government, in hopes of retaining their position. That’s where we’re at today.

8

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Otep wrote:
So I’m studying business in Hong Kong, and one of my professors (who I often disagree with) brings up the idea that the inevitable end of a successful capitalist nation is… socialism.

My first reaction was to point to the US, but I had to admist he has a point. Most well developed nations have a well developed welfare system. Communism fails, but Europe displays that social-democracy is alive and well. America is pretty much the lone outlier, in my opinion because entrepreneurialism and individualism are bred into our national culture. But even we are moving, seemingly inexorably, to the left.

Yes, I realize this was what Marx was getting at, but I think my professor is pointing at something practical, not involving a revolution.

I realize there’s no such thing as entirely capitalist, or entirely socialist (well… there is… but pretty much every modern nation is a mix of the two), but I am seeing a historical slide to the left, as economies become more and more developed.

I think most on this forum believe a slide to socialism is a bad thing. To you believe the US is consigned to this fate?

Your prof is spot on. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. As long as people can vote, they’ll not vote to be unemployed so that capitalism can flourish. Notice how as the right to vote got expanded to women and the poor, America began a strong drift toward socialism.

So, capitalists abscond with the government, in hopes of retaining their position. That’s where we’re at today.

[/quote]

You’re making two key assumptions that aren’t necessarily true.

  1. That people will vote away their freedoms in the hopes for free money.
  2. That people don’t realize that capitalism IS the means to employment if you work for it.

These two factors are one of the primary arguments for free education for all.

9

[quote]orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:
orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

I see it the other way around: capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy

Can´t be, because historically capitalism preceded modern democracies and a lot of non-democratic capitalist societies are alive and well.

[/quote]

They are part an parcel of one another. You can’t have horse power without torque, you can have intensity without volume, you can have sonny without cher, etc.

Even for China to adopt it’s limited capitalism, it also had to allow some democratic semblances as well; like business and property ownership.

10

[quote]shookers wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Otep wrote:
So I’m studying business in Hong Kong, and one of my professors (who I often disagree with) brings up the idea that the inevitable end of a successful capitalist nation is… socialism.

My first reaction was to point to the US, but I had to admist he has a point. Most well developed nations have a well developed welfare system. Communism fails, but Europe displays that social-democracy is alive and well. America is pretty much the lone outlier, in my opinion because entrepreneurialism and individualism are bred into our national culture. But even we are moving, seemingly inexorably, to the left.

Yes, I realize this was what Marx was getting at, but I think my professor is pointing at something practical, not involving a revolution.

I realize there’s no such thing as entirely capitalist, or entirely socialist (well… there is… but pretty much every modern nation is a mix of the two), but I am seeing a historical slide to the left, as economies become more and more developed.

I think most on this forum believe a slide to socialism is a bad thing. To you believe the US is consigned to this fate?

Your prof is spot on. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. As long as people can vote, they’ll not vote to be unemployed so that capitalism can flourish. Notice how as the right to vote got expanded to women and the poor, America began a strong drift toward socialism.

So, capitalists abscond with the government, in hopes of retaining their position. That’s where we’re at today.

You’re making two key assumptions that aren’t necessarily true.

  1. That people will vote away their freedoms in the hopes for free money.
  2. That people don’t realize that capitalism IS the means to employment if you work for it.

These two factors are one of the primary arguments for free education for all.

[/quote]

Interesting.

I never learned that in the public schools I went to. Is that what you learn in Canadian public schools?

I am sorry, but the only school I went to where they would tolerate if not encourage students to question their own dogma was a Catholic school.

11

If a capitalist society “suddenly” allows the poor masses to vote, who in turn go socialist-crazy at the urn and turn the country to the left- doesn’t that mean that this society thoroughly deserves it, you know, by creating a majority of poor bastards in the first way?

But enough of Headhunterisms,
I think the discussion here will be, again, mired in mindless rethoric.

But what can we expect when the true issues are essentially obscured through lingual shortcomings?
We talk about democracy but which country is and wants to be a true democracy?
Same with capitalism. Among the most capitalistic countries ranks …China?

The labels, left, right, conservative, socialism etc., have begun to lose their paint long ago; they’re barely readable now.

12

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If a capitalist society “suddenly” allows the poor masses to vote, who in turn go socialist-crazy at the urn and turn the country to the left- doesn’t that mean that this society thoroughly deserves it, you know, by creating a majority of poor bastards in the first way?

But enough of Headhunterisms,
I think the discussion here will be, again, mired in mindless rethoric.

But what can we expect when the true issues are essentially obscured through lingual shortcomings?
We talk about democracy but which country is and wants to be a true democracy?
Same with capitalism. Among the most capitalistic countries ranks …China?

The labels, left, right, conservative, socialism etc., have begun to lose their paint long ago; they’re barely readable now.

[/quote]

I can kinda see where your coming from with regards to the meaningless of political label. In developed countries, I do see a push for higher taxes, government sponsored education and healthcare, and welfare checks for the poor and elderly. The extent to which they do this varies greatly (Texas not nearly so much as Sweden, according to the swede I’m rooming with over here). Those are specific policies that I’m using to generalize into a socialist/social-democratic type of government. I’d classify a more capitalist/democratic form of government as one with lower taxes and less government provided support.

I’ll admit the simplification obfuscates it somewhat. There’s a larger debate as to the appropriate level of reach of government into the lives of it’s people.

For example, China’s highest income tax bracket is (I believe) around 15% (same-ish for HK), whereas it’s closer to 40% in the states (after adding in FICA and SS). This would make it seem capitalist. But you can’t own a gun, practice Falun Dafa, or vote in free and fair elections.

One of the other assertions made by the same professor was that, while america is leaning into socialism, China is a thriving capitalist society. When he made that comment, I actually thought of this forum, and all the members who bemoan the Obama administration. Hell, they should just move here.

The point is that sidestepping the jargon, will all advanced states with a high value on property rights inevitably betray their initial principles and become nany states?

13

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:
orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

I see it the other way around: capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy

Can´t be, because historically capitalism preceded modern democracies and a lot of non-democratic capitalist societies are alive and well.

They are part an parcel of one another. You can’t have horse power without torque, you can have intensity without volume, you can have sonny without cher, etc.

Even for China to adopt it’s limited capitalism, it also had to allow some democratic semblances as well; like business and property ownership.
[/quote]
Business and property ownership are not inherently democratic. You are assuming that (economic) liberty and democracy are the same thing. You could have an island of 100 people where 60 want to make slaves out of the other 40; you could have another island of 100 people where 1 person makes the rules, and under those rules everyone goes about his business freely.

14

[quote]pat wrote:
Not necessarily. The constitution is very well written and has safe guards against such things taking over. The founding fathers were no dummies. That being said, that doesn’t mean in can’t happen here, it just would have to happen much more slowly and such matters are more difficult to get done than say, in Chile or Venezuela.

In those countries you can strong arm congress and force and threaten to get your way. You cannot do that here and that is usually how it happens. Here you need a favorable congress and one that will be around for a while. 2 years can do damage, but not undoable damage. [/quote]

Define for me some of those safeguards in the constitution, because I think many of them have been eroded by popular opinion in the last… I guess hundred or so years.

I mean, back in the 1700’s, it was really controversial for Hamilton to create a national bank. People thought that was too much government power. In November, Americans voted for government healthcare.

I agree that a social democracy cannot be created over night in america, due to the constitutional safeguards. However, I also believe that it definitely can happen over a period of time. And has been happening.

I guess the main question is; do you see cause for a reversal?

15

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Capitalism can only result in a free society. Democracy doesn’t necessarily lead to free society.

Democracy will result in socialism because it tends to direct policy at the lowest common denominator.[/quote]

Neither capitalism nor democracy necessarily lead to free society. Although capitalism is probably a necessary component of a free society.

Democracy is simply one particular method of deciding what the rules will be, and/or one particular method of deciding who will have the authority to interprete and enforce the rules. Democracy provides no guarantee that the rules will be just, unless one pre-defines justice to be whatever the majority decides.

Capitalism provides no guarantee that government rules for other aspects of life will be fair; nor does it provide any guarantees against successful rent-seeking, theft of natural resources, violence against competitors, etc. on the part of influential capitalists.

16

[quote]pat wrote:
Not necessarily. The constitution is very well written and has safe guards against such things taking over. The founding fathers were no dummies. That being said, that doesn’t mean in can’t happen here, it just would have to happen much more slowly and such matters are more difficult to get done than say, in Chile or Venezuela.

In those countries you can strong arm congress and force and threaten to get your way. You cannot do that here and that is usually how it happens. Here you need a favorable congress and one that will be around for a while. 2 years can do damage, but not undoable damage.
[/quote]

[quote]Otep wrote:
Define for me some of those safeguards in the constitution, because I think many of them have been eroded by popular opinion in the last… I guess hundred or so years.

I mean, back in the 1700’s, it was really controversial for Hamilton to create a national bank. People thought that was too much government power. In November, Americans voted for government healthcare.

I agree that a social democracy cannot be created over night in america, due to the constitutional safeguards. However, I also believe that it definitely can happen over a period of time. And has been happening.
[/quote]
These are excellent points.

17

[quote]Otep wrote:
One of the other assertions made by the same professor was that, while america is leaning into socialism, China is a thriving capitalist society.[/quote]

Maybe it is for now. Maybe China’s political leaders really believe in capitalism. On the other hand: maybe this is just a more extensive version of Lenin’s New Economic Policy – “one step backward to later take two steps forward”.

18

[quote]orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

[/quote]
How about if the authoritarian’s successors are educated in American or British universities?

19

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Otep wrote:
One of the other assertions made by the same professor was that, while america is leaning into socialism, China is a thriving capitalist society.

Maybe it is for now. Maybe China’s political leaders really believe in capitalism. On the other hand: maybe this is just a more extensive version of Lenin’s New Economic Policy – “one step backward to later take two steps forward”.[/quote]

I think that for China, Capitalism is the means to cementing their power. They’ve kept the people more or less occupied and happy. As long as that was the case, the people were willing to let the government do as they pleased. It’ll be interesting to see what both sides do when China is no longer experiencing it’s incredible growth.

China’s leaders, like all leaders, believe in power.

20

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
valiance. wrote:
orion wrote:
I would reply that the natural result of a democracy is capitalism, there is no reason for a authoritarian capitalist system to slide in that direction.

I see it the other way around: capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy

Can´t be, because historically capitalism preceded modern democracies and a lot of non-democratic capitalist societies are alive and well.

They are part an parcel of one another. You can’t have horse power without torque, you can have intensity without volume, you can have sonny without cher, etc.

Even for China to adopt it’s limited capitalism, it also had to allow some democratic semblances as well; like business and property ownership.
[/quote]

They need to allow economic freedom, but political freedom is not a necessity.

Insofar capitalism requires an enormous amount of freedom but not necessarily the right to vote, which is overrated anyway.