Socialism: The Natural Result of Capitalism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[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]

Capitalism is a chaos system. Industries die and industries are born. People in the dying industries will invariably vote for politicians who promise to end their misery. Look how states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania went for Obama.

This creates an ever increasing presence of government in a chaotic system, which breeds yet more chaos, leading to more government intervention. The capitalists therefore MUST capture the State before someone else does. We get Socialism, and eventually totalitarianism.

The majority of humans loathe change and would much prefer a feudalist/socialist state that will care for them from cradle to grave.

22

[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,
[/quote]

Capitalism didn’t create poverty, it eliminates it. But it does so chaotically as industries are born, prosper, then die. It is during the fading stages that those workers (and capitalists) do everything in their power to save their position. They create a system to drain and regulate the new dynamic industries. What do you think taxes and regulations are for anyway?

23

[quote]Otep wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
Here are some… Three branches of government with equal power. Democratically elected representatives in the legislative branch and executive. The filibuster. The amendment process, etc.

[quote]
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?[/quote]

Hence why I said “…it doesn’t mean it can’t happen here”, but it is more difficult.

24

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Neither capitalism nor democracy necessarily lead to free society. Although capitalism is probably a necessary component of a free society.[/quote]

No, I meant capitalism can only happen where people can freely exchange and contract. That is the essence of capitalism.

At a bare minimum it requires an understanding of natural rights which may or may not be compatible with democracy.

25

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If a capitalist society “suddenly” allows the poor masses to vote…
[/quote]
What better way to vote than with one’s money or feet?

26

I suggest reading Joseph Schumpeter’s book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

From Wikipedia:

“Schumpeter’s theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism’s collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure. Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy. In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism’s demise. The term “intellectuals” denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education. The availability of fulfilling work is however limited and this, coupled with the experience of unemployment, produces discontent. The intellectual class is then able to organise protest and develop critical ideas.”

27

It’s actually the success of democracy that does this.

Capitalism has nothing to do with power structure. It is just a doctrine of free property exchange and contracts.

There is no reason to believe in an authoritarian society capitalism would turn into corporatism as long as the authoritarian did not offer protection to special interests.

Corporatism is built by protectionism.

28

Imagine four people at a restaraunt. Three of them have $10, and one has $40. If given the chance to vote on whether to pool their money and each spend $17 or to just spend what they have, you can bet that they’re going to vote 3:1 to pool their money. They’ll justify it by denouncing inequality in wealth or by demanding that they are in fact just as valuable as the man who had $40, or perhaps through a number of other means, but you can bet that the money will be pooled.

This is why capitalism is not compatible with democracy. People will almost always vote in their self-interest, and this almost always means that the government will step in to protect the non-entrepreneurs from the free market. I live in Michigan, and I’m seeing it first hand. Given the choice between “support free enterprise” and “HOLY SHIT I’M A COMPLETELY UNSKILLED WORKER ABOUT TO TO LOSE MY $23/HOUR JOB”, the choice is obvious. The benefit is clear and immediate (“I get to keep my job”), while the pain is invisible and difficult to measure (The loss of creative destruction, competition, and liberty in the American economy).

The reason that we’ve seen a long trend toward the left is because these actions are irreversible. Once you create a generation of people dependent on welfare, it becomes impossible to take it back. It becomes built into our society. Same with bailouts; once you bailout the auto industry, people come to expect that the government will prop up any large failing industry. Each interference becomes the status quo because people rely on it, but any action toward less government intervention lasts only until the people decide to “pool the money” for their own benefit.

We will only see a trend back toward the right when either (1) people recognize the importance of free enterprise and vote against their short-term self interst in order to secure it, or (2) the government becomes so powerful that the “invisible” effects of government intervention finally become clear, and the people realize that the only way to improve their condition is to limit the government’s power.

29

[quote]Cronk wrote:
Imagine four people at a restaraunt. Three of them have $10, and one has $40. If given the chance to vote on whether to pool their money and each spend $17 or to just spend what they have, you can bet that they’re going to vote 3:1 to pool their money. They’ll justify it by denouncing inequality in wealth or by demanding that they are in fact just as valuable as the man who had $40, or perhaps through a number of other means, but you can bet that the money will be pooled.

This is why capitalism is not compatible with democracy. People will almost always vote in their self-interest, and this almost always means that the government will step in to protect the non-entrepreneurs from the free market. I live in Michigan, and I’m seeing it first hand. Given the choice between “support free enterprise” and “HOLY SHIT I’M A COMPLETELY UNSKILLED WORKER ABOUT TO TO LOSE MY $23/HOUR JOB”, the choice is obvious. The benefit is clear and immediate (“I get to keep my job”), while the pain is invisible and difficult to measure (The loss of creative destruction, competition, and liberty in the American economy).[/quote]

It’s worth pointing out that, like Pat mentioned earlier on in the thread, in liberal democracies there are very strict limits placed on the government to prevent the government from voting or acting on such issues.

That said, the strength of these limits can be eroded. But it doesn’t necessarily mean capitalism and democracy are necessarily at odds with each other.

[quote]The reason that we’ve seen a long trend toward the left is because these actions are irreversible. Once you create a generation of people dependent on welfare, it becomes impossible to take it back. It becomes built into our society. Same with bailouts; once you bailout the auto industry, people come to expect that the government will prop up any large failing industry. Each interference becomes the status quo because people rely on it, but any action toward less government intervention lasts only until the people decide to “pool the money” for their own benefit.

We will only see a trend back toward the right when either (1) people recognize the importance of free enterprise and vote against their short-term self interst in order to secure it, or (2) the government becomes so powerful that the “invisible” effects of government intervention finally become clear, and the people realize that the only way to improve their condition is to limit the government’s power. [/quote]

  1. I don’t think Americans have seen the value of free enterprise since the West was won.
  2. Just how big is this? Has it happened anywhere yet? (don’t say Iceland, I’m pretty sure those were hideously extenuating circumstances)
30

[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]

It’s true. America has long had socialist tendencies, as have most capitalist nations.

It’s not a bad thing, as long as it’s kept in check.

31

[quote]Otep wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

While I agree that the US has moved more towards the left in economic policies over the last 300 years, that shift has eliminated many of the terrible things that went on back in the days of unbridled capitalism, i.e. slavery, child labor, and a sort of oligarchy paying workers a barely livable wage for hard labor.

I’ll take it. Cause for reversal? To that? Not particularly

32

I wouldn’t necessarily credit socialism for any of those improvements. The elimination of slavery was an opposition AGAINST institutionalized oppression, which is completely consistent with the classical liberal (“right wing”) role of government. Child labor and low wages were improved through improved productivity of labor through increases in technology and economic efficiency, not because the government passed a law.

33

[quote]Cronk wrote:
I wouldn’t necessarily credit socialism for any of those improvements. The elimination of slavery was an opposition AGAINST institutionalized oppression, which is completely consistent with the classical liberal (“right wing”) role of government. Child labor and low wages were improved through improved productivity of labor through increases in technology and economic efficiency, not because the government passed a law.[/quote]

That’s absolutely untrue, and a brutal revision of history.

Child labor and low wages were banned or fixed through social movements that went up to the government level. Look up the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Department of labor, and then say that bullshit again.

Forget the blood of a million union men, from the Molly Maguires on, who stood against that oligarchy in demand for fair wages. That, my friend, was socialism at it’s finest.

I almost can’t believe you wrote that.

34

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cronk wrote:
I wouldn’t necessarily credit socialism for any of those improvements. The elimination of slavery was an opposition AGAINST institutionalized oppression, which is completely consistent with the classical liberal (“right wing”) role of government. Child labor and low wages were improved through improved productivity of labor through increases in technology and economic efficiency, not because the government passed a law.

That’s absolutely untrue, and a brutal revision of history.

Child labor and low wages were banned or fixed through social movements that went up to the government level. Look up the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Department of labor, and then say that bullshit again.

Forget the blood of a million union men, from the Molly Maguires on, who stood against that oligarchy in demand for fair wages. That, my friend, was socialism at it’s finest.

I almost can’t believe you wrote that.[/quote]

He is right though.

Without the immense progress brought on by capitalism children would still have to work or starve no matter what any laws said.

If we could afford that many laws, which we could not.

Those “movements” came in after the party, picked the fruits of trees that other people had planted and are apparently still held in high regard for this reckless buffoonery.

35

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cronk wrote:
I wouldn’t necessarily credit socialism for any of those improvements. The elimination of slavery was an opposition AGAINST institutionalized oppression, which is completely consistent with the classical liberal (“right wing”) role of government. Child labor and low wages were improved through improved productivity of labor through increases in technology and economic efficiency, not because the government passed a law.

That’s absolutely untrue, and a brutal revision of history.

Child labor and low wages were banned or fixed through social movements that went up to the government level. Look up the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Department of labor, and then say that bullshit again.

Forget the blood of a million union men, from the Molly Maguires on, who stood against that oligarchy in demand for fair wages. That, my friend, was socialism at it’s finest.

I almost can’t believe you wrote that.[/quote]

Child labor (and slavery) was a leftover byproduct of feudalism. The increase in productivity brought about by technological innovation through capitalist enterprise was what sparked the change in ideas toward a more liberal society. Children and slaves were no longer seen as productive in light of the expansion of capital goods.

So while we can credit legislation for stopping child labor and slavery in the US it would never have happened were it not for the liberal ideas brought about by capitalism.

Child labor in third world countries, for example, exists because the value child labor lends to marginal productivity is greater than it would be if there were a larger industrial infrastructure. It does not still exist because people in these countries are somehow more evil than in industrialized nations but rather because they are poor.