The Failure of Capitalism in the West

Political Philosophy
1

I am sometimes asked whether I think Capitalism works. Do I support it? I hesitate. To answer, it is going to be necessary to differentiate between the questions; ‘is it working?’ and ‘can it work?’. I believe it can do, the free exchange of values, whether money, love or hope is something fundamentally human. Suppress it, it creeps out wherever it can, it mutates, it will die to survive in a different form, it is life. But the quality of it, the values being exchanged are the means by which we judge a capitalism a success or failure.

One uses reason to assess the value of what is being offered relative to certain key axioms. What key axioms hold together are reason? Life. If there are two things any human wants - its life and happiness; quality of life and quantity of life. Happiness, by its very nature can be derived from any number of things - from sex, drugs, religious fervour, satisfaction of a job well done etc. Surely, the most logical means to by which to acquire happiness is by acting in such a way that the length of life is extended. Was not the very creation of society itself a step in that direction? People bind together because they share a common purpose, that which the greatest majority share is life, and that most commonly misunderstood element about life is that are greatest power over it is to shorten/extend it at our will, whether as an indivdual or an association of individuals.

Capitalism will work, when people exchange that which contributes to this greater purpose, any commodity that is in its use and purpose destructive, decadent and shortsited will example capitalisms misuse, its going wrong. Does Capitalism work? It is a tool, it depends on its use. It is a great tool for that which I have described, though as most tools, it can be applied in more than one way. In games of power, where the parties involved are not in contract out of mutual advantage or interest, but - as I believe is the case throughout a great deal of our enterprises (particularly the entertainment/media) out of fear, out of compulsion.

Those who waste their time concerning themselves with the wrongs of the system are missing the point entirely, the system will change as it suits the will of those who use it. It is the will of the user that counts, each conscious beings purpose that matters. Education is the crux of it all, it is from the media, our social origins, our experience that our wills are by and large defined.

They say you can judge a society by its criminals. I say you can judge it by its millionaires. If football stars and porn barons are those with the biggest means at their disposal - then it reveals a great deal about the kind of people that country is encouraging to exist. If those with the biggest wallet, the most means, blindly consume it - then that capitalist nation is doomed.

When people have the forsight and rational to spend wisely, the capital any individual holds will be proportional to the type of man he is.

We are a long way off from there.

2

Capitalism, I am sometimes asked, does it work? Do you support it? I hesitate. To answer, it is going to be necessary to differentiate between the questions; ‘is it working?’ and ‘can it work?’. I believe it can do, the free exchange of values, whether money, love or hope is something fundamentally human. Suppress it, it creeps out wherever it can, it mutates, it will die to survive in a different form, it is life. But the quality of it, the values being exchanged are the means by which we judge a capitalism a success or failure. That is why we use reason to assess to value of what is being offered relative to certain key axioms. What key axiom? Life. If there are two things any human wants - its life and happiness; quality of life and quantity of life. Happiness, by its very nature can be derived from any number of things - from sex, drugs, religious fervour, satisfaction of a job well done etc. Surely, the most logical means to by which to acquire happiness is by acting in such a way that the length of life is extended. Was not the very creation of society itself a step in that direction?  People bind together because they share a common purpose, that which the greatest majority share is life, and that most commonly misunderstood element about life is that are greatest power over it is to shorten/extend it at our will, whether as an indivdual or an association of individuals. Capitalism will work, when people exchange that which contributes to this greater purpose, any commodity that is in its use and purpose destructive, decadent and shortsited will example capitalisms misuse, its going wrong. Does Capitalism work? It is a tool, it depends on its use. It is a great tool for that which I have described, though as most tools, it can be applied in more than one way. In games of power, where the parties involved are no in contract out of mutual advantage, not out of interest, but - as I believe is the case throughout a great deal of our enterprises, particularly the entertainment/media,  out of fear, out of compulsion.

Those who waste their time concerning themselves with the wrongs of the system are missing the point entirely, the system will change as it suits the will of those who use it. It is the will of the user that counts, each conscious beings purpose that matters. Education is the crux of it all, it is out of our environment, our social origins, our media that our wills are by and large defined. They say you can judge a society by its criminals. I say you can judge it by its millionaires. If football stars and porn barons are those with the biggest means at their disposal - then it reveals a great deal about the kind of people that country is encouraging to exist. If those with the biggest wallet, the most means, blindly consume it - then that capitalist nation is doomed. When people have the forsight and rational to spend wisely, the capital any individual holds will be proportional to the type of man he is.

We are a long way off from there.

Capitalism exists nowhere. We are all being taxed and regulated far too highly.

As for sports stars, movie stars and pop stars being millionaires, I have no problem with that. Only those who watch sports and movies and buy pop music can make these people richer.

And Capitalism has always worked when ever it has come close to being practised.

3

I have not and do not specifically point to the rich movie stars/footballers as being negative entities in themselves. It is the fact that these people become rich that demonstrates how capitalism is merely a tool and requires will power also to function correctly. It is for instance a system much more likely to yield sucess than communism, however - it is not infallable, and there are plenty of instances where tax has not been the cause of its failure.

I prefer to stress Rand’s reason rather than capitalism, it is from reason that we decide what is best for us, what is our purpose.

As I described, the most logical common purposes we share are survival and happiness, and I believe that in a place and time, these can been rationally harmonized to greatest effect. I.e. in my life at this time, there are certain actions I should take in order to achieve and optimal balance of these two things. Of course this depends on many factors - but it is a way to navigate, a way that seems lost on most of us.

Everybody know smoking kills, yet people continue to smoke in the face of this knowledge. It seems this shows either an indifference to life or perhaps a craving for more desperate circumstances out of which a reason to be might arise.

Taking responsibility for your life takes courage, its so easy to live as though the onnus wasnt yours. When you live, life becomes quite vivid, quite real - and that can be quite wonderful and quite shocking. Better for the young than the old.

4

Charles, I got a headache just trying to read you first post, much less understand it. You should try to break your writing into a logical order and use paragraph breaks more often, especially online. Right now, it just looks like a train-of-thought jumble.

(It would be nice if you spell-checked your posts, but no one else seems to take my advice on that.)

5

*Everyone looks at me* :wink:

I agree with GC, it looks like a big jumble of words with absolutely not logical order to it, but never the less I found it interesting read:)

6

<Snip>. It is for instance a system much more likely to yield sucess than communism, however - it is not infallable, and there are plenty of instances where tax has not been the cause of its failure.

In what way has capitalism ever failed?

7

Charles,

You need to give examples here. Good luck finding one because there are non but bring us what you got and we will be glad to show you why they are incorrect.

8

My opinion is that capitalism never was given a chance.

The government panicked after 1928 and the remnants of capitalism thereafter were compromised into the mixed economy we experience in the West today.

I currently am examining the claims of the Right regarding their “defense of capitalism.” It’s a complex matter, to be sure, yet it might be key in explaining some of the deception of what constitutes free trade and business in today’s market.

My current opinion is that neither the Right nor the Left advocate capitalism, the unknown ideal.

9

In what way has capitalism ever failed?

Capitalism hasn’t failed completely in America.

Our mixed economy corrupts capitalism through regulation of trade, regulation of international commerce, collectivist politics from both the right and the left, taxation, labor organization, and government control in areas best serviced by private enterprise, such as transportation and education.

To sever the umbilical cord of caretaker government is a tall order indeed.

10

An example of where Capitalism has failed? America.

I agree with Auto JC that over-governing, has created a mixed, shall we say, impure capitalism. But undoubtedly people would classify America as a capitalist nation.

The country hosts an aggregation of disenchanted ethnic groups and sub-cultures alongside a highly irrational ‘pop’ christianity that dominates public opinion.

Forms of enterainment are cheap and decadent, yet form a vital part of the nations economy. If Capitalism was succeding would this be one of the biggest industries? Would we idolize film stars whom we prize on account of their ‘moral’ promiscuity?

The American dream outlined by JFK in his inaugural address as president has never been attained.

Wherever Capitalism is practiced, it is always reliant on the human element. It wont run itself, and its decades of abuse that have reduced it in America.

11

America is not capitalist…

Note that, to the degree that it is capitalist, America is succesfull…

Capitalism has not failed in America. Considering how much it has been impeded, I would say it has done quite well.

12

To an extent this is a case of semantics.

To identify America as a Capitalist country is in the absolute sense wrong; considering all that impedes it. This we all seem to acknowledge. This is partly what I mean I say it has failed in America - badly put I agree - I shall think more wisely about topic titles next time.

However… There is a human element, upon which capitalism is contingent. Selfishness as a virtue cannot stand alone; it relies upon what is your core purpose. Its all very well acting for your own will, but what do you will for yourself? Essentially we should all find a will to survive, but people shortsightedly violate this in their choice of lifestyle. It depends upon how one defines them-self, what makes you you? Because whatever you do with you money, your means, is going to be dicated by that.

Now you can argue that in a world where capitalism is fully applied this wouldn’t happen, but we are not in that world, and im looking at it pragmatically and seeing why it is we are not achieving that. Indeed why many of us dont even share the vision.

I think one problem is the management structure of public companies. For a company’s means to be at the disposal of principal shareholders and CEOs who get paychecks, yet play no active role in the company causes association to be lost. Like humans, company’s have a purpose, and that is by and large defined by the individual/s with the greatest decision making power. If those persons interests are beyond the workplace, and the company’s profit making is only a means for his private interests then the company has no purpose of its own, it loses lits life and ceases to function under capitalist principles. A company, by definition presupposes co-operation, a common goal - people work in it because they have an interest in it. Of course with laborers the interest may be purely personal - to get money to provide themselves with the bare minimum, and further there own ambitions; but with the Managing director one expects better.

I have editied my first post, addressing the grammatical errors and inserting paragraph breaks; it may help to re-read it now.

13

An example of where Capitalism has failed? America.

I agree with Auto JC that over-governing, has created a mixed, shall we say, impure capitalism. But undoubtedly people would classify America as a capitalist nation.

As I said, Capitalism hasn’t failed completely in America.

Americans still enjoy a large measure of individual rights, free speech, the right to own property, the right to start a business or trade, and a certain amount of freedom of mobility.

These are elements of capitalism that are less evident in other Western powers, and certainly not evident anywhere in South America or much of Muslim-controlled Asia.

14

Selfishness as a virtue cannot stand alone; it relies upon what is your core purpose. Its all very well acting for your own will, but what do you will for yourself?

It can stand alone. Selfishness, in the proper sense, means that ones primary value is ones own life, that ones “core purpose” is oneself. All else in ethics follows from it.

15

As I said life is something most of us want to preserve, its a pretty good starting point as far as core purposes are concerned. Only - selfishness can be and often is centred around one’s desires - things that have little to contribute to life. These desires give us happiness - sure - but happiness, as I said, is mouldable - if one can be happy acting in the knowledge of whats right for your body then one can be selfish in an englightened way.

16

America is not capitalist…

Note that, to the degree that it is capitalist, America is succesfull…

Capitalism has not failed in America.  Considering how much it has been impeded, I would say it has done quite well.

Absolutely spot on.

It is interventionism that has always failed, not capitalism.

The title of this thread is based on a false premise because Capitalism has never failed.

It is more accurate to say that Capitalism has declined in the West because it obviously has and Socialism is gradually rising.

17

I think the reason for the communications failure occuring in this thread is that we’re all using the same words, but Charles is using some widely-accepted but rationally-unusable meanings. Sure, the grammar and organization of his original post was difficult, but the pseudo-concepts and half-baked premises are the real problem.

Take capitalism, for example. Most libertarians today have a fuzzy notion that this means a market, any market. Examples including the assassin’s guild, milk, selling nuclear weapons to Iran, gold, and common stocks. But this is a package-deal conflating force and trade.

Most Republicrats and Demoblicans have an even sloppier notion that capitalism is a system of rich people looting poor people.

Capitalism is the only social system based on explicit recognition of the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. It holds that there are three kinds of force: initiation, retaliation, and defense. It prohibits initiation by its monopoly on retaliation, and defense is the right of any man who has the right to his own life. It is built on a separation not only of church and state, but economy and state and education and state.

In 1784, the USA was established as something fairly close to capitalist. As such, it quickly became prosperous, and about 130 yrs later everyone discovered it was the most powerful nation on earth.

Unfortunately, from the start, it was corrupted by elements of statist controls. Most notably, it allowed slavery for the first half century or so (rectified later). It was also corrupted by the fascist element led by Hamilton, who wanted to subsidize industry to “help” it.

The first really big example of this was the railroads. To compensate for the problems this introduced, the government eventually passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. That was also the beginning of the Progressive era, and the US has been declining into statism ever since.

The US is the closest to capitalism today of any nation on earth. Even so, it’s slipped quite far from the ideal. It is not appropriate to say that capitalism has failed; in fact, the mixed economy is failing.

18

(It would be nice if you spell-checked your posts, but no one else seems to take my advice on that.)

I know some forum programs which have spell-check built into them. Perhaps individuals would take your advice on that if they didnt have to write in one place and spell check someplace else. <_<

19

but Charles is using some widely-accepted but rationally-unusable meanings.

The title of this thread is based on a false premise because Capitalism has never failed.

The fact that it is a widely accepted understanding may show how the change has come about; i.e. how capitalism has been diluted with statism/socialism. People in general do not have a conception of capitalism as desirable ideal. It would be shocking to most people to realise that books like Rands (which are tantamount to a capitalist manifesto!) exist. Where you associate words like individuality with capitalism, the state/media complex has ensured that words like greed, and selfishness come to mind.

Of the people who have read Ayn Rands books, most love or hate them passionately. I first bought Atlas Shrugged two years ago, read the first couple of pages, got distracted and put it down. Whilst sitting at a cafe in the foothills of the Himalayas recently, an American approached my table offering two books for sale before he returned them to the shop. One of which was Atlas by Rand, whom he described as an evil b*tch, and that her philosophy was pure evil. Recogising the book, and faced with an afternoon lazing on the beach I bought it, for the amicable price of 100rs- (about $2). Needless to say I was inspired by it. Indeed having read John Galts question ‘which is the greater testament to human spirit - the filth-ridden shores of the ganges or the atlantic skylines of New York?’ I was walking along the funeral pyres and rotting corpses of the ganges that run through the Hindu city of Death - Varanasi.

Lol, my thread title was certainly sensationalist and seems to have attracted due attention!

20

In case anyone is still reading this thread - it really caught my eye. Seems to be one of the more interesting ones :lol:

Charles actually brought up some crucial points that are almost never discussed by Objectivists when defending/advocating capitalism. Specifically he mentioned the “human element” in Capitalism - meaning, that the system won’t “run itself”.

I completely agree! and this is precisely why socialism fails, and why Capitalism is the only system that could possibly work.

Capitalism does not guarantee rationality - no system does. If a society abandons reason, then regardless of what social system is legally in place, that society will collapse. Once the moral based has eroded, there is nothing left to keep out the barbarians. The only thing capitalism offers (and what socialism doesn’t) is the freedom to live, not the guarantee that you will. Those who argue that the solution to every problem is to have government fix it often do so under the premise that people are too corrupt/stupid/selfish/whatever to be able to fix it themselves - effectively, the government is treated as though it were on a whole other level, and not subject to the same follies that befall the general population.

The problem is of course that in giving the government (i.e, the political elite) control over resources that do not belong to them, the best thieves necessarily rise to the top. Or to put it another way; all that corruption/stupidity/selfishness/whatever gets amplified at the commanding heights of the system - meaning, that by it’s very nature the system breeds corruption. Rand summed it up nicely when she said that the operating principle in a Capitalist system is justice, which by it’s nature rewards the good and punishes evil. In socialism, the exact opposite dominates.

Has capitalism “failed” in the west? maybe. The verdict isn’t in yet. The philosophical base of the system has been completely destroyed, and things aren’t getting much better.

There is no question that reason, as a method of gaining knowledge, and as a means to prosperity cannot fail - almost by definition. But people do, after all, have free will, and there is no guarantee that reason will be the chosen method. If it is, then capitalism will succeed brilliantly (as it did in the 19th century,) otherwise it won’t. The question is whether reason is reinstated before it’s too late.

Regarding the millionaires - keep in mind that the vast vast majority of millionaires are still businessmen. The movie stars and porn magnates are the minority.

In any case, engineers should be getting paid the most IMHO - they make the world go round :slight_smile: