Someone please explain how there can be an alternative to capitalism

I keep seeing several people in both the real world and even the media (Mr. Robot comes to mind) claiming that capitalism is evil. But I honestly don't see what the alternative is.

Socialism/communism? I don't see a society without private ownership. People like owning things, people like having an incentive to have more things than other people. If you give everyone the same incentive regardless of the job you do, why work a harder job and not just do the easiest one? Not everyone has some deep passion to dedicate themselves to. If minimum income were enacted, I would personally stay home and just play videogames until I died of a heart attack.

Anarchism? I WANT someone telling me what to do and how to act in a society. People aren't that responsible. No one I know is. If people are left alone, they will try to game the system for everyone

I guess some people just want less corporate abuses and more government aid like it's down in Europe but that's capitalism as well (or at least social democracy). SO I don't get it. Are people just misinformed about what capitalism means? Am I misinformed about what everything else means?

I was tempted to keep this locked and direct you to the general Economics thread, but maybe it wouldn't be entirely nice to have that thread go over some fairly basic stuff and follow up with a bit of sociology and so on when presumably they're busy talking about current stuff.

I want this thread to be fairly limited to discussion about capitalism and its alternatives. Let's not make this entirely parallel to the general economics thread.

I'm still a bit unsure whether this thread has enough of a topic to make it but let's try.

edited 3rd Sep '15 5:49:03 PM by BestOf

I would argue that people hate capitalism primarily because Cool People Rebel Against Authority. This isn't to say this is the case all the time, just at least 51% of the time. Nor is this to say there aren't legitimate complaints, either.

Go and read arguments for the worldviews you criticize. Your post suggests a very poor understanding of both anarchism and socialism. Capitalism is not a constant of human existence; societies and civilizations endured before it, and doubtless will continue to endure after it is gone.

Start with Socialism: A Very Short introduction.

edited 3rd Sep '15 4:45:40 PM by Achaemenid

Capitalism, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing. It's unregulated or crony capitalism like the kind that plagues the US now that's the bad thing.

This will be unsurprising when it comes from someone who votes Left in a Nordic country, but: I support a mixed economy model. In a mixed economy the state has quite a lot of control over every industry, but the market is basically free and the system is largely capitalistic.

There are safeguards (like welfare, health care, strong unions, an independent justice system, free press augmented with a state-owned but independently run media company, and anti-monopoly regulations) to ensure that everyone gets to compete in a fair and balanced market. At least, that's the principle - obviously, it's not perfect and big businesses tend to find ways to circumvent it.

One thing the Nordic countries have traditionally done well is having the government control certain key industries - public transport, healthcare, education - that should not be subject to the free market.

If it was up to the free market to provide healthcare we'd have a significant portion of our population one accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy. Instead, in Finland the state covers most of everyone's medical expenses and you only have to pay a set amount for each day you spend at a hospital, up to a given number of days (after which it's all free). For instance, if you get an operation that requires a two-night stay at the hospital you'll probably end up paying something like €30-50 for it. That's still quite a lot of money to pay for something that's almost certainly not your fault, but at least it's not so much you'll end up in debt.

The thing about a mixed economy is that it works. We still have people who sort of slip through the social security system and end up broke even though they're trying to get an education for a job, but in principle (and largely in practice) our society is constantly working to make sure everyone can get back up.

Meanwhile, our economy is considered very competitive in international comparisons. Sometimes we rank above the US in many or even most of the measures for the Ease of Doing Business Index and so on. The success of a number of Finnish companies in the gaming and mobile communications industries is proof of that. Even though we lost Nokia and it basically went down we still have Rovio and Remedy and Jolla and so on. Also, Linux, F-Secure, etc.

People always say that an economy that is tightly controlled by the state and where everyone gets basically the same education and so on can't provide innovation or extremely qualified employees. Look at PISA rankings and international comparisons of the ease of access to highly trained employees and you'll see how wrong that is.

In that case you're part of a tiny majority. Most people will try to find employment, either to get more than just enough to get by (which is what a guaranteed minimum income would effectively be) or to have some meaningful content in their life. People who are unemployed for a long time are very prone to depression and a number of other mental problems because they don't feel that they're contributing to society. This often even applies to people who are retired. Hobbies can go some way towards remedying this but usually people will prefer to get a job if they can find one. (Of course people will tend to wait until they find something they can enjoy doing, or at least feel proud of. A society with guaranteed minimum income would not have cold callers.)

When people complain about capitalism I think usually it's specifically uncontrolled, excessively free capitalism that they're opposing. Corruption, bribery, tax evasion, cartels, monopolies, nepotism, a one-sided and biased press - these are inevitable symptoms of a lack of government control in business. What is good for the top 50 wealthiest corporations or individuals will very often be very bad for the society as a whole. If there's a way to privatise something and impose a huge profit margin on it, people and businesses will try to do it even if it means death for those who miss out on the service that was available before it was privatised. That is the essence of laissez-faire capitalism.

That said, capitalism can be a good system when it's constrained. It's good to have competition, both for the customers and for workers. It's even good for the businesses themselves. As long as the balance - preserved, by necessity, by the government - stays at roughly equal between corporations and their employees (and customers), it's all good. If it can lean a bit in favour of the people with less wealth (at the expense of those with more) I'll think it's even better but I'll be happy if it's roughly equal.

As anarchism has been bought up I feel I should clarify it. Anarchism is not chaos, it's not even a lack of government or authority, it's about a lack of a top down power structure. So an anarchical system is not one where you can do whatever you want, it's one where the rules are made and enforced by the community as a whole.

Oh and you wouldn't spend all day at home playing games, you might for the first week, but after that you'd get board (especially as your minimum income wouldn't cover enough luxuries for you to be buying all the new games/consoles and getting high speed internet for multiplayer). People like to be active, they like to do thing, and they especially like money.

edited 3rd Sep '15 6:24:24 PM by Silasw

Nordic Model = capitalism + welfare state combo. Seems to be labeled as socialist quite a bit.

One of these days, I will try to compare Nordic Model to how Singapore and Taiwan does things.

Eh. IMO it depends.

I find it easier to not define a government by its philosophy but to divide the sectors it attends by their efficiency. If a state controlled healthcare system works better than a corporate run one, then great. If it does not, then fuck it.

It all depends on the people in charge and the culture and such. So long as the sector is fulfilling its job in a way that reaches most, if not everyone, then I do not care if we can define it as anarchist, socialist, capitalist, or everything because history has thaught us if anything that either can work depending on the context in which they develop.

I am fully aware that you cannot do what you want, I just don't trust "the community" to make the right decisions. Again, I don't believe myself capable of understanding of what it takes to run a government. How can the average person do so?

My perfect society would be run by a computer. I was pleased to see Person Of Interest take this route but now it's become the cliché "Evil AI" plot.

edited 5th Sep '15 7:48:20 AM by ZeroPoint

I feel the need for some basic definitions. Capitalism can be described very simply as a system in which "capital" (money) is invested in "enterprises" (businesses) which employ people to make and sell things. By definition, it creates different classes of people who experience different levels of opportunity: the "Capitalists" (the ones who own the business, and therefore the labor of the employees), and the employees, who exchange their labor for money. Inevitably, the owners will have opportunities to acquire wealth and power over the employees (and others) that the employees will never get. Capitalism creates inequality- even worse, it tends to allow the rich to get richer, while the poor become ever poorer- IOW it tends naturally toward ever increasing wealth disparity and monopoly. Left to itself, without any form of external restraint, Capitalism would most likely lead to some form of corporate feudalism (or even more likely a revolution).

Fortunately for all of us, there is an external source of restraint- the government. This has always existed- indeed governments were around long before investment capital was even invented. Governments act to restrain business in the interest of those who control the governing institutions- Kings in the case of monarchies, voters in the case of democracies. SFAIK- no other situation has ever existed. So the question isnt "Should government interfere with the markets" (of course it should- otherwise corporate feudalism and revolution) the question is "What forms of restraint should the government impose?"

Alternatives to this sort of mixed-system have been tried. Socialism and Communism the government controls all resources and there is no private property. These sorts of systems have not had a successful track record. The closest anyone has ever come to the opposite institutional set-up are the "Company Towns" that used to exist in the United States, mostly before the turn of the 20th century. They earned a reputation for being oppressive, exploitative environments that bred a particularly violent form of unionism in reaction. So all economies that I am aware of are "Mixed" economies of one kind or another.

Different regions and nations emphasize different aspects of the Market-Government Mix. In the US, we lean toward more legal protections for private property, and fewer for human rights, than the EU does. The Nordic countries, as Best Of described, lean toward an even more humanitarian model in which people are simply given certain resources and levels of support, paid out of tax revenue. "State Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe the kind of economic model being used in Mainland China where corporations are private, independently owned entities, but the government automatically "owns" some share of the stock- how much varies depending upon how essential the line of business is seen for national security. Probably the world benefits from a diverse mix of economic models- when one form of economy does is doing poorly due to various circumstances, it often happens that another form does esp. well- helping the rest of the world restore productivity.

Exactly how these different models interact with each other, and whether or not there is a "one best way" to organize an economy, are still matters of dispute.

I should point out that while Communism does ban property it does not ban poessions, or at least it doesn't have to.

It would be more or less unlivable if it did.

Very true, I just wanted to mark the difference, as many people assume that property includes possessions.

edited 5th Sep '15 3:27:49 PM by Silasw

The term mixed economy is misleading. It implies a much more even mix than reality. All The Scandinavian countries are among the 20% of countries with the most market freedom. Only Norway narrowly fails to be in the top 15%.

Given that individual families rarely manage to keep their wealth for more than one or two generations I don't think a tendency for wealth to accumulate offers a believable explanation for increasing wealth inequality.

edited 5th Sep '15 4:12:27 PM by Kzickas

Yet our reputation is that of failed socialist utopias where private enterprise is next to impossible due to insurmountable taxes and bureaucracy.

Where's the idea that people don't retain wealth for more then a few generations coming from? Now maybe it's a European thing but I was under the impression that the super wealthy stat super wealthy, it's the middle class and moderately wealthy that fall back over time.

Possibly. Most studies haven't been done on the super rich, but it would be odd for the effect to so suddenly reverse itself.

<points people towards the British Royal Family and others like the Percy and Neville ones> Yeah. Been ticking on rich for a few centuries...

Sure, they've come close to the wire once or twice, but: still ticking nicely. Please note: they predate modern notions of capitalism, having spent more time with the idea of "the commons" around. All benefited strongly from the Acts of Inclosure... and Adam Smith's later justifications of the practice.

If you want the epitome of slick commercial ventures capitalising on a family firm, you can do worse than Alnwick Castle. Talk about turning the turkey of the family holdings into a money-maker...

edited 5th Sep '15 5:23:33 PM by Euodiachloris

Concerning property vs. possessions, can we please define each of those to establish that there is a difference therebetween, since the terms are often used interchangeably by many people?

Property is land, it's a physical place. Possessions are things, items.

So my house is property, my garden is property, my field is property. My laptop is a possession, my phone is a possession.

I don't think there's a strict definition, but generally if something can be moved around it's a possession, but something that is physically tied to a location is property. The idea I believe is exclusivity, if I own a house at 220 Capitalism Street then nobody else can live at 220 Capitalism street, but if I own the 1500 Socialist 58, mobile phone, well another person can get a 1500 Socialist 58, mobile phone, they can get an exact copy of mine.

I don't think capitalism is evil, is just a concept after all, but extra money means extra power, and power corrupt. Too much money corrupts.

Evil can't exist without abuse of power, or the belief that you can abuse your powers and get away with it. I'm not saying only rich people can be evil but, if you're rich, you're more likely to get away with that evil.

What we need is to control those who use their overwhelming power for evil.

Most forms of society work fine on paper but then go horribly wrong as soon as humans get involved. Capitalism, communism, anarchy, we just can't stick to the principles and do it right.

Of course, those principles are also written by humans, so the same problem applies.

edited 6th Sep '15 10:59:13 AM by Greenmantle

Actually, that's a reasonable distinction. An even better one are families that make most of their wealth from income from labor, and those that inherit most of their wealth in the form of property (typically shares in corporations, though, not just real estate). Families that make most of their wealth from income tend not to stay wealthy across many generations, but those that primarily inherit their wealth (the top 5% or so, IIRC) do. That's the primary source of the increasing level of wealth disparity we are seeing in the West, I believe.