Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Brian Peacock]

In the hope of furthering the discussion let me be frank about my own views. The all-too-commonly touted strawman in these kinds of discussion is the one which maintains that to be critical of Capitalism is to oppose Capitalism. After that the debate tends to get erroneously mischaracterised as a show-down between discrete, polarised for-and-against positions. I think this has happened here.

I'm critical of capitalism, but I also think it's fantastic. Now clearly, without placing Capitalism within the scope of certain defining attributes those two positions may appear mutually incompatible, but what it really speaks to is a broader question about what Capitalism is, what it isn't, what it could be, should be, and what it shouldn't be. Simply invoking the aphorism 'Capitalism Good' does nothing to actually illuminate what is, or might be, good about Capitalism. Notice here I'm deliberately using the term as a proper noun, as representing a particular something-or-other, even while we don't really know what that particular something-or-other is.

Is Capitalism a social principle, a political principle, a legal or economic principle. To what extent is it any of these, or all of them?

The label 'Capitalism' isn't, as some would have us think, the term which describes a robust moral philosophy brought to bear upon a coherent economic theory. It's a post-hoc categorisation for something which, as a social species, has always been with us: the binding of personal status (and thus the exercising of power and influence) to resources and resource acquisition and security. But that's by-the-by. Whether we label that Tribalism, Feudalism, Monarchism, Religionism, Colonialism, Militarism, Totalitarianism, Capitalism, or Corporatism, the point I'm working towards is this: while these various social structures may arise out of our natural human motives to secure exclusive resources and enhance our status within our social environs, they are invariably promoted, institutionalised and entrenched most firmly by those for whom they work best - those at the top of the status/power pyramid. When such systems prevail and persist within a society the denizens of that society become subject to them - which is to say that they, we, are subjected to social, political, and economic systems which act upon us.

At present we are the subjects of an employment and consumerist culture, and while I acknowledge that a stable and product economy has been, and indeed is, of great social benefit, being embedded in this 'Capitalist system' does not preclude the possibility that we could be or should be free to develop critical ideas about the systems we are subjected to or to develop alternative sets of priorities, values and/or ways of living. Thus I think that if we are to enjoy the social and personal benefits of the kind of Capitalism which has benefitted us with stable and productive economies, raised living standards, promoted the developement of democratic forms of governance, and protected the weak and those of low status from the tyranny of the strong and those of high status, then it must be a regulated system in which some form of social responsibility, or some duty to society, is built in. This is at odds with those who maintain that deregulated or unregulated forms of social and/or economic interaction are a moral imperative to which all others must adhere - or, again, be subjected to.

[pErvinalia]

This conflation of "regulation" with "not capitalism" is ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as your conflation of the welfare state with capitalism.

[pErvinalia]

Nevermind workers unions that provide a counterbalance to corporate power so that workers might take home decent pay and work in decent conditions.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

None of that has anything to do with capitalism being the best solution to poverty.

It, like a number of other points that you've missed in his post, do have plenty to do with your contention that capitalism is the best solution. What you aren't getting is that a lot of our advances aren't specific to capitalism or even related to any economic system. That's the point he is trying to make to you.

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two wrote:

I find it interesting that not a single post suggests an alternative to capitalism that would, in fact, be a better solution to poverty.

In that case, you've misunderstood what most posters have been saying. Basically, it's not black or white; capitalism vs "other", with the supposition that "other" is socialism, if not full-blown authoritarian Marxism. The arguments have been much more nuanced than that, with 2 main trends that I can see.

Firstly, a recognition by many (if not all) that some aspects of a market economy drive innovation, and usefully contribute to progress and wealth creation. Typically, this was accompanied by the proviso that careful, thorough and intelligent government control, with strong social programs and a robust union movement, was needed to counter-act the strong tendency of capitalism to foster inequality to the extreme. Typically, I contrast was made between Trump's America, where the 1 % are getting ever wealthier and more powerful, and a basket of other western democracies, where, however imperfect they may be, they provide a better life for the mass of people.

Secondly, societies where you aver that their capitalist nature has been the solution to poverty are contrasted to a bunch of other societies, where there are many more factors than economic systems in play. Modern western societies have, for a variety of historical reasons, reached peaks of technological development early, and have additionally disrupted other societies by colonial actions. The rule of law, the existence of diverse media, mass education and many other factors make simple comparisons based on economic systems very dubious.

Yep, excellent post, Jim. I can see below that 42 has responded to this. I'm almost having a panic attack in anticipation of how much he is going to butcher English and logic to get out of accepting this exceedingly obvious point.

[pErvinalia]

So, one, I think my position is more nuanced than you are giving me credit for. I'm not viewing anything black and white. And, the "nuance" of certain others, I think, if more appropriately described as incoherence or equivocation, not nuance (not referring to you, JimC, on that last bit).

My God you really exist in another universe entirely.

[pErvinalia]

My god, who the fuck has argued in favor of a planned economy?

It was this guy here:

TNUsLGke_400x400.jpg (24.47 KiB) Viewed 2137 times

[Brian Peacock]

Is that Boris Johnson having a particularly bad hair day?

[pErvinalia]

[Seabass]

Looks like Forty Two's favorite feisty Australian has found Alabama.

ALABAMA HAS THE WORST POVERTY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, U.N. OFFICIAL SAYS

[pErvinalia]

And the most paedophiles.

Remember, though, Cletus is actually better off than a resident of Lake Como, Italy.

[Hermit]

The post, however, is about capitalism as an economic system being the best [economic system] as a solution to poverty. Nuance is fine. But why are people at my throat on this?

Because you started with the nuance right from your opening post. Two fucking clips of Milton Friedman singing the praise of, no, not capitalism in general, but laissez faire capitalism. In my first post I addressed your opening offer thus:

Milton Friedman very much argues for pure laissez faire capitalism throughout the excerpts you linked to. For instance, he sees no value at all in government policies to alleviate poverty: "If you look at the real problems of poverty and denial of freedom to people in this country almost every single one of them is the result of government action and would be eliminated if you eliminated the bad government failures." (@1:56 in the second link). He goes on to oppose government regulation of (minimum wages) and government run education. Though he does not say anything about the health sector in the clips you provided, I expect he opposes provision of medical services and insurance by governments too. What functions does Friedman approve of other than national defence and enforcement of criminal law? Looks like he very much favours pure laissez faire capitalism, and to the extent you agree with his ideology, so do you.

That was in July, one day after you created this thread. We've been haggling over what sort of capitalism is the best solution to poverty ever since. It took you nearly five months to notice.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. In my page-1 post I raised a similar point...

...Market economics certainly generates fiscal resources - when those resources are shared around the livings standards of all are raised, and societies become more stable, peaceful and ordered, better educated, more productive and innovative, healthier, infant mortality falls and population growth levels off as a consequence. Given that capitalism is the dominant economic system I guess the questions is, how many dyed-in-the-wool ideological capitalists are interested in raising the living standards of society as a whole - as opposed to simply securing assets for their exclusive use - and what structural influence can we bring to bear in order to ensure that the system works for all those who have little or no choice about taking part in it?

[Hermit]

Indeed. In my page-1 post I raised a similar point...

...Market economics certainly generates fiscal resources - when those resources are shared around the livings standards of all are raised, and societies become more stable, peaceful and ordered, better educated, more productive and innovative, healthier, infant mortality falls and population growth levels off as a consequence. Given that capitalism is the dominant economic system I guess the questions is, how many dyed-in-the-wool ideological capitalists are interested in raising the living standards of society as a whole - as opposed to simply securing assets for their exclusive use - and what structural influence can we bring to bear in order to ensure that the system works for all those who have little or no choice about taking part in it?

Yes. With the possible exception of rEvolutionist who seems to argue that the welfare state is not capitalism, we all made that point at some stage or another. Apart from that possible exception nobody has argued that capitalism is not the best solution for poverty.

[JimC]

I would argue (being technical) that the welfare state is not capitalism per se, but that it is a political system that typically co-exists with a capitalist economic system, regulating it to a greater or lesser degree. The co-existence is not without considerable tension, of course.

[Hermit]

I would argue (being technical) that the welfare state is not capitalism per se, but that it is a political system that typically co-exists with a capitalist economic system, regulating it to a greater or lesser degree. The co-existence is not without considerable tension, of course.

The welfare state is often labelled a "mixed economy". To an extent it is a fairly applied label, but looking at commonly used examples, chiefly one or more of the Scandinavian countries, I find they are chiefly capitalist with an overlay of government regulations. In the end almost no manufacturing capacity is government owned and run. Most of the gross domestic products come from privately owned (either outright or via share holdings) companies and production is ultimately motivated by generating a profit for their owners. That makes those countries social democracies rather than socialist, and they are certainly not socialist systems of the communist variety.