POLL: Is capitalism a failure for the lower classes?

[Selatius]

"Capitalism has always been a failure for the lower classes. It is now beginning to fail for the middle classes."

Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States, Ch. 24

Do you agree with his statement?

[jpgray]

1. I think any economic system can fail the lower classes

Capitalism isn't unique in that aspect--controlled capitalism can actually benefit the middle/lower classes, cf. the New Deal, etc.

[acmavm]

2. Yeah, but there's soooooo much opportunity for corruption and

greed to run rampant in a 'capitalist' system.

[jpgray]

3. True--but I think greed and ambition can warp any system

There are always going to be those who are ambitious and greedy, and they will suppress the rights of others to gain more for themselves. That has been true throughout the history of large-scale human society, and economic systems only have an incidental impact, in my opinion.

[acmavm]

4. Incidental impact? Economic systems are the means by which

the haves are separated from the have nots. Capitalism is just so much easier to manipulate than others.

[jpgray]

6. It's possible, but it would be difficult to prove

Amassing wealth and power to the disadvantage of the lower classes is a hallmark of I think every major economic system ever put into practice on a large scale.

[acmavm]

11. Definitely. Look at monarchy. But that system was open about

its aims. Everything belonged to the king and the royal family, some filtered down to the nobility, and the rest were peasants who could drop back five and punt.

Look at democracy. Only thing eliminated is the monarch. The rest is pretty much the same.

[jpgray]

12. But even supposedly enlightened gov'ts (i.e. Scandinavia) recall that system

Remember that in large part the wealth of those enlightened nations is built on the poverty of poorer nations. So in a sense if you view them in isolation their economic practices are very just, but in a global context the same manor behavior is going on--the minority still get the benefit of the labor and resources of the majority. Just on a larger scale.

[Selatius]

13. You can create haves/have-nots regardless if you call it communism or capitalism

The key is centralization of authority. As long as decision-making power is concentrated into only a few hands, abuse is a very real possibility. A command economy, in that respect, represents the ultimate centralization of authority. The Soviet Communist Party leadership was the "haves." Everyone else was the "have nots." In this respect, the Party was no better than the capitalists they claimed to replace.

If you can find a way to decentralize authority and keep it from becoming concentrated at the same time you democratize the workplace, you may have a workable answer that won't turn into another USSR provided you don't get killed.

[MADem]

8. Look at the Communist system--you were in the right club, you got a dacha. If not, you lived in a

three room apartment with your family and fifteen strangers. All systems have potential for corruption. It's just the way it is. People are bastards, and they WILL take advantage.

Some intelligent checks and controls can prevent most systems from becoming RAMPANTLY greedy, but you're not going to easily eliminate corruption completely from any system.

[Alexander]

5. Capitalism isn't. Unregulated capitalism is.

There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism that a bit of free-market regulation can't fix.

I would not consider myself a socialist, but I feel that in order for capitalism to work properly and provide real social mobility, there must be regulations, a safety net for the lower classes, and incentives to start small business and move upward on the economic ladder.

[acmavm]

15. This is the only was capitalism could work. But human nature

being what it is, those with the most will not allow any regulation of themselves or limitations on what they are entitled to amass. And they sure don't think they should sacrifice to provide that 'safety net' you're talking about.

[Alexander]

18. Government regulation isn't voluntary.

The problem I have with socialism is that it provides little monetary incentive to work. As such, Americans will never tolerate it. Dammit, we want to be paid for our 8 hours a day.

You can speculate all you want about how the rich "will not allow" government regulation, but I will just come back at you with facts and historical data about why many either tolerate it for the greater good, or the government forces it upon them in times of crises (read about FDR and the New Deal, for starters).

Regardless of your ability to read the minds of the upper classes, I assure you that many with money feel they should be regulated and they should help provide for the very safety net I spoke of.

Otherwise, why did the richest member of Congress win the Democratic nomination for president two years ago?

:crazy:

[Selatius]

21. The only conception people have of socialism tends to be state socialism

Where the state holds a monopoly in the market. With no competition, there is no incentive to innovate.

However, nobody has really looked at market socialism that combines worker self-management with elements of the free market. In short, market socialism. This is more akin to things several Anarchist groups have pushed in the past despite objections by state socialists of the era and by proto-fascists and fascists of the era.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. It's always been a crime to be poor in this country

Now that's starting to extend to the middle class. Guess who the IRS is far more likely to audit? The person making $50K a year or the person making 10 million? If you said the former, you get the kewpie doll.

[mike_c]

9. voted yes, but I need to add a caveat....

Capitalism is just a system of economics, a means of regulating human exchanges according to "rules" that we hold in common and jointly accept. It isn't inherently good or evil, it just is. How we use it is the important issue, and to what ends. Capitalism lends itself to selfish behavior, just as socialism lends itself to social parasitism. Again, the important matter is the motives of the people engaged in economic exchange, not the set of rules we use to regulate exchange.

One way to deal with the problems of capitalism is to regulate the aspects that lend themselves to selfish abuse. The worst excesses of unbridled capitalism can be controlled, I think, but only by a social contract and legislation that demands the greatest possible distribution of the benefits of social exchange rather than concentration of wealth and power by the few at the expense of everyone else.

[Nite Owl]

10. If we had a really capitalistic

system then no but what we have now is failing because the playing field is no longer level to compete. Corporations can't make their bottom lines because of wages, because Wall St. wants that penny more on the bottom line are allowed to do things like outsourcing labor to gain instead of doing what the system requires---fail and be replaced by someone who can. It's become a spiral to the bottom intead of standards going up they are going down. That makes competition unfair and the tactics that they use are no longer consistent with democracy.

[Warpy]

14. You should have specified UNREGULATED capitalism

because the heavily regulated capitalism in the period when New Deal protections were strongest worked very well for most classes. Even the richest managed to get richer, albeit much more slowly than they are now.

Unregulated caplitalism moves commerce toward monopoly and concentrates capital into the fewest hands possible.

Unregulated capitalism has been a dismal failure every time a system has tried to come close to it. We're about to learn that lesson once again.

[Selatius]

20. This depends on the scope of your argument

If you simply limited it to people in the US, the New Deal was successful, but if we look at the big picture, say, Latin America, the New Deal meant nothing for them. All it did was redistribute wealth inside the United States that ultimately was taken from other countries. (See Smedley Butler)

[Warpy]

23. How could the New Deal mean anything to somebody

in South America? He didn't HAVE IT.

Trying to broaden your argument to people whose governments had failed to regulate capitalism as some sort of proof that regulated capitalism in a completely different place didn't work for them is odd, to say the least.

The heavily regulated capitalism of the New Deal worked very well, thanks. The oligarchic and unregulated capitalism elsewhere did not, and the point is proven.

[Selatius]

26. Well, I was attempting to hit the argument on a global scale.

"He didn't HAVE IT," is true in many cases because it was taken from him. We were talking past each other on that point where you were specifically referring to within the US, and I was more generalized in my approach.

I have nothing against regulating it, but there is no regulating of "it" on a global scale, which is becoming the favorite loophole du jour.

[nolabels]

25. This whole thing makes for a uninformed debate

Capitalists cannot really claim they are not able to make it because the lack of laws that even now says hinders them. The obvious thing they have done is work the system and existing laws to enrich themselves. Without the laws, rules and social acceptance that was fostered for much of the capitalist they would have never made it to where they are today financially

[KSU Wildcat]

16. Capitalism is the only system

that will let you rise as high as your ambition and ability will take you. With capitalism you have the opportunity to move up on the economic scale.

Socialism and communism tends to keep most people down with no hope for anything better. There is no incentive to to work harder or smarter with socialism and communism.

Greed is not necessarily a bad thing. It greases the wheel of progress. The chance to make a lot of money really stirs the creative juices of most people. Without this grease, technology would not be near as advanced as it is today.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

32. agreed (pun intended!)

A quote from one of my favorite movie speachs, Wall Street... Gordon Gekko adressing Teldar Paper Stockholders.

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed - for a lack of a better word - is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Greed, as much we all love to denounce it with disaproving scorn is responsible for arguably the vast majority of everything we and enjoy. Ironically, greed, like alchohol, seems to be both a solution and cause to many of our problems.

We roughly define greed as an excessive desire for wealth. Wealth, is roughly defined as a plentiful amount of anything. Greed has, in my opinion, has both a negative and positive definition.

Capitalism, I believe is powered by greed, but I am not however, making that making that statement with disdain. I also believe it is a relatively unpredictable unstable system, in the short run, it is subject to various fluctuations. Though one thing I can say with confidence is that Capitalism has thus so far been responsible for the vast improvements we are seeing in the human condition. Will the wealth gap widen at times, yes, but other times it will narrow, it will fluctuate, like everything else in the system. We are so quick to point our market failures and the various negative externalities produced by markets and so easily forget the positives.

To me competition, in all aspects of society is necessary. If labor had its way 100% I believe the results would be equally as disastrous if the Corporations had so as well. The key is to make sure neither side ever completely dominantes the other. The key is to keep them locked in a perpetual state of competition of maximizing their own interests interests. Anyone who ever promises you a Utopia whether it is in this life or the next is full of it.

[KSU Wildcat]

33. WOW...That is good.

Really thought provoking....

[originalpckelly]

17. The overriding truth for any economic system, is that people are greedy bastards...

Capitalism seeks to turn that greed against itself to moderate it, sort of like checks and balances do the same in government (when they are followed that is.)

Of course, it would be nice if we could have capitalism in America, what we have now is nothing more than the right-wing version of communism. (For those keeping score, that's fascism.)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. What do you mean by Capitalism?

There's no such thing as a pure capitalist state.

I would ask you to point out one country of any reasonable size that doesn't pratice some form of capitalism, whose citizens have a good standard of living.

Europe is capitalist. The US is capitalist. There are varying degrees of success in how well the systems are implemented. There are socialist-leaning states in Europe that are worse off than the US in many respects. There are also ones that are better off.

My personal opinion is that there's nothing wrong with capitalism provided that it is regulated well, and that the proceeds gained from said regulation are applied to assisting those who have not done well in the system.

"Capitalism" in and of itself is no better or worse for people than "Freedom." We have freedom. So, theoretically, does Iraq.

[applegrove]

22. You grow the middle class with mixed market economies. That is how

democracies work. And all the countries in the world are mixed markets..even Cuba. None are pure capitalist countries. Right now the GOP seems to be trying to grow the rich instead of the middle class. USA equality index close to Russia (a capitalist country for 15 years) and Mexico (2/3 poor, 1/3 rich). That is pathetic.

[unpossibles]

24. I think every system not only has flaws but can be exploited by

people willing to screw someone else over.

I think just making a blanket statement bashing capitalism is as bad as when freepers make blanket statements bashing socialism, although I will say our statements tend to be a bit more honest.

I think we need to move beyond such labels and embrace the idea that for some things socialism is better and for some capitalism is better, and for some a flexible blend of ideas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Some stats: 51 of the top 100 world economies are corporations. More below.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

# Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. source 1
# The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. source 2
# Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. source 3
# Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. source 4
# 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source 5
# The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. source 6
# The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. source 7
# 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods. source 8
# The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%. source 9
# In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much. source 10
# An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:

* 3 to 1 in 1820
* 11 to 1 in 1913
* 35 to 1 in 1950
* 44 to 1 in 1973
* 72 to 1 in 1992 source 11

# “The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year <2000> because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” source 12
# The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. source 13
# A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. source 14
# “The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports.” source 15
# “The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.” source 16
# “Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the world’s nations and large numbers of people.” source 17
# “Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.” source 18
#

According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year. source 19
# For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades <1960 - 1980>. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:

* Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.
* Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
* Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
* Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization.

source 20
# Water problems affect half of humanity:

* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
* Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
* 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consumpe around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
* Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
* The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
* Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
* Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
* To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.
# The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.” source 22
# The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. source 23
# A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World. source 24

[Leftist78]

28. Of course it's a dismal failure

Personally I don't actually favor either system on the whole. I prefer a blended system. Capitalism has proved itself highly inadequate in dealing with people's needs, but it does a relatively good job (properly regulated of course) dealing with the desires of the masses. The problem is in assessing what is a genuine desire and what is a manufactured desire. Capitalism is very good at creating wants that otherwise would not exist, and often cause all sorts of social and communal problems once the mania for the new product that will make your life complete hits the shelves or showroom or whatever. A highly regulated capitalist system for the Coffee shops and clothing stores isn't so bad, but only when blended with socialist protection of everyones basic needs including health care, education, housing, food, transportation etc... Of course this is all just my opinion.

[leftofthedial]

29. I Utterly agree. capitalism is antithetical to democracy

it is corrosive and amoral

with the advent of corporations, capitalism, which was always cancerous, metastisized into the vital organs of western civilization. Only radical intervention can save us now, although it is probably too late.

[warrens]

30. All things considered, the poor are better off here than in most of the world

And there is an opportunity to move out of the poor level. Let's face it, one major problem facing the poor is not starvation, it's obesity. Food's cheaper than it has ever been, and far more plentiful.

But, of course, we don't judge ourselves by people in Darfur. We judge based on what we see around us, and the division between rich and poor is so dramatic, it's sickening. A couple having dinner at Charlie Trotter's could feed a whole family for two or three months.

The people running our country desire a particularly cruel form of capitalism, and I think that's what you're reacting to. Capitalism was pretty fair for a century or so, but it's turning vicious now, and it's basically a war on the middle class.

[magellan]

31. It's not capitalism that's at fault but under-regulated capitalism

...including the free market.

I'm not opposed to corporations and businesses making a profit -- but not off the backs of workers they lay off to outsource the jobs without penalty, and cutting salaries, pensions and healthcare coverage for those who remain, while the CEOs and stockholders make out like bandits. They are driving this country into the ground, and they don't care.