Is Capitalism Natural?

Your view?

It is the only way that humanity has found to grow. Everyone deserves to enjoy the fruit of their own work. So it's a resounding yes

gapidalism DDDDDDDDDD

sozlism bad 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 dead >:((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Society inherently organized itself on commanders and commanded. So, makes sense a capitalistic organization characterizes society

Feudalism is natural.

If it is natural, then why we can see no such system in the "nature" (aboriginal tribes, wild animals in general)?

كتب بواسطة Guest, 27.03.2019 at 20:12

If it is natural, then why we can see no such system in the "nature" (aboriginal tribes, wild animals in general)?

Well, we did. And it works, we are part of nature

كتب بواسطة DeepFriedUnicorn, 27.03.2019 at 20:34

Well, we did. And it works, we are part of nature

By what measure do you say it works? There is an economic crisis cycle repeating itself every few decades. And almost all economically-right political decisions increase the wage gaps, decrease the living standards for most of the people... need I say more?

كتب بواسطة Guest, 27.03.2019 at 21:03

By what measure do you say it works? There is an economic crisis cycle repeating itself every few decades. And almost all economically-right political decisions increase the wage gaps, decrease the living standards for most of the people... need I say more?

But the alternative is a life full of poverty for everyone lol, under a communist/socialist government. Capitalist countries do need regulation but are better off than non-capitalist countries

كتب بواسطة King_Unleashed, 27.03.2019 at 21:23

But the alternative is a life full of poverty for everyone lol, under a communist/socialist government. Capitalist countries do need regulation but are better off than non-capitalist countries

Completely untrue. Why do people nowadays immigrate from the fully capitalist USA to social democracies in the Europe way more than vice versa? 4 million Americans were living outside the USA in 1999, but in 2016 it's already 9 million.

Currently the most socialist countries (more socialist than Soviet Union and China in 60s) — Norway, Iceland, Finland, Singapore — all have the highest living standard. Although, only Norway and Singapore have truly socialist policies (social ownership of the capital in Norway and of the housing in Singapore). You can see more of that by comparing HDI and inequality-adjusted HDI. In the countries that skew to the left, all or almost all people live a good life. In the ones that are strongly economically right, not so much (the USA and the most of the Western Europe has lost its position on the ranking).

And basically no country has ever came close to "communism", besides Yugoslavia which had many flaws in the implementation of self-management socialism. The transition into capitalism in 90s, on the other side, has completely destroyed the economy and the living standard. Balkan countries are the least developped in the Europe right now. It wasn't like that before.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 28.03.2019 at 06:32

Currently the most socialist countries (more socialist than Soviet Union and China in 60s) — Norway, Iceland, Finland, Singapore — all have the highest living standard. Although, only Norway and Singapore have truly socialist policies (social ownership of the capital in Norway and of the housing in Singapore). In the countries that skew to the left, all or almost all people live a good life. In the ones that are strongly economically right, not so much (the USA and the most of the Western Europe has lost its position on the ranking).

And basically no country has ever came close to "communism", besides Yugoslavia which had many flaws in the implementation of self-management socialism. The transition into capitalism in 90s, on the other side, has completely destroyed the economy and the living standard. Balkan countries are the least developped in the Europe right now. It wasn't like that before.

The nordic countries and Singapore aren't socialist. They're extremely capitalist, but with a strong safety net and governmental investment in its citizens. I'm not against that. By communism/socialism I meant a heavily restrictive government where there is little to no free market and an extremely high tax rate, stifling growth. Nordic countries and Singapore are social democracies, which is fine. They aren't socialist or communist.

Balkan countries were even poorer before their transitions. GDP per capitas were even lower in the 1980s and 1990s.
India/China, two large countries that have transitioned from socialistic to capitalistic economics, also faced the stagnation that the balkan countries may be facing. India faced it from 1990-2002, and China faced it from 1986-1993. But after the transition periods were over, both countries' economies shot up due to free market reforms. China of course opened its economy 13 years earlier than India did, leading to a current economy 4 times larger than Indias'. This shows the power of the free market. Social safety nets are of course a good thing for a nation and should be the norm as it is in the nordic countries. But the fundamental framework of a country's economy must be the free market. Nordic countries/Singapore combine the free market and a social safety net very nicely

كتب بواسطة King_Unleashed, 28.03.2019 at 08:14

The nordic countries and Singapore aren't socialist. They're extremely capitalist, but with a strong safety net and governmental investment in its citizens. I'm not against that. By communism/socialism I meant a heavily restrictive government where there is little to no free market and an extremely high tax rate, stifling growth. Nordic countries and Singapore are social democracies, which is fine. They aren't socialist or communist.

Balkan countries were even poorer before their transitions. GDP per capitas were even lower in the 1980s and 1990s.
India/China, two large countries that have transitioned from socialistic to capitalistic economics, also faced the stagnation that the balkan countries may be facing. India faced it from 1990-2002, and China faced it from 1986-1993. But after the transition periods were over, both countries' economies shot up due to free market reforms. China of course opened its economy 13 years earlier than India did, leading to a current economy 4 times larger than Indias'. This shows the power of the free market. Social safety nets are of course a good thing for a nation and should be the norm as it is in the nordic countries. But the fundamental framework of a country's economy must be the free market. Nordic countries/Singapore combine the free market and a social safety net very nicely

Do you even have an idea what you're talking about? Socialism means that the capital is managed democratically, unlike in almost all economic forms in the capitalism. State companies and the oil stock are managed democratically in Norway. So is the housing in Singapore. Naming what produces the desired results "capitalism" and what doesn't "socialim" is contrary to the data from real life. You should think about getting out more.

It's pointless to argue with you about Balkan countries economy. Obviously, you, an American, have an idea how people lived before and after. I don't know what numbers are you even using? The transition has begun in 80s and is still ongoing. There isn't much improvement, besides the global trend of (slow) economic growth.

Capitalism, socialism, communism, these are all 20th century boomer ideologies. The Cold War is over lads. The future is human-centered capitalism.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 27.03.2019 at 20:12

If it is natural, then why we can see no such system in the "nature" (aboriginal tribes, wild animals in general)?

Good one. Tribes in Latin America and Africa still live in communes, share their stuff.

Then again, they didn't made progress for 5000 years, but atleast their lifestyle is ecological and sustainable.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 27.03.2019 at 21:03

كتب بواسطة DeepFriedUnicorn, 27.03.2019 at 20:34

Well, we did. And it works, we are part of nature

By what measure do you say it works? There is an economic crisis cycle repeating itself every few decades. And almost all economically-right political decisions increase the wage gaps, decrease the living standards for most of the people... need I say more?

With all due respect, that's incorrect: capitalism increased living standards in western europe for example after WW2, rapidly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder)

If there is economic crisis cycle repeating, that's due to 'human error' (bankers planning 2008, or US govt deliberate destabilizing economies for geopolitical interest).

Even China started to grow rapidly after reforming to market economy (capital-based economy).

كتب بواسطة King_Unleashed, 27.03.2019 at 21:23

كتب بواسطة Guest, 27.03.2019 at 21:03

By what measure do you say it works? There is an economic crisis cycle repeating itself every few decades. And almost all economically-right political decisions increase the wage gaps, decrease the living standards for most of the people... need I say more?

But the alternative is a life full of poverty for everyone lol, under a communist/socialist government. Capitalist countries do need regulation but are better off than non-capitalist countries

Incorrect since 1991. With globalization, internet, tourism, unlocked archives we know for the long time now that communist countries were not as perceived in the West. Their economies were developed and living standards high as proven in their demographics (lifespan, birth rates, education levels).

كتب بواسطة King_Unleashed, 28.03.2019 at 08:14

This shows the power of the free market.

No it doesn't. Human factor + free market maybe, but only free market... nope. Ukraine is fully capitalist for 30 years now, and they became poorer than Moldova (poorest nation in Europe for long time).

Like 3 million Ukrainians emigrated from capitalist Ukraine to capitalist Russia and around 1 million emigrated to capitalist West. Free market didn't work for them. Lowest GDP per capita in Europe, and -200,000 people each year.

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 28.03.2019 at 08:54

Capitalism, socialism, communism, these are all 20th century boomer ideologies. The Cold War is over lads. The future is human-centered capitalism.

Kinda redundant to say that isn't it. Aren't all ideologies and economic theories, human-centered? Why are we working if not to improve our lives?

And Cold War is not over apparently (if you watch the news or travel), just frozen for 20 years and continued since March 2014. In fact we are in greater danger than during peak of Cold War:


1961: US-Soviet line was in Berlin
2019: US-Russian line is on Russian border

1961: US was placing nukes in Turkey, USSR in Cuba
2019: US is placing launchers in Poland and Romania (modern launchers can shoot offensive and defensive missiles alike), heavy equipment in Ukraine, infantry in Baltic, advisors in Georgia

1961: USA had 15 allies, USSR 10 (balance of power)
2019: USA have 30 allies, Russia 2 (balance broken, power goes into ones favor, giving him the illusion of easy victory in sudden conflict)

1961: US propaganda targeted an ideology, communism (fair target, politics as usual)
2019: US propaganda target a nation, ethnic group, Russians (racism, fascism, dehumanizing an opponent to justify violent actions against him)

1961: USA was democratic, no threat of authoritarian leader starting war. No democracy in USSR, threat higher
2019: Russia democratic, extremists impossible to get elected. Situation different in the US due to pervasive lobbying and corporate corruption.



I do not blame USA/NATO for everything, it is Russian fault for not developing faster, being so slow and lazy thus being weaker (until war economy kicks in, then becoming stronger but that's literally totalitarianism, therefore war is not liked by Russian side). NATO promised to not go east after 1989 (US and USSR stopped Cold War before USSR collapsed), and no need to place missiles in Poland due to 'threat from Iran and North Korea'. US troops remain in Europe, 70 years after WW2 and 30 years after Soviet collapse, for no reason. If only those troops could help vs migrants, but they are not doing anything, just wasting US tax money.

كتب بواسطة Skanderbeg, 28.03.2019 at 14:19

No it doesn't. Human factor + free market maybe, but only free market... nope. Ukraine is fully capitalist for 30 years now, and they became poorer than Moldova (poorest nation in Europe for long time).

Like 3 million Ukrainians emigrated from capitalist Ukraine to capitalist Russia and around 1 million emigrated to capitalist West. Free market didn't work for them. Lowest GDP per capita in Europe, and -200,000 people each year.

Sure, more factors are needed as well. But a lack of economic freedom will lead to stagnation in a country in general.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 28.03.2019 at 08:32

Do you even have an idea what you're talking about? Socialism means that the capital is managed democratically, unlike in almost all economic forms in the capitalism. State companies and the oil stock are managed democratically in Norway. So is the housing in Singapore. Naming what produces the desired results "capitalism" and what doesn't "socialim" is contrary to the data from real life. You should think about getting out more.

It's pointless to argue with you about Balkan countries economy. Obviously, you, an American, have an idea how people lived before and after. I don't know what numbers are you even using? The transition has begun in 80s and is still ongoing. There isn't much improvement, besides the global trend of (slow) economic growth.

The point I was making is that economic growth is usually higher in countries with higher amounts of economic freedom. Many european countries have unfortunately floundered as a result of the 2008 economic crash of course. But developing countries have experienced huge amounts of growth via economic liberalization. And even developed economies benefit from economic freedom (admittedly at a slight expense to the working-class, who must deal with the increased supply of cheaper labor from outside countries if there is ample immigration). So I'll continue believing that economic freedom is better than not having it. Too many billions of people worldwide have suffered in poverty in the last 100 years for me to believe otherwise. Capitalism is the greatest form of wealth creation there is.

Also that definition of socialism you used is different from the definition they teach here in America. So what are we even arguing over lol. We still agree on the same premises but simply have different definitions of the same word. Here in America socialism has a highly negative connotation due to the Cold War, while social democracy doesn't have as much of a negative connotation. So in talking about policies that benefit people at perhaps a slight reduction in economic growth, politicians talk of social democracy, not socialism.