This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Is Capitalism Broken?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 23 Oct 17 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Park Road
I'm paraphrasing but for me it hits the nail on the head. Capitalism is the production of surplus, to be sold, at a profit. Proto-capitalism (realistically, capitalism in its earliest form) dates back to Luca Pacioli (1447 to 1517) who documented a mathematical text that effectively invented Double Entry Book Keeping - a necessary precursor to capitalism (a system of effectively establishing profit and loss). The second pre-requisite was the break down of the notion of a divinity driven world, which came from the renascence and the notion of work being 'good' in its own right (The Protestant Work Ethic). Prior to this the idea of wealth being 'good', rather than as a means for doing good works, was non-existent. The third pre-requisite for capitalism is an controlled means of monetary exchange (i.e. a system of money that is based on a fixed value, rather than the individual value of the coins). Also, slavery made capitalism somewhat questionable - Arguably, countries tend to become capitalist, when they've dropped slavery (which is an oddly unprofitable form of labour - the main reason slavery tended to die out was really the death of agrarian economics - Slaves are efficient in agriculture - they're massively inefficient in industry). The fourth pre-requisite was availability of luxuary goods and effective means of production. In earlier times, pre-Industrialisation (ie the end of an aggraian economy and urbanisation). Whilst the majority of the population were dispersed widely, trade was a limited resource, and production limited. Industrialisation and the rise of industrial production was effectively the final catalyst. But you don't really have a documented concept of capitalism, until the Philosopher Adam Smith.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Oct 17 1.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Don't go all Sartre on me. Human behaviour and nature cannot be seperated so easily. That is just an illusion. A conceit. It is fair to say that human nature is complex and adaptable but the principle of survival of the fittest or more accurately, the fittest genes, is the ultimate goal. Evolution is driven by random selection though and fits a biological paradigm, which excludes individual and group actions - and is only interested in species wide definitions of natural behaviour - based in biological traits. Also you're definition of fittest is incorrect, survival of the fittest, relates to those who's biological traits, best suited to the environment. Evolution is unsuited to understanding or defining economic exchange systems (unless you can ties established biological traits and advantages to advantage in that economic system). Also evolution is 'blind'/ random, it has no knowable goal, it simply occurs, it isn't driven towards an end result (humans aren't an end product of better evolution - they're just a freak result of mutations across a monumental time period) and will become, like all other hominds, extinct. Defining human behaviour by biology is a very dangerous game to get into. Edited by jamiemartin721 (23 Oct 2017 1.34pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 23 Oct 17 1.34pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Some's it up simply......
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| steeleye20 Croydon 23 Oct 17 1.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What is capitalism, UK style. Materialism, consumerism, inequality, increasing poverty including child poverty, homelessness, exclusion social deprivation, ruined prison system, law only for the rich, desperate housing situation. I could go on and it is quite preventable IMO. A left wing labour government could tackle some of these but not the tories who have caused most of the problems. What is the point of any system that does not benefit the majority only a few rich people.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 23 Oct 17 2.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
What is capitalism, UK style. Materialism, consumerism, inequality, increasing poverty including child poverty, homelessness, exclusion social deprivation, ruined prison system, law only for the rich, desperate housing situation. I could go on and it is quite preventable IMO. A left wing labour government could tackle some of these but not the tories who have caused most of the problems. What is the point of any system that does not benefit the majority only a few rich people. Capitalism is largely people living their lives. It is businesses producing goods and services that people want. If people don't want their products or they are of too poor a quality or too expensive, the business goes bust, and businesses that do provide what people want, thrive. In socialist economies, the only products available are those that some planner decides should be produced. Whatever the quality or price of these products, you are stuck with them, there is no other choice. However bad the goods and services are they can continue forever - no constraints on them whatsoever.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 23 Oct 17 2.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
is alternative comedy also an economic system ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 23 Oct 17 2.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Evolution is driven by random selection though and fits a biological paradigm, which excludes individual and group actions - and is only interested in species wide definitions of natural behaviour - based in biological traits. Also you're definition of fittest is incorrect, survival of the fittest, relates to those who's biological traits, best suited to the environment. Evolution is unsuited to understanding or defining economic exchange systems (unless you can ties established biological traits and advantages to advantage in that economic system). Also evolution is 'blind'/ random, it has no knowable goal, it simply occurs, it isn't driven towards an end result (humans aren't an end product of better evolution - they're just a freak result of mutations across a monumental time period) and will become, like all other hominds, extinct. Defining human behaviour by biology is a very dangerous game to get into. Edited by jamiemartin721 (23 Oct 2017 1.34pm) Yes, mutations are random but the ones that survive might allow a tiny advantage. This, in turn, increases the successful continuation of genes. Human behaviour is about adaptation to environment and therefore aids this process. Genes play a key role in this. The two things cannot be seperated. The human being is a vehicle for the genes. What it does has a direct bearing on the process. The complexity of human society is just another layer to that process. What would be the value of it, in evolutionary terms, otherwise?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Oct 17 2.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes, mutations are random but the ones that survive might allow a tiny advantage. This, in turn, increases the successful continuation of genes. Human behaviour is about adaptation to environment and therefore aids this process. Genes play a key role in this. The two things cannot be seperated. The human being is a vehicle for the genes. What it does has a direct bearing on the process. The complexity of human society is just another layer to that process. What would be the value of it, in evolutionary terms, otherwise?
None of which though relates to capitalism, as a system of economics, which is generously, only around 400 years old, and not carried on a biological trait. The paradigm your describing applies only the definitions of a species, not to individuals within a species where behaviour is generated and perpetuated in a social, not biological environment. The hypothesis you present, is rejected almost universally as invalid in social sciences (including Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology), the notion of functionalism or biological determinism have been reduced to being factors of behaviour, not causal definitions of behaviour - and replaced by more complex models. You can't reduce human behaviour to the 'selfish gene', even that's rejected as feasible in Evolutionary Psychology. Dawkins in the selfish gene is only describing a model that fits within the requirements of biological science paradims - Its not a statement of truth. Its a useful, and beneficial model for understanding how genetics and evolution operate within a species over time, its not a 'literal thing'. There is no evidence to support the idea that genes define behaviour, they may contribute to it, but then not as much as social surroundings and external peers do.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Oct 17 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Capitalism is largely people living their lives. It is businesses producing goods and services that people want. If people don't want their products or they are of too poor a quality or too expensive, the business goes bust, and businesses that do provide what people want, thrive. In socialist economies, the only products available are those that some planner decides should be produced. Whatever the quality or price of these products, you are stuck with them, there is no other choice. However bad the goods and services are they can continue forever - no constraints on them whatsoever. So why does advertising and branding exist - Surely these are necessary to convince people that they need or desire something, or to create a false value of quality. Captialism is very good in so much it feeds into peoples aspirations, where as socialism really doesn't. Also capitalist economies are effective at trading externally, to deal with shortages, which Communist ecconomies cannot do (if all you produce are TVs it doesn't really matter how good their quality might be, if you want to sell them, and its all you have to sell, your going into a buyers market, and you have to sell, because the country producing all the wheat for bread has just had a famine).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 23 Oct 17 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
None of which though relates to capitalism, as a system of economics, which is generously, only around 400 years old, and not carried on a biological trait. The paradigm your describing applies only the definitions of a species, not to individuals within a species where behaviour is generated and perpetuated in a social, not biological environment. The hypothesis you present, is rejected almost universally as invalid in social sciences (including Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology), the notion of functionalism or biological determinism have been reduced to being factors of behaviour, not causal definitions of behaviour - and replaced by more complex models. You can't reduce human behaviour to the 'selfish gene', even that's rejected as feasible in Evolutionary Psychology. Dawkins in the selfish gene is only describing a model that fits within the requirements of biological science paradims - Its not a statement of truth. Its a useful, and beneficial model for understanding how genetics and evolution operate within a species over time, its not a 'literal thing'. There is no evidence to support the idea that genes define behaviour, they may contribute to it, but then not as much as social surroundings and external peers do. Again, I can't seperate things as you are. I think the problem here is complexity. It's easy to reject relationships that cannot be easily seen. Genes clearly do produce advantageous behaviour, albeit by chance, but this in turn must allow for a more successful proliferation of genes. Social systems must be an extension of similar animal behaviour. The gene does not 'know' this but this is the vehicle by which a randomly selected advantageous gene are reproduced in greated numbers. There is no conscious effort by a gene but it's vehicle, the animal, is driven by mechanisms that aid the process. Capitalism evolved via this process. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 Oct 2017 2.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Park Road  23 Oct 17 2.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Capitalism is the production of surplus, to be sold, at a profit. Proto-capitalism (realistically, capitalism in its earliest form) dates back to Luca Pacioli (1447 to 1517) who documented a mathematical text that effectively invented Double Entry Book Keeping - a necessary precursor to capitalism (a system of effectively establishing profit and loss). The second pre-requisite was the break down of the notion of a divinity driven world, which came from the renascence and the notion of work being 'good' in its own right (The Protestant Work Ethic). Prior to this the idea of wealth being 'good', rather than as a means for doing good works, was non-existent. The third pre-requisite for capitalism is an controlled means of monetary exchange (i.e. a system of money that is based on a fixed value, rather than the individual value of the coins). Also, slavery made capitalism somewhat questionable - Arguably, countries tend to become capitalist, when they've dropped slavery (which is an oddly unprofitable form of labour - the main reason slavery tended to die out was really the death of agrarian economics - Slaves are efficient in agriculture - they're massively inefficient in industry). The fourth pre-requisite was availability of luxuary goods and effective means of production. In earlier times, pre-Industrialisation (ie the end of an aggraian economy and urbanisation). Whilst the majority of the population were dispersed widely, trade was a limited resource, and production limited. Industrialisation and the rise of industrial production was effectively the final catalyst. But you don't really have a documented concept of capitalism, until the Philosopher Adam Smith. Learnt a lot there thanks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
tome  Inner Tantalus Time. 23 Oct 17 2.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
None of which though relates to capitalism, as a system of economics, which is generously, only around 400 years old, and not carried on a biological trait. The paradigm your describing applies only the definitions of a species, not to individuals within a species where behaviour is generated and perpetuated in a social, not biological environment. The hypothesis you present, is rejected almost universally as invalid in social sciences (including Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology), the notion of functionalism or biological determinism have been reduced to being factors of behaviour, not causal definitions of behaviour - and replaced by more complex models. You can't reduce human behaviour to the 'selfish gene', even that's rejected as feasible in Evolutionary Psychology. Dawkins in the selfish gene is only describing a model that fits within the requirements of biological science paradims - Its not a statement of truth. Its a useful, and beneficial model for understanding how genetics and evolution operate within a species over time, its not a 'literal thing'. There is no evidence to support the idea that genes define behaviour, they may contribute to it, but then not as much as social surroundings and external peers do. Also, not sure if you've come across some of the recent work by George Monbiot and Sophie Raworth - quite interesting stuff suggesting that individualism and in it for yourself attitudes can't be automatically deemed the 'natural' order of things. Instead, there is an argument that humans are inherently social and that supporting collective aims is more likely to create happiness.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.