Can capitalism exist without govt

[Loke]

Well, I try not to be reckless with what I say when I'm talking about things that deal with economics. How people equate capitalism and government's role in it differs vastly from person to person, and considering the general lack of education out there, giving a simple yes or no to a question like that serves no real purpose. If you actually read what I said, I got to a point where I said "no, capitalism could not exist without government".. that was my opinion given my definition of the two words. Everything before that was just me qualifying why I thought it was a poorly phrased questioned. If you actually look up the dictionary definition of capitalism, you'll find that it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[Murphy]

I'm surprised most people aren't realizing that unregulated capitalism and a market economy based on consumption is inherently unsustainable given limited resources.
The economy's purpose is to produce and for the population to consume ad infinitum, with those seeking a profit continually seeking further profit ad inifinitum -- this will reach a breaking point when there is nothing left to consume or the planet is rendered uninhabitable due to continued catastrophic pollutants and so on.
Marx pointed out that an economy based on endless production and consumption such as that is clearly not going to work out and anyone who understands that things on this planet are obviously limited in such a way as to make eternal growth an impossible ideal at best. The best capitalism can hope for is to continue to live on parasitically through some form or other of keynesian gov't intervention or the whole house of cards will come down on the heads of the financiers who created the money that clearly does not relate to anything such as material or labor.

[Murphy]

Basically an outline of what he says is this:

" Marx assumed that the competitive processes of a capitalist market society would lead to a concentration of capital ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Marx built this claim on the assumption, which he holds in common with laissez faire economics, that a competitive economy must lead inevitably to the elimination of some producers by others, there must be winners and losers and the winners would grow increasingly large. Capitalism, Marx argued, contrary to the general assumption of laissez faire economics, had an inherent tendency towards concentration of capital in oligopolies and monopolies. The concentration of capital involved, first of all, the displacement of the handworker and the craftsworker and increasing domination of factory-based technology. An industrial proletariat of wage workers emerged, and grew larger, as independent producers were eliminated by factory-based competition. Capitalist corporations grew more concentrated and larger, the number of individuals owning the means of production became fewer. The class structure becomes polarized and the economic and social conditions of the two opposed main classes more strongly contrasted, leading to political activation of the working class and prolonged conflict with the dominant bourgeois class through political and industrial organization. It is this development of social polarization that provides the unsolveable social or relational contradiction of capitalist society. The social organization of a capitalist society also presented an inherent structural contradiction in the economic dynamics of capitalism. While capitalism revolutionized the means of production by promoting the greatest economic development in human history, its class structure focused the capacity to consume in a tiny minority of the population. The mass social scale of production could not remain compatible with the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. As a result, there must be inherent instability, or anarchy, in the whole capitalist system of production. The social effects of such instability in turn must intensify the political struggle of social classes hastening the event of socialist revolution"

Obviously the idea of socialist revolution is utopian in a way, as Marx held a positive hope in the working class coming together in unity, and it definitely is a possibility, however it's just one of many kinds of possible revolutions -- that there will be tumult is more than likely, but what kind of revolution and structure that comes out of it is up in the air for certain.

[pickled_heretic]

yes, but a better question is to ask: can humans exist without a government?

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Murphy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The economy's purpose is to produce and for the population to consume ad infinitum, with those seeking a profit continually seeking further profit ad inifinitum -- this will reach a breaking point when there is nothing left to consume or the planet is rendered uninhabitable due to continued catastrophic pollutants and so on.

Or, as in the case of the current US economic problems, those seeking profit have all of the currency available in their possession and those seeking goods have no currency remaining. From here, the currency shifts and the process of fleecing consumers starts over again.

Originally Posted by Murphy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

" Marx assumed that the competitive processes of a capitalist market society would lead to a concentration of capital ownership in fewer and fewer hands.

Exactly.

[Loke]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or, as in the case of the current US economic problems, those seeking profit have all of the currency available in their possession and those seeking goods have no currency remaining. From here, the currency shifts and the process of fleecing consumers starts over again.

Not possible. Firms do not keep and hold money. People may hold money, and they may hold a lot compared to other people; but if we're talking about all capital being diverted to the firms so that the consumers have no funds to purchase goods and services, that can't happen. The amount being "held" by the "1%" is for the most part, invested in firms, and the amount that isn't is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. This financial crisis might mean a lot of things, and may surprise a lot of us looking back on it when we realize how there were certain things we just didn't understand - but the idea that massive wealth accumulation could essentially starve the consumption side of the economy thus crippling the production side is not among those things.

Edit: I typed all that out without getting to my final point, which was that many people who cite Marx and make similar arguments to this are acting upon the notion that wealth is finite. There is a set amount of wealth, and it is simply distributed. The simple fact is wealth is created. Things that are worthless by themselves can be combined to be worth something. The fact that you can take materials that are worth a small value, rearrange them, and magically they have increased in value proves that wealth is an infinite concept - there is no limit to wealth, and thus the idea of it being distributed in set amounts is simply wrong.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Loke [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not possible. Firms do not keep and hold money.

Nobody ever said they did. I don't see how that is pertinent, anyway. What firms do with their profits is grant it to investors and corporate officers (see also: the rich) as dividends and bonus checks and then they pass down losses to their employees (see also: the poor) by way off wage/benefit cuts or plain old lay-offs.

Privitising profit while socializing debt will eventually remove all capital from the market.

Oh, and capital is definitely finite, otherwise inflation would be out of control.

[bonehand]

Pure capitalism is only relevant within the domain of economics, thus has no influence of governmental rule.

The problem with society today is that those who are in positions of power in the governments of the world, not just the US, are being greatly influenced by the needs of the corporations and funded by corporations. Thus, in todays society, it is an essential part of governance that the needs of the corporations be met first before the needs of the people. This then implies that there could be no governemnt in many nations without capitalism...however, if one pays attention to the US political system, the realization that this is a broken form of governance.

[iamoenaj]

Originally Posted by bonehand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pure capitalism is only relevant within the domain of economics, thus has no influence of governmental rule.

The problem with society today is that those who are in positions of power in the governments of the world, not just the US, are being greatly influenced by the needs of the corporations and funded by corporations. Thus, in todays society, it is an essential part of governance that the needs of the corporations be met first before the needs of the people. This then implies that there could be no governemnt in many nations without capitalism...however, if one pays attention to the US political system, the realization that this is a broken form of governance.

You're really missing the point. Your implication falls a tad short. A reason, along with others, for why big corporations are kept afloat or assisted by the government (you and I, if you pay your taxes), is because people are no longer self-reliant. Money systems/bartering is no longer localized (unless you live in Berkshire, Mass). Food you consume in one day can come from all the continents of the world..well maybe not one of them. Your life is supported by water you didn't have to retrieve, food you didn't have to grow, and electricity that runs your entire life, clothes you didn't have to make..and the list goes on and on. Corporations do most of the work, in which there is TONS, to produce the products you consume.


Capitalism exists at its best when not controlled by strict regulatory policies. It heavily depends on the fluctuating supply and demand cycle and competition to produce a better and cheaper product. This though, can create some ethical issues, and has, which is why there is an existing bureaucratic burden imposed on e v e r y t h i n g.


*edit* I just realized I argued my point on capitalism existing without governance with the current US system in mind. You have to have some sort of authority/regulatory body. Take Jabba the Hutt for example...yeah, I went there.

[tmoneynegro]

Well the poll is fucked up because I accidentally labeled it

"Can capitalism exist with govt"

instead of

"Can capitalism exist without govt"

So god knows what people are actually voting for