I belive Marx once said that Capitalism can only work because people oppose it. (unfortuanatly I dont have the text book that I read this in)
The reasoning is thus.
In capitalism acts of generocity are irrelevant and do not turn over a profit. People who oppose capitalism and who are generous give a little help and a little joy to those who are left at the bottom end of the capitalist movement, which though it doesnt stop them complaining, it does stop more people from becomming despirate and causing a revolution.
Well thats it in a nutshell I belive, Obviously Marx gos into it a bit more than that. Is’nt it funny though (not funny haha) that the people who most strongly oppose capitalism are perhaps its biggest saviours
I think one thing this omits is that acts of generosity are not necessarily altruistic in nature. Companies will seem generous at times to, for example, associate positive concepts (i.e. generosity) with their brand name to increase their customer base (i.e. partial price offers). The customer is then familiarized with the product and even if out of habit, may have a stronger likelihood of buying that product.
At the same time, companies will give away thousands/millions of dollars to charitable causes to ease a general attitude towards their company. Bill Gates for example has given most of his money to various charities. I don’t know if it is sincere or capitalistic, but no large (small/medium ones do?) company gives away money for the sake of the community it operates in.
All these perpetuate capitalism but also appease the customer base, the working class.
I read this a while ago… obviously biased, but anyways.
The modern capitalist system was meant to originally operate under legal laws. This means the government moderated the economy. In socialist systems, that moderation is taken up to the next level, in which more direct control over the economy comes in from government. In either system, ya need a good government. This doesn’t exactly equate to either greed or civil kindness. It’s more about the technical control dynamics, as value is a form of control [priority].
As long as help is given it should not matter the reason behind it. so a company does it to broaden its customer base, why should this matter. Gates is doing good works with his money. Its not Microsoft that is doing it. It is Gates. If Gates has an ulterior motive it is probably political not economical. Why look a gift horse in the mouth. You have rotten abusers in all forms of gov’t. and economic structures. Capitalists at least are not hiding behind facades.
Capitalism is not “all economic activity within a capitalist system”. It’s a broader conception than that. Communes can, and often do, exist within a capitalist system. Capitalism describes what kind of enitites own the capital that is used in coomerce.
i agree, i always say communism would only work if everyone on earth wanted to participate.
the existence of opposition may cause improvement through conflict but conflict is the exact opposite of what communism sets out to accomplish, so if there is opposition, communism fails by default.
try not to associate Russia Germany or China with communism as they are only 3 examples of wannabe failures (china maybe not so much a failure)
what Hitler Stalin and the other guy did was not communism, that was a few dictators who were full of themselves…
By Hitlers own standards he would have had to shoot himself in the head to achieve the perfect race… in the end he did…
but it was instead after achieving one of the most evil military campaigns in human history, and then suddenly realising how stupid he was when he lost
The theory behind Communism is that the Collective is the soul thing for which you should work. The takes away man’s desire to produce, as production does not benifit them any more than a lack of production. They lack the desire to do better. The only way the society would function is if people were motivated to do their best by something other than their brothers need.
Acts of generosity [or any real acts for that matter] can only be performed by individuals.
Profit is subjective.
Therefore, only an individual can decide whether an act of generosity is relevant. In fact, whether profit was created or not is determined by the individual performing the act.
Communism is destined to fail because, unlike socialism it has a party running it. And when a set oligarchy is in control, greed and corruption is bound to get in the way, no matter how noble the cause is. The only way communism would ever be established so it could work. Would be for a democratic nation to elect a communist party. Which if communism was really all that superior, would have already happened.
according to Stalin yes according to Marx, in the final stage of the revolution: Communism, there is no specific mention about a party running things. Lenin mentioned the need of a Vanguard party to regulate the transition period(socialism) to communsim, and Stalin just kept that… product? Communism was never achieved… So a vanguard party isn’t a “core institution” of Communsim
I think when capitalism is the subject we can only consider profit in the monetary sense. I’m not going to discuss intrinsic wealth here, its too much of a tangent.
I’m not talking about individuals, It’s the system of capitalism I’m interested in
Capitalism is the reason why we could feed the whole world if we wanted. It’s also the reason why we don’t want to. Besides that I have no opinion as long as I’m getting my needs met.
That is wrong. The concept of capitalism is NOT only an accounting issue.
If you want to limit it to accounting, you are actually ending the discussion.
All wealth is subjective.
If you call it “a tangent” then you are limiting the discussion to your preconceived notions.
Since only individuals can act, your “system” is nothing but a subjective concept in your imagination.
Simply put, capitalism exists when a person tries to preserve physical properties or value.
If you save for a rainy day, you are a capitalist.
If you trade your savings with an other person, you are an evil greedy Kapitalist – so say the Marxists.
according to Marx, in the final stage of the revolution: Communism, there is no specific mention about a party running things. Lenin mentioned the need of a Vanguard party to regulate the transition period(socialism) to communsim, and Stalin just kept that… product? Communism was never achieved… So a vanguard party isn’t a “core institution” of Communsim