|
Will we now look at extreme capitalism the same way we look at communism?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
The last few weeks, or indeed, since the credit crunch began, has shown that extreme right-wing economic policies are just as unstable and volatile as extreme left-wing policies.
Since the end of the Cold War, and the economic collapse of the USSR signalling the failure of communism, extreme left-wing economic policies have all but disappeared from mainstream politics.
The end of the Cold War was also championed as a victory for the primacy of pure free-market economics by its proponents.
Now, this extreme economic ideology has also spectacularly collapsed and been proven to be as much of a failure as communism was at the end of the 80s.
My question: Will we now view this extreme right-wing economic ideology the same way we viewed communism following the collapse of the USSR, allowing it to disappear from mainstream politics in favour of a more social friendly, centrist ideology, or will the rich elite who profiteer so much from this way of running the economy attempt to force us to carry on regardless of the social consequences? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| extreme right wing ideology? the people who benefited and made millions while the major institutions failed are democrats. |
|
|
| diggerz |
Excellent thread. :)
imo, extremes are never healthy specially in economics and finance. However, take this with a grain of salt: "America was built on the foundations of capitalism". From the early days of the western fairytale tycoons (e.g - Henry Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) which exemplified the true essence of 'capitalism'and gradually became 'superheroes' under the eyes of Mark Twain and many other literary figures which helped portray a vignette of a 'country' where everyone's effort, discipline and sweat would eventually pay off; a nation of industrialist-dreamweavers that have shaped the financial system of recent times. For a country that has lived under the assumption that 'anyone who comes with a vision, a dream or a goal will ultimately succeed or attain it', might have to reconsider that idea over the next couple of years (imo)
According to MSNBC's recent article on the 'financial crisis' the following has been said, "this will be the biggest proposed government intervention in financial markets since the Great Depression." I don't entirely agree with this, but the real damage of the crisis has not entirely sunk in. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
extreme right wing ideology? the people who benefited and made millions while the major institutions failed are democrats. |
Not sure you can make that statement with any kind of authority, but I shall play devil's advocate:
Nobody outside of America views the Democrats as left wing economically. They are liberals of the truest sense - politically and economically. So altho Democrats might be left wing politically, on liberties and rights etc, opposed to the Republicans who are right wing politically, with their traditional morals etc, both parties adhere to free market economics.
So, even if what you say above is true, it's irrelevant to the question I asked and it does not effect in anyway the statement "extreme right wing economics" because both Republicans and Democrats in America adhere to this doctrine... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Laissez-faire capitalism is just as bad as Marxist communism. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
You consider all of the taxation, regulation, mandates, subsidies, and bailouts that we have in America today "extreme capitalism"?
What planet do you live on?
You could certainly call it "right wing" or republican...since those sides tend to lean to a corporatist/fascist form of doing things.. But they are certainly not representative of true capitalism. Capitalism is LIBERTARIAN in nature. It is UP on the political spectrum...not right.
 |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| capitalism is good. |
|
|
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
capitalism is good. |
elaborate |
|
|
| The17sss |
| when capitalism makes people rich, they love it... when the risk doesn't go someone's way and it fails, those same people love socialism. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
capitalism is good. |
I changed my mind. If latin likes capitalism I guess I'm a socialist now.
f*ck! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
You consider all of the taxation, regulation, mandates, subsidies, and bailouts that we have in America today "extreme capitalism"?
What planet do you live on?
You could certainly call it "right wing" or republican...since those sides tend to lean to a corporatist/fascist form of doing things.. But they are certainly not representative of true capitalism. Capitalism is LIBERTARIAN in nature. It is UP on the political spectrum...not right.
|
True, while the economic system in America is not "pure" capitalism (never been such a thing in the world) it is extreme in comparison with all the other economic systems in place around the world. It's usually referred to in Europe as American neoliberal economics and is viewed as an extreme right wing economic model (as opposed to the more socialist influenced economies of Europe)
Ps I never even mentioned the word "capitalist" in any of my previous posts... ;) |
|
|
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
when capitalism makes people rich, they love it... when the risk doesn't go someone's way and it fails, those same people love socialism. |
According to Commons, "The difficulty in defining a field for the so-called institutional economics is the uncertainty of meaning of an institution. Sometimes an institution seems to mean a framework of laws or natural rights within which individuals act like inmates. Sometimes it seems to mean the behavior of the inmates themselves. Sometimes anything additional to or critical of the classical or hedonic economics is deemed to be institutional. Sometimes anything that is "economic behavior" is institutional. Sometimes anything that is "dynamic" instead of "static," or a "process" instead of commodities, or activity instead of feelings, or mass action instead of individual action, or management instead of equilibrium, or control instead of laissez faire, seems to be institutional economics.
"Historically this transactional psychology may he seen to have changed, and is changing continuously, so that the whole philosophies of capitalism, fascism or communism are variabilities of it. In the common-law decisions it is the changing distinctions between persuasion and coercion or duress, persuasion being considered the outcome of a reasonable status of either equality of opportunity, or fair competition, or equality of bargaining power, or due process of law. But economic coercion and physical duress are denials of these economic ideals, and nearly every case of economic conflict becomes an assumption or investigation, under its own circumstances, of the negotiational psychology of persuasion and coercion"
The majority of individuals dismiss the views expressed by individuals such as Thorstein Veblen and John R. Commons when approaching the real value of 'capitalism'.
"... the smallest unit of the institutional economists is a unit of activity -- a transaction, with its participants. Transactions intervene between the labor of the classic economists and the pleasures of the hedonic economists, simply because it is society that controls access to the forces of nature, and transactions are, not the "exchange of commodities," but the alienation and acquisition, between individuals, of the rights of property and liberty created by society, which must therefore be negotiated between the parties concerned before labor can produce, or consumers can consume, or commodities be physically exchanged..."
--"Institutional Economics" American Economic Review, vol. 21 (1931), pp.648-657. |
|
|
|
|
