Does Extreme Capitalism Give Birth to Socialism?

Welcome friends! It has been quite some time since I have authored a thread on ATS and I am honored to bring you a topic/idea that will possibly make you think about things a little differently.

I had a conversation with some friends last night and one of the topics we discussed was socialism and capitalism. We were are able to agree that socialism is a good thing. Now, before you get your undies all tied in a knot, I am talking about socialism as it is applied at the community level. Some examples would be how some religious institutions use the resources provided by the collective wealth of the faithful to give food, shelter and other assistance to people in need, loaning your family members money or buying them groceries and or using the money and resources of the collective community for a common purpose.

As you can tell, the definition and examples I have provided do not delve into the Marxist or state-directed ideologies that most people apply to the word socialism. That being the case, I think we can all agree that socialism, as I have defined it, is a good thing.

In modern America, we have examples of state-mandated socialism, such as welfare, food stamps, health care and other programs in which the "state" takes the tax money of the people and uses it to provide such services. This does not fall into the extreme Marxist ideology, but it does fall into the definition of socialism far beyond the scope of what many find "acceptable".

The conversation with my friends continued on and we also discussed how America was designed to flourish on a capitalist economy. Any American has the opportunity to climb the ladder of success through their hard work, ingenuity and know-how. That is what America provides for it's people through the direction of the Constitution.

It was not so long ago, when America still had a manufacturing base, that this ideal was alive and well throughout America. People worked hard, provided for their families and the blue collar worker could live a good life. Half of the country did not have to rely on assistance programs from the government just to survive because capitalism was working as intended.... work hard and you would be rewarded.

But that is not the case today. It seems capitalism has run amok and the corporations have bastardized American capitalism to mean that the ultimate goal is to make money. To find the best path to achieve that goal, they shipped jobs out of the country, lowered the value and pay we place on a hard days work and have slowly turned America into a service nation. We no longer have a nation of skilled laborers that make TV's, and toasters...we are a nation that flips burgers and sells insurance.

As the jobs leave the US and the pay slowly dwindles, we have seen the rise of assistance programs in America. More people are on food stamps and welfare than at any other time in our history. Needless to say, we are more dependent on our government than those that came before us.

During the conversation with my friends, I laid all of these facts out to them and then I asked them a simple question.

Does extreme capitalism give birth to socialism?

Think about that for a second. Is that not exactly what has happened in the US? Capitalism was allowed to thrive freely in America with very little regulation and if we take the examples I mentioned earlier, outsourcing of jobs, lower pay, no manufacturing etc, could we not make the case that extreme capitalism can be and is the catalyst that brought state-mandated socialism to America through programs like food stamps, welfare, health care etc?

So let me ask the question again: Does extreme capitalism give birth to socialism?

I ask my fellow members to ponder this idea and to comment as necessary. It will be interesting to hear what many of you have to say on this idea and I hope for a productive conversation.

Thanks for reading!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You're mistaking socialism with anarchism.

Volunteerism= Anarchy.

Minimal governments breed out of control governments. You cannot use violence in the name of the greater good. It will always fail. Complete free will=Anarchy.

I always explain anarchy as this: 100% complete control over one's own unit of human capital.

I like this guy's explanation:

www.youtube.com...

Also to add: Capitalism DOES NOT lead to socialism. Capitalism in it's purest form is anarchy.

Short answer is "no".

The problem with socialism is that it means different things to different people and capitalism can have myriad flavours too. In Europe - or the UK specifically - we have many institutions which we consider "normal", but which a typical US Democratic or Republican would fart out accusations of commie meddling.

The "capitalism is failing" argument is also a bit of a red herring, because it is not. Jobs move from the US to Indonesia, then when that gets too expensive they shift to China. Capitalism in this context is about price competition and if I can make a plastic toy in China for $1, by paying the locals peanuts, then why make it in the US for $10 because I will go out of business.

Socialism at a national level is taking more tax to provide services and things to people, like state paid maternity and paternity leave, pre-school childcare and universal healthcare. These things are considered socialist intrusions by most Americans as they mean higher taxes and state involvement in their lives - or at least that is what people perceive.

Capitalism and socialism can co-exist. They do co-exist in most advanced and developed countries.

Interestingly, to see capitalism and socialism failing, one just needs to look at China where the average people get nothing, but are being increasingly screwed by capitalism!

Regards

reply to post by OrphanApology


Anarcho-socialism.

Im going to quote the answer to your question;

"This is real hip hop, and it don't stop til we get the Po Po of the block"

Extreme capitalism in America, topped with civil injustice has led to an underground hip-hop movement geared toward starting an army

I think you are right to say that corporations has gone haywire. I think globalization is part of the problem actually. When all those big buisnisses abandoned your country so to did their obligation towards their communities. It`s all about profits now. They suck the government dry of money and act as "job creators" in other countries. Western societies are but consumers now. But with the continuing loss of purchasing power we wont be for much longer.

Perhaps then foreign corporatons will find their cheap labor here?

I think that in a political climate as this some "aspects" of socialism is called for, namely that of regulating wall street. The glaring economic disparity really contributes to the current polarization of politics, which has led to actually shutting down the government. Its a government unable to serve its citizens needs.

One can argue for cutting spending og raising the ceiling, but one cannot rely on corporations to act in ones nations interests. The corporations are rich to the point of being extremely powerful, they cannot become to big to fail. They drag us all along with them when they fall. Some redistribution of wealth is in order

An interesting rapport on Political Polarization and Income Inequality
www.princeton.edu...

MrSinister
I think you are right to say that corporations has gone haywire. I think globalization is part of the problem actually. When all those big buisnisses abandoned your country so to did their obligation towards their communities. It`s all about profits now. They suck the government dry of money and act as "job creators" in other countries. Western societies are but consumers now. But with the continuing loss of purchasing power we wont be for much longer.

Perhaps then foreign corporatons will find their cheap labor here?

Corporations do not exists because of free market principles. They exist because of the state.

Corporations are Frankenstein's monster, they exist because states pass laws for them to exist. In a free market economy there is no such thing as a corporation.

Imagine an economy based on a currency like bitcoin where there is no inflation and the value of a dollar cannot be manipulated. One without laws.

-No employer tied healthcare(insurance product)
-No centralized accounting office that makes up rules that determines value
-No laws that create a state sponsored business cartel
-Owners being directly responsible for losses and bad choices
-Very REAL, real world repercussions for the decision makers in a enterprise

Note: a cartel is a group of businesses that come together and set prices to stifle competition.

What we have and have had in the United States is NOT a free market system. It is NOT capitalism. It is state mandated business cartels where fiat currency is controlled by a banking cartel. It is NOT a free market.

reply to post by OrphanApology


Right you are, there is no free market. I was commenting on the current system.

reply to post by MrSinister


My apologies. I was responding to you based on the context of the thread. Cheers.

reply to post by OrphanApology


No worries

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I agree with you, good argument. I think socialism is not a bad thing. Socialism is not as extremist as communism. Another thought I have on the matter is that in our country, we need more middle-class families (even saying this I feel like it's a joke, like the idea of it is outdated).

One last thing. One motivating factor in our government (the United States) for sending out assistance to the population has been to deal with civil unrest, I am sure. So what happens when our government has the ability to deal with civil unrest through military means?

What I'm saying here, is if we switch the justification of power for our government from Democracy (what the people want) to military force, there are going to be a lot of changes to the pattern you are suggesting.

For example, the population of the country will not have to be happy, because they can be killed or arrested. If they don't have to be happy, they don't have to be fed, and ensuring their quality of life is of no concern to the elected officials, because votes are irrelevant.

This means that the only concern regarding the average American Citizen would be: are they necessary? If not, exterminate. Otherwise, give them only what they need to provide a work force.

Wow, maybe what I am talking about is communism in action (as opposed to in theory).

The pendulum swings one way, and then it swings back.

An current example is labor unions, which formed to protect workers' rights, but later morphed into entities which hampered job creation (high labor and legacy [pension & healthcare] costs).

To maintain a socialist system, great control must be exercised by the ruling entity. That will never work in the US unless its population is broken and defenseless.

In addition, there will always be a ruling elite which will live like kings, while we work like drones on collective farms and factories. That's what happened in the USSR.

I admit it's fun to sit with friends, have a drink, and talk about creating a utopian society. But, the psychopathic nature of those who wish to hurt and control others will always muck things up.

Perhaps the first thing to do is define Capitalism and Socialism.

Is it the philosophical *textbook* definitions ?

If not *philosophical*, then what ?

Then identify the 'extremisms' and the sources of 'extremisms'.

Then get to the reasons of failure.

Are the 'failures' of capitalism a result OF socialist influences ?

Or are the 'failures' caused by capitalism itself ?

darkbake
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

I agree with you, good argument. I think socialism is not a bad thing. Socialism is not as extremist as communism. Another thought I have on the matter is that in our country, we need more middle-class families (even saying this I feel like it's a joke, like the idea of it is outdated).\

One last thing. One motivating factor in our government (the United States) for sending out assistance to the population has been to deal with civil unrest, I am sure. So what happens when our government has the ability to deal with civil unrest through military means?

What I'm saying here, is if we switch the justification of power for our government from Democracy (what the people want) to military force, there are going to be a lot of changes to the pattern you are suggesting.

For example, the population of the country will not have to be happy, because they can be killed or arrested.

A larger middle-class would be good for economic growth. But at the moment profits do not drop below the upper 1%. They just keep swelling in some offshore bank-account

reply to post by darkbake


I think the case can be made that the middle class shrunk due to the outsourcing of the manufacturing base in America, causing more people to become poorer and relying more on assistance (socialism).

sheepslayer247

Does extreme capitalism give birth to socialism?

No.

The continued removal of political power at the local level and ultimately to a centralized government on a large scale gives birth to socialism as a political dogma.

It also turns capitalism , a basic economic method, into a political ideal.

All small societies use a mix of capitalism and socialism to function. Business and charity together will fill all needs for an economic and social system.

The removal of economic power from the local level, in the form of jobs and recyclable capital, is the true fault in big government.

This is why small countries with social awareness AND economic accountability can function smoothly as a society.

When the game gets too big, the extremes get too large. Neither capitalism or socialism will really work at those scales.

Just my thoughts.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Who are these people bastardizing socialism?

Why is it bad to share and work together as a community?

reply to post by sheepslayer247


My question: what caused manufacturing to shift away from first-world countries? Please don't say it's all because of greedy corporations. Have you ever looked into the foreign policy decisions which led to this transformation, and how the US government and international banksters encouraged it?

Hint: assist less-developed countries grow their own middle classes, thus giving their populations something to do, and something to lose, which promoted stability. This is also considered to be a soft form of power (control).

It doesn't matter anyway. Robots will be doing all the work in the upcoming decades. Then I ask, what will the average person be doing then? Hopefully something unique and above average.

I think extremes of anything tend to taste bad in peoples mouths after a while and they begin looking at alternatives, generally embracing anything that seems opposite. I know you're familiar with the swinging pendulum analogy.

sheepslayer247


It was not so long ago, when America still had a manufacturing base, that this ideal was alive and well throughout America. People worked hard, provided for their families and the blue collar worker could live a good life. Half of the country did not have to rely on assistance programs from the government just to survive because capitalism was working as intended.... work hard and you would be rewarded.

But that is not the case today. It seems capitalism has run amok and the corporations have bastardized American capitalism to mean that the ultimate goal is to make money. To find the best path to achieve that goal, they shipped jobs out of the country, lowered the value and pay we place on a hard days work and have slowly turned America into a service nation. We no longer have a nation of skilled laborers that make TV's, and toasters...we are a nation that flips burgers and sells insurance.........

Think about that for a second. Is that not exactly what has happened in the US? Capitalism was allowed to thrive freely in America with very little regulation and if we take the examples I mentioned earlier, outsourcing of jobs, lower pay, no manufacturing etc, could we not make the case that extreme capitalism can be and is the catalyst that brought state-mandated socialism to America through programs like food stamps, welfare, health care etc?.....

The US had a good economy and manufacturing base post great depression. Things got really wobbly however after the next round known as the "Great Society". It was shortly there after that our manufacturing base started to ship out. Slowly to be sure and slowly to be noticed and then like a great migration over the next few decades.

When the government dumps to much money into the system it devalues the currency and thus increases the cost of living for everyone who then need higher wages. Somewhere in there is where it happened. Not to mention that a well healed work force becomes an affluent of sorts with large pensions, savings accounts, real estate investments ect. These two things the rise of the affluent blue collar and the well funded government depended class is was just to much for the Ponzi scheme to handle. My point here is you cant have a large section of the economy, middle class, with all this invisible wealth on one end and the government dumping money into the other end.

Unions became the scape goat for pension fund gutting as they did for just about everything. Its not that they didn't have their part as they were probably part three of the collapse. Part four was the 1990-2005 credit bubble. Which was both symptomatic and causational.

Now if you ask me the Affordable Health Care act is a catastrophic mechanism to bleed out "excess" cash from the economy. Many soon will be saying goodbye to those tax return checks that once dumped billions of dollars back into the economy yearly.

I have a headache now.

Kali74
I think extremes of anything tend to taste bad in peoples mouths after a while and they begin looking at alternatives, generally embracing anything that seems opposite. I know you're familiar with the swinging pendulum analogy.

You know what they say, to every action there is an equal and opposite overreaction