Let us first stop at the definition of what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system based on the private possession of the means of production for profit.
By far most countries today have a mixed market economy, which is free market capitalism with a combination of prosperity policy, preferably democratically shaken, because that works best.Of all economic forms, they are the most effective and most efficient.
Whole free market economy or state capitalism are less efficient.At laissez-faire, there is the problem of income inequality which creates a whimsical economy with little social cohesion and it is also less efficient by natural monopolies and little multiplier effects. On the other hand, state capitalism is often many times less efficient.
Communist systems as in the Soviet Union were terribly inefficient.For example, in the Soviet Union, some 80% of the agricultural area was owned by the collective farms and state farms but only produced 40% of total food production. The private pieces of land, often no larger than half a hectare of land per household, jointly produced about 50% of the entire food production (see Oxford Handbook of the Russian Economy). Most communist countries were, to some extent, capitalistic in any case as regards agriculture, and where it was not, massive mortality from famine was the case (for example, Kampuchea, where a quarter of the population died).
However, there are many other systems that are not capitalist, which have provided prosperity and sufficient food production.Until 5 centuries ago there have been countries and empires in the world, who did not know a market economy, because they had no private means of production and even no markets.
The reader will now be thinking.Heh? That sounds weird. Goods were stored in these empires in large granaries like this.
If the reader now wonders what that was.
It was the Inca’s.
The question, however, is whether the long term had worked.The Inca empire was still a relatively young empire, which it has sustained only a few centuries before it is taken over by the Spaniards. Later emperors had the problem that they had to do with the fact that many means of production were in the hands of deceased predecessors. Yes you read it right. This is why many emperors were burned on the expansion of the Empire. In the long term, this is not a matter of keeping. So even a non-capitalistic system apparently needs growth.
Our system of mixed market economy may not be perfect, but be happy that you do not have to negotiate with your deceased ancestor.
Capitalism will abolish itself as sufficient automation has taken place, and there is an abundance of basic facilities that would make the cost price negligible.
In the meantime it is undoubtedly the best system and also hardly avoidable.
What is necessary is his interventions to avoid the outwashing of capitalism, such as e.g. Laws on healthy working environments etc.
Capitalism is the ‘ natural ‘ model for the economy.It is not at moment 0 conceived and then imposed. There are important motivations to meet our needs. Abolishing would not be smart.
It is necessary to regulate, because if you release it, capitalism does not always lead to the most equitable distribution, and it also wants to serve in particular short-term interests and to oppose long-term interests.
In post-war capitalism there are actually two main currents: The Rhenish and the Anglo-Saxon.The Rijnlandse was traditionally what was widespread in Western Europe. Key Features: A large social safety net, relatively high taxes and high progressiveness and a relatively small spread in income. The ultimate example was always Sweden.
The Anglo-Saxon had relatively low taxes with a flat rate theorem and a limited social safety net a large income differentials.The ultimate example is the USA.
Under the influence of neoliberalism, initiated by the fiasco of the Plan socialism in Eastern Europe, the Rhenish model is increasingly moved towards the old Anglo-Saxon.In addition, the social safety net in the USA has been much further removed and the progressiveness of tax rates has been abolished and even reversed. One of the richest men in the world, Warren Buffet has publicly wondered if it is fair that he pays a percentage less tax than his secretary. This has become much worse among Trump.
I myself believe that it has been passed on.Also within the countries with the Rhenish model. Everything is left to ‘ the market ‘, including activities where there is no or insufficient market. For example: The track, the energy, the care.
In doing so, countries are going to compete with each other with tax rates for companies.The Netherlands is firmly committed to this. Concepts such as solidarity and tolerance have disappeared into the background and have made space for individuality and self-accountability.
I would like to see that we are turning this back on as far as the global mondiality and contemporary challenges such as global warming and ageing allow.Furthermore, I believe that we need to reduce differences in quality of life and life expectancy between different countries. That is a real solution for mass migration. In doing so, we will have to share a greater part of our progress than we have done so far.
No, we should not abolish it, but to put it on the tires.Neoliberalism went on to discharge the monster again and not hinder rules and unnecessary taxes and levies. The beast must return to the chain so that it does not eat anything.
Nice thread this.Sensible answers.
The shortest answer is: “No”
Most, if not all, alternatives have not had a chance of success.Anything communist cannot do without some form of it. Without leading to North Korean states or variations on that theme.
Thus, theoretically utopian state establishments are also at the bottom of inequality and corruption.
The best opportunity to now is social democracy.Capitalism or, in other words, the freedom to possess something, coupled with the contribution to the general usefulness by the population (taxes and premiums, your ‘ membership fee ‘.
For instance, excesses are being brided, the popular nature ‘ do but normally ‘ does the rest.
You have to have some dreams.A yacht, a farm in the Struweel.. In a country like ours can and should.
North Korea has already been mentioned, on the other side of the spectrum you have the US. Have you ever been wiped out why water is being made out of vials?Well, because one doesn’t want to pay for the infrastructure needed to get close to our bizarre good water from the tap.
The soft drink lobby contributes to this sentiment by using FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and DOUBT); So that the inhabitants do not trust water without chlorine taste (worse than in Rotterdam in the 60-er years), AND because you can not trust the piping network.If you as a mayor suggest the idea to raise all this to modern standards by lifting a small local tax you know… He does not have to rely on re-election.
So.Social democracy as we know it. The least annoying kind of state establishment. And we should be quite proud of that!
In a communist system as well as in a capitalist system, there is the top layer that possesses all the riches.In a Communist planning economy, you have long queues for essential goods because all are planned. Nothing question and offer. In a capitalist system, you do have demand and supply, but nauseating practices where the consumer does not have to wait in line but is always in trouble.
One often forgets that man is an animal. And behave like an animal.Plus one makes everything a discussion about it one or the other. While in Belgium the SNCB is an example of clientelianism and absurd mismanagement by the government. Is a private society (as in the UK) not a solution, because it will make money above the safety of travellers and employees. The Government is not able to run anything properly, rules everywhere but little to no control. That builds up over decades after which the system explodes. Belgium has already guaranteed for between 350 and 550% of GDP pensions under the repartition system. That is to say, the money is not there. Belgium now lends itself to almost zero interest rates, but as the interest rises, an interest snowball arises, knowing that the debt is already above 100% of GDP, far over the 60% Maastricht norm. Another example of gentle whole masters make smelly wounds. So the Wallonie goes next election communist voices. Even more public expenditure. Expired infrastructure, ageing population and ever increasing consumption of anti-depression and sedative agents. Left or right, communist or capitalist, that is not a choice if one always does the same. Namely, cutting each other’s throat in order to get a top nomination for the party. Did you know DTA the parties in Belgium can decide for themselves their doings? That the surplus, the excess in real estate is invested to build further with rental income? That is the government that serves itself broadly. And strangely, it is very lax in terms of real estate and the problems that arise.
If your capitalism abolishes, it is also every carrot that the donkeys are moving.Something else has to come in place that motivates people to work hard. And that we are all such cool pears who all like to do what else, that is to see Enjkle in Paris, the Disneyland Paris. We are and remain animals with a brain that is a mix of pre-history and more advanced spaghetti. Whoever has the motivation key may say so! And not all at once like!
Thanks, Quora user, for the question.
“Capitalism” cannot be abolished.Markets are, as far as I am concerned, the continuation of natural selection at a macro level.
What we call ‘ capitalism ‘ is, in fact, (as I see it) no more than the nature and primemanstate of man fed from the necessity of survival and the various strategies that we employ.Your ‘ ism ‘ in which you operate does not matter. Also in communism there were winners and losers.
Whoever adapts best wins: ‘ Survival of the fittest ‘ is the way nature evolves.Where we want it to be different and we are going to devise systems to prevent ‘ winner takes all ‘ from the human mind and we can describe it as culture.
By naming capitalism It seems like it is a devised system with an associated ideology: a ‘ ism ‘ that you can adhere to or reject.That is a fallerror. It is, I think, an invisible hand that is a summation of all the human interactions that we call the ‘ society ‘. The economy is just a way of looking at that society in which we have reduced all these interactions into a unit of calculation: capital.
Thus, CapitalismE is seen from my Definition: The precipitation of human nature.All utopias, ideologies that we have devised (Marxism, socialism etc) to curb the disadvantages of this nature stand and create justice: culture.
Abolishing capitalism means abolishing human nature and that is not going to succeed, I think. We can only devise systems to curb its disadvantages.
I think we have achieved a reasonable balance in the Netherlands with all of us.
I would say that I would rather be off capitalism and instead have free market syndicalism.I see no use in having a possesive class that contributes nothing and that employees see as a cost and not as added value.
But yeah… I see that in my life do not happen.And I’m not very revolutionary set, so then but socially democratic for now.