Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model

[Harry Bosch]

The reason why capitalism is the dominant business structure is because it works better. It's as simple as that. In America, you can start any kind of company that you want to. My wife worked for a very successful employee owned company, Winco. Awesome company. But in most cases, IMO, capitalist companies work better. In a capitalistic company, entrepreneurs are rewarded strongly when they work hard, increase efficiency, produce superior products, find a better way to innovate, and etc. In a collective, the incentives just aren't as strong.

To bring this back to the OP, my take would be that capitalism can't be 'better' because there was no realistic alternative at the time of it's inception, and there is still no realistic alternative beyond continuing to build on and regulate it. So it's not so much that it 'works better', it's that it's 'what worked and is working'.

But if you consider the environmental impact we've caused in the past few centuries (humans, not capitalism), saying that it 'works' likely needs a qualifier. More accurately, it's 'what happened' and 'what is happening'.

Well, I have some friends who would disagree with your analysis that there isn't a realistic alternative out there! But I agree with you on this. I'm a capitalist pig trying to maximize the value of my company every single day. However, I also believe in regulation and progressive taxation to build a stronger safety net. I'm not seeing the correlation between capitalism and cleaner environment though. In fact, I see richer capitalistic countries like the US, Canada, Australia and Europe having more desire to live in a cleaner environment. I think that it's more of a function of being "richer". Poorer countries are just trying to survive. Don't have the resources to spare.

 

[rousseau]

In fact, I see richer capitalistic countries like the US, Canada, Australia and Europe having more desire to live in a cleaner environment. I think that it's more of a function of being "richer". Poorer countries are just trying to survive. Don't have the resources to spare.

Yea, I sort of alluded to that in my post. Were roads, motor vehicles, the discovery of fossil fuels inevitable? Probably yes. Capitalism just happened at the same time. But if we're ever going to care for the environment we need to do things differently than we're doing them now. But to me that's primarily a political, not economic, problem. We're seeing the limits of how people organize themselves in real time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

Capitalism is the conceptually simplest system following a world that was dominated by monarchy, and the easiest to implement in a new, complex, and legalized world. Essentially, we're moving from an economic system where a small elite has dominion over most of the land, to one where we make the dominion over land a more legalized, and standardized process. Essentially - as Weber would say - more rationalized. Instead of one, dominant sovereign, now every unit of land effectively has it's own 'sovereign' or owner. In effect, this was the only practical way to move on from the world we were coming from, at the time.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

You have a central body that makes the laws, and has authority to enforce them, but you give everybody the power to maintain their own unit of land or property, because the central body doesn't have the means to do so.

Everybody?

Socialism, in contrast, is a theory that's not truly dichotomous with Capitalism. It's an economic model we imagine could be better than the previous one. But symbolically it represents a kind of regulatory end-point where we 'perfected' capitalism, and have achieved a more fair system of dominion over land.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

 

[rousseau]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

You're right about the mechanism that it spread. The only question you can really ask in response is - could it have been something else. You could ask the same about the state system as well. In both cases it wasn't something else, so the answer is really it couldn't have been something else. So I'd say the mechanism I'm proposing explains in part why capitalism in particular was so successful.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

Effects of rationalization and progress in technology mainly.

Everybody?

The right? Is that better? Still a grey area, but the main point is that it's an imperfect legalized system, where in theory you just need money or a job to obtain property [property defined as anything you legally own]. It's a step of organization beyond what came before.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

I'm calling the theorizing of socialism 'symbolic'. What people want is something beyond capitalism, they just don't know what that actually looks like or how to get there, so they build a bunch of ideas, and some of them stick. In some light there is really no reason to call the regulation or collectivizing of capitalism 'socialist', it's just regulation and capitalism becoming better functioning. It can be called anything you want, but essentially it's just us trying to improve on what we have now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

You're right about the mechanism that it spread. The only question you can really ask in response is - could it have been something else. You could ask the same about the state system as well. In both cases it wasn't something else, so the answer is really it couldn't have been something else. So I'd say the mechanism I'm proposing explains in part why capitalism in particular was so successful.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

Effects of rationalization and progress in technology mainly.

Everybody?

The right? Is that better? Still a grey area, but the main point is that it's an imperfect legalized system, where in theory you just need money or a job to obtain property [property defined as anything you legally own]. It's a step of organization beyond what came before.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

I'm calling the theorizing of socialism 'symbolic'. What people want is something beyond capitalism, they just don't know what that actually looks like or how to get there, so they build a bunch of ideas, and some of them stick. In some light there is really no reason to call the regulation or collectivizing of capitalism 'socialist', it's just regulation and capitalism becoming better functioning. It can be called anything you want, but essentially it's just us trying to improve on what we have now.

I might disagree somewhat on this. I don't think bailing banks out, bailing the economy out, subsidizing corporations or research, university research, FDIC, federal reserve, stimulus injections, social welfare programs, SNAP, social security, Medicaid, public education, civil rights movements, women's suffrage, public parks, natural resource conservation, anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and the end of slavery are/were capitalist.

At least some of these things could be called socialist features, perhaps not all. I don't think that matters much how many you call socialist. What is there I think is human empathy which to some extent is seeking out a kind of fairness, compassion, or equality in some instances. The rest could be described as major, catastrophic events of capitalism that external non-capitalist features were needed to be implemented to keep the stability of the economy and resources going.

What I think we have is a rather large monstrosity of capitalist, socialist and non-capitalist-socialist features and so I don't think it's quite fair to have a narrative of why is capitalism so successful. Perhaps a better question would be why isn't capitalism completely dead yet. Then, you could say it has an inherent infrastructure and standardization that can be bastardized and reused by non-capitalism and extended and warped by outside non-capitalist forces. You can say that human empathy can be applied through democratic means as reforms to give some people a modicum of economic fairness such that revolution is kept at bay which incidentally gives some people happiness and health and improved standard of living. This sounds similar to what you were saying?

Maybe?

 

[rousseau]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

You're right about the mechanism that it spread. The only question you can really ask in response is - could it have been something else. You could ask the same about the state system as well. In both cases it wasn't something else, so the answer is really it couldn't have been something else. So I'd say the mechanism I'm proposing explains in part why capitalism in particular was so successful.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

Effects of rationalization and progress in technology mainly.

Everybody?

The right? Is that better? Still a grey area, but the main point is that it's an imperfect legalized system, where in theory you just need money or a job to obtain property [property defined as anything you legally own]. It's a step of organization beyond what came before.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

I'm calling the theorizing of socialism 'symbolic'. What people want is something beyond capitalism, they just don't know what that actually looks like or how to get there, so they build a bunch of ideas, and some of them stick. In some light there is really no reason to call the regulation or collectivizing of capitalism 'socialist', it's just regulation and capitalism becoming better functioning. It can be called anything you want, but essentially it's just us trying to improve on what we have now.

I might disagree somewhat on this. I don't think bailing banks out, bailing the economy out, subsidizing corporations or research, university research, FDIC, federal reserve, stimulus injections, social welfare programs, SNAP, social security, Medicaid, public education, civil rights movements, women's suffrage, public parks, natural resource conservation, anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and the end of slavery are/were capitalist.

At least some of these things could be called socialist features, perhaps not all. I don't think that matters much how many you call socialist. What is there I think is human empathy which to some extent is seeking out a kind of fairness, compassion, or equality in some instances. The rest could be described as major, catastrophic events of capitalism that external non-capitalist features were needed to be implemented to keep the stability of the economy and resources going.

What I think we have is a rather large monstrosity of capitalist, socialist and non-capitalist-socialist features and so I don't think it's quite fair to have a narrative of why is capitalism so successful. Perhaps a better question would be why isn't capitalism completely dead yet. Then, you could say it has an inherent infrastructure and standardization that can be bastardized and reused by non-capitalism and extended and warped by outside non-capitalist forces. You can say that human empathy can be applied through democratic means as reforms to give some people a modicum of economic fairness such that revolution is kept at bay which incidentally gives some people happiness and health and improved standard of living. This sounds similar to what you were saying?

Maybe?

To backtrack a bit, it's not so much why it's successful, it's why it's the predominant model we have now, why it followed a world that was largely monarchical. My argument at it's core, is that it was the only realistic way to follow the world it sprang from.

But people are always pushing forward, always want something better. So I'd expect what we see now to continually change, and what we had to change in the ways you mentioned.

Equality is a good way of putting it. That's what people want. Capitalist societies are an improvement on what came before, and they will be improved upon in the future - save mother nature doesn't kill us.

 

[bilby]

In fact, I see richer capitalistic countries like the US, Canada, Australia and Europe having more desire to live in a cleaner environment.

The problem is that they achieved this by just moving the dirty stuff away from where the rich folks were (and to a lesser extent, vice-versa).

When the first big factories were built, they typically were sited such that the smoke, soot, and stink would blow away from the rich folks, and towards the poor workers housing. In a small number of cases, wealthy people instead chose to move away from pollution - but of course, poor people couldn't afford to do that.

As more people got wealthy in the developed world, they moved the big factories to the developing world, so that the rich people could live in a clean and pleasant environment.

But we're rapidly running out of enough away to push the problem to. Carbon dioxide pollution is a global phenomenon, and while it will inevitably impact the poor far more than the rich, the rich cannot get away from the problems it causes. Maybe, just possibly, we're going to be forced to stop sweeping our problems under the carpet, and made to actually do something; Though right now we're mostly settling for pretending to do something, while not doing anything that's actually effective.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

You're right about the mechanism that it spread. The only question you can really ask in response is - could it have been something else. You could ask the same about the state system as well. In both cases it wasn't something else, so the answer is really it couldn't have been something else. So I'd say the mechanism I'm proposing explains in part why capitalism in particular was so successful.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

Effects of rationalization and progress in technology mainly.

Everybody?

The right? Is that better? Still a grey area, but the main point is that it's an imperfect legalized system, where in theory you just need money or a job to obtain property [property defined as anything you legally own]. It's a step of organization beyond what came before.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

I'm calling the theorizing of socialism 'symbolic'. What people want is something beyond capitalism, they just don't know what that actually looks like or how to get there, so they build a bunch of ideas, and some of them stick. In some light there is really no reason to call the regulation or collectivizing of capitalism 'socialist', it's just regulation and capitalism becoming better functioning. It can be called anything you want, but essentially it's just us trying to improve on what we have now.

I might disagree somewhat on this. I don't think bailing banks out, bailing the economy out, subsidizing corporations or research, university research, FDIC, federal reserve, stimulus injections, social welfare programs, SNAP, social security, Medicaid, public education, civil rights movements, women's suffrage, public parks, natural resource conservation, anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and the end of slavery are/were capitalist.

At least some of these things could be called socialist features, perhaps not all. I don't think that matters much how many you call socialist. What is there I think is human empathy which to some extent is seeking out a kind of fairness, compassion, or equality in some instances. The rest could be described as major, catastrophic events of capitalism that external non-capitalist features were needed to be implemented to keep the stability of the economy and resources going.

What I think we have is a rather large monstrosity of capitalist, socialist and non-capitalist-socialist features and so I don't think it's quite fair to have a narrative of why is capitalism so successful. Perhaps a better question would be why isn't capitalism completely dead yet. Then, you could say it has an inherent infrastructure and standardization that can be bastardized and reused by non-capitalism and extended and warped by outside non-capitalist forces. You can say that human empathy can be applied through democratic means as reforms to give some people a modicum of economic fairness such that revolution is kept at bay which incidentally gives some people happiness and health and improved standard of living. This sounds similar to what you were saying?

Maybe?

I don't hold to right wing definitions. Capitalism is simply the means of production being owned by private owners for profit. There is nothing in this definition that prevents reasonable regulations and safety nets. In fact, a small capitalistic company like mine would be buried if reasonable regulations weren't in place.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think I agree or disagree with this 100%. I will go over some points and questions... Why Capitalism is our Predominant Economic Model Let's suppose we proposed some other answer to a different question instead: Why English is our Predominant Language. Wouldn't imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism be primary factors in the spread of both of these? How do you tease out other factors by demonstrating they are present and working mechanisms sans these other factors?

You're right about the mechanism that it spread. The only question you can really ask in response is - could it have been something else. You could ask the same about the state system as well. In both cases it wasn't something else, so the answer is really it couldn't have been something else. So I'd say the mechanism I'm proposing explains in part why capitalism in particular was so successful.

Aside from the obvious historical fact that a lot of peoples did not adopt capitalism because it is more practical but instead because it was thrust upon their public lands, it isn't clear you are describing capitalism as opposed to private property. Private property is foundational to capitalism and private property might be argued to be simple or practical. Public and collective property could also be argued to be simple or practical in some instances, but anyway, there seem to be complex bureaucratic features of capitalism missing, like the concept of capital, credit, corporations, market economies, and stock markets.

Effects of rationalization and progress in technology mainly.

Everybody?

The right? Is that better? Still a grey area, but the main point is that it's an imperfect legalized system, where in theory you just need money or a job to obtain property [property defined as anything you legally own]. It's a step of organization beyond what came before.

I might disagree on definitions here. I think it might be an abuse of definitions to say on the one hand that socialism and capitalism are not dichotomous and on the other to say implementing socialist features is perfecting capitalism?

I'm calling the theorizing of socialism 'symbolic'. What people want is something beyond capitalism, they just don't know what that actually looks like or how to get there, so they build a bunch of ideas, and some of them stick. In some light there is really no reason to call the regulation or collectivizing of capitalism 'socialist', it's just regulation and capitalism becoming better functioning. It can be called anything you want, but essentially it's just us trying to improve on what we have now.

I might disagree somewhat on this. I don't think bailing banks out, bailing the economy out, subsidizing corporations or research, university research, FDIC, federal reserve, stimulus injections, social welfare programs, SNAP, social security, Medicaid, public education, civil rights movements, women's suffrage, public parks, natural resource conservation, anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and the end of slavery are/were capitalist.

At least some of these things could be called socialist features, perhaps not all. I don't think that matters much how many you call socialist. What is there I think is human empathy which to some extent is seeking out a kind of fairness, compassion, or equality in some instances. The rest could be described as major, catastrophic events of capitalism that external non-capitalist features were needed to be implemented to keep the stability of the economy and resources going.

What I think we have is a rather large monstrosity of capitalist, socialist and non-capitalist-socialist features and so I don't think it's quite fair to have a narrative of why is capitalism so successful. Perhaps a better question would be why isn't capitalism completely dead yet. Then, you could say it has an inherent infrastructure and standardization that can be bastardized and reused by non-capitalism and extended and warped by outside non-capitalist forces. You can say that human empathy can be applied through democratic means as reforms to give some people a modicum of economic fairness such that revolution is kept at bay which incidentally gives some people happiness and health and improved standard of living. This sounds similar to what you were saying?

Maybe?

To backtrack a bit, it's not so much why it's successful, it's why it's the predominant model we have now, why it followed a world that was largely monarchical. My argument at it's core, is that it was the only realistic way to follow the world it sprang from.

But people are always pushing forward, always want something better. So I'd expect what we see now to continually change, and what we had to change in the ways you mentioned.

Equality is a good way of putting it. That's what people want. Capitalist societies are an improvement on what came before, and they will be improved upon in the future - save mother nature doesn't kill us.

I totally agree. Things change. We evolve. Economies evolve to fit new situations.