Where Would We Be Without Capitalism?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
November 14, 2008 8:54am CST
The profit motive has brought more advancement in society than any other factor. For millenia, mankind struggled just to exist. From "can see to can't" people worked for their basic needs. There were little "extras", which I guess was ok because there was precious little time for them. It wasn't until capitalism was put into practice that the masses had time or money for anything beyond simple survival and subsistance.
Medicine, transportation, food distribution, housing, farming, ranching, communication, fire fighting... no matter what the topic, capitalism has brought it either out of nothing, or improved it.
It is one of the ironies of history that socialism and communism claim to be the systems that bring "equality" to the masses, but niether system has made good on those claims without capitalism.
Socialism and communism can build a house for a family, but who built the house? Where did the materials come from? Who cut the lumber, made the shingles, formed the pipes, conduits and wiring?
If you have a fire, how did you contact the Fire Department? Did they come in a state of the art fire truck or a horse and wagon? Who built the fire truck? Why did they build it?
The fact is, collective societies are stagnant societies. The only way they can move forward at all is if they collectively buy goods and services provided by capitalist societies. When they do try, the quality is far lower and the time it takes to produce things is much longer.
Look around at the lifestyles of the masses and leaders. Are they all treated the same? Do they all get the same from the collective?
Before we decide to cast capitalism into the dust bin of historic concepts, we need to consider what we are throwing away with it.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@urbandekay (18278)
•
14 Nov 08
Learn some history, the most rapid advance that any country has made has been that or Russia and China, going from medieval feudalism, in the case of Russia and a rural peasant economy in the case of China to their present day status.
Not that either of these countries are communist let alone socialist. But it is sufficient to show that Capitalism is not the system that promotes the most rapid development
all the best urban
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Nov 08
Niether did anything without using the goods and services provided by Capitalist nations.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Nov 08
Russia and China haven't even been able to feed their people without capitalist nations, and you're going to try to convince me that either nation prospered without the help of capitalism at all?
Perestroika was all about infusing capitalism into the Russian economy. China's present day status is a study in capitalism in itself.
But facts are nonsense to you if they don't allow revisionist history... even of present history.
1 person likes this
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
17 Nov 08
Well for one, I don't have any problem with capitalism, the human race is innately entrepreneurial. What I do take issue with is the degradation of capitalism into global corporate gigantism. In a sense you are probably right in that it is the little businessman TODAY who suffers more from government intervention, because small business doesn't have the economic or political clout of the giant corporations, but if the regulations made by governments were properly imposed on the corporations, most of what is happening now wouldn't be happening, and small bisiness might well not be under the pressure it is, from both conglomerates.
Lash
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Nov 08
True, a lot of the big corporations hide behind the word "capitalism", but in practice they want nothing to do with it. They use the government to "protect" them from the market. Which is why, in the long run, we'd be better off without the bailouts. Even though it might be pretty painful in the short run.
Even socialism and communist countries though wouldn't be able to last if they didn't use capitalist nations to stay afloat.
1 person likes this
@CarlKnittel (692)
• United States
8 Jan 09
With all of the major "mega corporations" in this country the vast majority, over 80%, of jobs are created by small business. The big guys can become big enough that their only concern is profit and that is fine. They answer to share holders who invest in them for profit. Small business is in the business of taking care of the owners and their families. Individuals are altruist. Corporate entities can only emulate altruism because they are not living beings.
@1grnthmb (2055)
• United States
15 Nov 08
That is a good one. Capitalism is whjat made our country great. Without it we would be nothing. Communism just can not hold up. It makes a society of pesants and a few rich greedy people. Socialism is a mass affect. Sometimes taking the worst of each and rarely, taking the best of each.
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
15 Nov 08
Capitalism worked fine in the days when people were happy to make a fair profit and were not trying to rip people off all the time. If you read grandpa_lash's post on the end of capitalism he says it much better than I can.
There was a time when businesses made enough for their lifestyles, they were not greedy, they had loyal staff who worked for the company for generations. It was the shift to greed, the shift to make more than you need and make more each year even though you do not need it that is destroying capitalism and out society.
Sensible capitalism is fine and healthy. Greed destroys everything in its path.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Nov 08
Most businesses aren't what you describe here. Most business owners aren't running to mommy and daddy government to kiss it and make it all better. On the other hand, mommy and daddy government often impose rediculous and totalitarian requirements on businesses. The tyrants of both business and government need to be exposed and put in their place.
1 person likes this
