Has there ever been a functioning capitalist society?

[scarletghoul]

A lot of people here seem to like capitalism, which is weird because to me it seems very oppressive. Is this just proletarian propaganda?

Has there ever been a country where capitalism works?

[trivas7]

Has there ever been a country where capitalism works?
As opposed to what? Russian communism? Castro's Cuba? The People's Republic of China?...Oh, wait, those countries are all capitalist now...

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I think Capitalism serves it's purposes for its goals. I'm not saying I agree, but trying to fit the ideas of 'working economy' from a socialist stand point would be silly. Capitalism leaves some in the dust and some in the clouds, and to a Socialist point of view the gap getting bigger is a failure on the part of the economy, but to Capitalist's POV it's natural.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It depends on how you define "functioning". What is the function of society? On a broad definition, you could say there have been functioning capitalist and socialist societies, whereas on a narrower definition you could say that no capitalist or socialist society has ever functioned properly. But it all depends on what you think the function of society is, so unfortunately it's not as simple a question as it seems.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As opposed to what? Russian communism? Castro's Cuba? The People's Republic of China?...Oh, wait, those countries are all capitalist now...
Yeah, and look how well capitalism is "working" for them.

[Richard Nixon]

Yeah, and look how well capitalism is "working" for them.

It is, look at how much China has prospered since the institution of capitalism there.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is, look at how much China has prospered since the institution of capitalism there.
So you present China to support your case. Fair enough.

To support my case, I present Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, the former German Democratic Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia.

These countries have not even prospered by the capitalist economic standard of prosperity - GDP per capita - since the introduction of capitalism. If we're going to use other standards, like income equality, life expectancy, education and so on, then virtually all former Soviet-style countries that have introduced capitalism are worse off. Including most parts of China.

[trivas7]

These countries have not even prospered by the capitalist economic standard of prosperity - GDP per capita - since the introduction of capitalism. If we're going to use other standards, like income equality, life expectancy, education and so on, then virtually all former Soviet-style countries that have introduced capitalism are worse off. Including most parts of China.
Gee, I didn't even know that the GDP was a standard of capitalist economic prosperity. What was socialism's?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As yet, there is no single numerical index that can be used as a standard of economic prosperity from the socialist point of view. Perhaps we should create one. It would have to be something more akin to the Human Development Index - something that takes into account total wealth (GDP) alongside income equality (Gini index), life expectancy, the quality of health care and education, the proportion of women in the workforce, and several other things.

[Demogorgon]

It is, look at how much China has prospered since the institution of capitalism there.Has it? You might say look how the big urban areas have prospered once you discount the migrant workers the Chinese Government leaves off the official figures. Then you would have a point. But the fact that things have actually gotten worse for a lot of people despite high economic growth shows there is a serious problem.

[Richard Nixon]

Has it? You might say look how the big urban areas have prospered once you discount the migrant workers the Chinese Government leaves off the official figures. Then you would have a point. But the fact that things have actually gotten worse for a lot of people despite high economic growth shows there is a serious problem.

Life expectancy has increased in China from 50 or so only a while back to well in the 70s one of the higher ones in the world.

[Demogorgon]

Life expectancy has increased in China from 50 or so only a while back to well in the 70s one of the higher ones in the world.
It isn't amongst the highest in the world. But anyway there has been the expected rise in life expectancy brought on by moving away from an agricultural society but this can't be attributed to market reform given that the big leap in life expectancy happened back in the sixties.

At any rate though, this diversionary target has nothing to do with my post. Is it or is it not a problem that hundreds of millions of people are seeing a substantial drop in standard of living despite considerable economic growth?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Life expectancy has increased in China from 50 or so only a while back to well in the 70s one of the higher ones in the world.
Yes, and most of that increase took place before 1978. Here's a graph (http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti= 2007$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=ti;by=ind$inc_ y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$ inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by =ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;sc ale=lin;dataMin=1937;dataMax=2008$map_y;scale=lin; dataMin=29;dataMax=75$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd= 0$inds=i44_t001940,,,,) to illustrate the evolution of China's life expectancy in time.

In 1949, life expectancy at birth was 41 years. In 1978 it was 64 years. And in 2007 it was 73 years.

Edit: The graph link doesn't appear to be working properly - it defaults back to the starting graph on that website. Oh well. Gapminder is a very useful resource, and pretty user-friendly. You should easily be able to reproduce my graph of life expectancy vs. time once you learn to use it. Or just copy & paste the link instead of clicking on it. I think our referrer service is causing the problem.

[Richard Nixon]

Yes, and most of that increase took place before 1978. Here's a graph (http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti= 2007$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=ti;by=ind$inc_ y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$ inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by =ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;sc ale=lin;dataMin=1937;dataMax=2008$map_y;scale=lin; dataMin=29;dataMax=75$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd= 0$inds=i44_t001940,,,,) to illustrate the evolution of China's life expectancy in time.

In 1949, life expectancy at birth was 41 years. In 1978 it was 64 years. And in 2007 it was 73 years.

Edit: The graph link doesn't appear to be working properly - it defaults back to the starting graph on that website. Oh well. Gapminder is a very useful resource, and pretty user-friendly. You should easily be able to reproduce my graph of life expectancy vs. time once you learn to use it. Or just copy & paste the link instead of clicking on it. I think our referrer service is causing the problem.

I've managed to find it, also at any rate it still has risen under the capitalists and probably more then it would have been under Maoism.

[#FF0000]

I've managed to find it, also at any rate it still has risen under the capitalists and probably more then it would have been under Maoism.

I don't think you can say that with any degree of certainty.

[Plagueround]

Capitalism sounds like a nice theory but I don't think it would work in real life. People are just too greedy for it to work right.

[scarletghoul]

Finally

[GPDP]

Capitalism sounds like a nice theory but I don't think it would work in real life. People are just too greedy for it to work right.

As much as I appreciate the ironic turnaround on the accusation so often levied against us, I really have to take issue with this logic.

If something is supposedly great in theory, then it should work great in practice. If it doesn't, then either the theory was not applied properly, or the theory is shit and should be modified or discarded.

So which is it going to be? You can either accept that the theory was misapplied, or that it's a bad theory. You cannot have it both ways. So to those that criticize communism on the basis that the theory does not work in practice, I challenge you to take that stand.

Basically, I am asking those that criticize communism on principle to at least be honest enough to state they think the theory behind it is bad, instead of waffling around trying not to sound like assholes for rejecting the idea of a free, egalitarian society. Honestly, that's the impression I get when you lot say crap like "oh it's a great theory and I'd love it if it could work but it just cannot work in practice."

In my case, when considering communism versus capitalism, I criticize the "application" of communism as per the USSR and such as being in a way a misapplication of the general theory, and in another sense an inherent flaw of the specific Leninist flavor of communist theory. Capitalism, meanwhile, I reject on grounds that it is a bad system in overall theory, and thus a bad system in practice.

[Plagueround]

As much as I appreciate the ironic turnaround on the accusation so often levied against us, I really have to take issue with this logic.

If something is supposedly great in theory, then it should work great in practice. If it's not, then either you didn't follow the theory properly, or the theory is shit and should be discarded.

So which is it going to be? You can either accept that the theory was misapplied, or that it's a bad theory. You cannot have it both ways. So to those that criticize communism on the basis that the theory does not work in practice, I challenge you to take that stand.

I've ranted about this as well, right alongside you I believe. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Basically, I am asking those that criticize communism on principle to at least be honest enough to state they think the theory behind it is bad, instead of waffling around trying not to sound like assholes for rejecting the idea of a free, egalitarian society.

Capitalism sounds bad on paper but seems to work pretty nicely in real life. It's like the Energizer Bunny it keeps gong and going and going and going... Communism which is exqusite on paper--never seems to go like planned in real life and then after an extended period of time falls apart in a blurbering mess.

That's about it.

[Il Medico]

Capitalism worked like communism did in the 20th century. It failed to archive the goals of it's ideology. Adam Smith (Capitalism's Marx) envisioned capitalism based on mutual greed, guided by an invisible hand that would eventually lead to a classless equal society.(And they say the Marx's ideas are unrealistic. The difference is that most communist still advocate the ideas of Marx and want to learn from the mistakes made in the USSR. Capitalist have kept the moral excuses for capitalism (I.E Work hard and you'll get ahead), the difference is that capitalist thinkers have given up on Smith's ideas of equality and focused on greed. Basically in the long run, both camps have thus far failed to establish what their respective ideology preaches, just capitalist have better propaganda (and don't want to achieve their supposed goals) and communist have better ideology (and are still trying)

[Dust Bunnies]

Capitalism sounds bad on paper but seems to work pretty nicely in real life. It's like the Energizer Bunny it keeps gong and going and going and going... Communism which is exqusite on paper--never seems to go like planned in real life and then after an extended period of time falls apart in a blurbering mess.

That's about it.

So I guess Communism is like another brand of batteries?

[GPDP]

Capitalism sounds bad on paper but seems to work pretty nicely in real life. It's like the Energizer Bunny it keeps gong and going and going and going... Communism which is exqusite on paper--never seems to go like planned in real life and then after an extended period of time falls apart in a blurbering mess.

That's about it.

How is it you're so great at completely missing the point so consistently?

I said you cannot have it both ways. If your view is that communism simply cannot work, ever, then stop pussyfooting and say it outright that communism is an overall bad idea. Honestly, this kind of statement is of the highest intellectual dishonesty.

[Il Medico]

It is, look at how much China has prospered since the institution of capitalism there.
Yet don't you still renounce them as the evil reds? They are one of the only capitalist nations that is not in epic fail mode right now. But yet you cappies still attack them.
ANALOGY TIME!
It is like how white people attack the upper class white kids who claim to be street hardened rappers, but in reality they have much more in common with the people attacking them then the people they claim to be.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalism worked like communism did in the 20th century. It failed to archive the goals of it's ideology. Adam Smith (Capitalism's Marx) envisioned capitalism based on mutual greed, guided by an invisible hand that would eventually lead to a classless equal society.(And they say the Marx's ideas are unrealistic. The difference is that most communist still advocate the ideas of Marx and want to learn from the mistakes made in the USSR. Capitalist have kept the moral excuses for capitalism (I.E Work hard and you'll get ahead), the difference is that capitalist thinkers have given up on Smith's ideas of equality and focused on greed. Basically in the long run, both camps have thus far failed to establish what their respective ideology preaches, just capitalist have better propaganda (and don't want to achieve their supposed goals) and communist have better ideology (and are still trying)

Labeling Smith the Marx of capitalism is a bit of a stretch, not to mention it's a proposal Marx would probably object to given his affection for Smith's works, but I like the rest of your post.

And that sounded egotistical of me.

[Il Medico]

Labeling Smith the Marx of capitalism is a bit of a stretch, not to mention it's a proposal Marx would probably object to given his affection for Smith's works, but I like the rest of your post.

And that sounded egotistical of me.

I was just saying that Smith and his works have acted as a basis of capitalist thinkers of all tendencies, just as Marx and his works has served as the foundation of communist thought.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As yet, there is no single numerical index that can be used as a standard of economic prosperity from the socialist point of view. Perhaps we should create one. It would have to be something more akin to the Human Development Index - something that takes into account total wealth (GDP) alongside income equality (Gini index), life expectancy, the quality of health care and education, the proportion of women in the workforce, and several other things.

FYI, the Comecon used gross material product (GMP), which is somewhat different from GDP.