Is capitalism inherently evil?

[Goatse]

Now I realise capitalism is one of the worst things in exitence, and obviously it has killed millions and brings tyrants to power. But what I'm asking is, is anything capitalistic automatically evil? Could capitalism exist in a form that is not evil?

[bolshevik butcher]

It's not a question of good and eviul, It's an epoch, that industrializes countries and brings about socialism. Marx explained that history is made up of economic epochs, capitalism was the advancment form feudalism.

[ComradeOm]

Meh. Capitalism is just another stage of social evolution, I don’t know if you can call it “evil”. Its no more “evil” than those that societies have come before. In fact its considerably better than previous eras. Still it does exploit the workers, something that obviously won’t happen in socialism or communism. If you’re asking can there be a capitalism that doesn’t oppress the masses then the answer’s no. As long as there are capitalists there’ll be the proletariat to support/feed them.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:18 PM
Meh. Capitalism is just another stage of social evolution, I don’t know if you can call it “evil”. Its no more “evil” than those that societies have come before. In fact its considerably better than previous eras. Still it does exploit the workers, something that obviously won’t happen in socialism or communism. If you’re asking can there be a capitalism that doesn’t oppress the masses then the answer’s no. As long as there are capitalists there’ll be the proletariat to support/feed them.
you just said what i said in a mutch better way :( . Well done.

[enigma2517]

yeah good job.

It's just another step along the way; thats basically what is being said.

[TC]

I think limited highly regulated capitalism (thats to say, private buisness competing for market share) in a workers state used to facilitate economic growth can be acceptable as long as it is implemented as a temporary measure and the money it generates is reinvested in the communal owned public sector rather then in private corporations, and the majority of the economy is always controlled by workers at any given point in time so that the government and army is beholden to the workers and not the capitalists. This was done in Cuba during the so called "special period in time of peace" between '89 and 04 while the economy was recovering from the loss of its communist trading partners. The government kept cuban market socialism under strict control until they restored the economy to pre 91' standards and then shut it down with no problem because real power in cuban society always remained with the workers who continued to controll the vast majority of the economy.

This is very different then say what Gorby and Yeltsin did, in fact they did they opposite they used the public sector to subsidize a new private sector and not the other way around.

[Goatse]

I really got surprising responses; from reading you guys' replies to other threads, it seems like you viewed capitalism as the ultimate evil. But meh, you're not all one person. Thanks for the swift replies, comrades.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:57 PM
I really got surprising responses; from reading you guys' replies to other threads, it seems like you viewed capitalism as the ultimate evil. But meh, you're not all one person. Thanks for the swift replies, comrades.
A lot of people do hate the "faces" of capitalism - the likes of the Bush, Coca-Cola or other capitalists - but there's little point in hating a stage that society must travel through. Of course not everyone takes the same view ;)

[OleMarxco]

Yeah, well.... Don't sweat, like the SHOP's! Hah ;)
Okay, anyway's, 'nuff with the jokes. Heh! I meant to say, Capitalism -isn't- REALLY evil, it's A: -Bused. B: Unnessecarry and C: Parasittic...it don't care, it isn't after destruction, it's after MILKING YO GODDAMN ASS.

Of course, they might commit some EVILRY - here an'ere, but'ah, mostly, they don't give a shit, but we'll MAKE'em care, for all that year, they didn't.
Now we'll bring the war to them...now we'll bring the decisions to them...that results and consequences are not just something that happens "somewhere else", far from their safety of money-rule.

[Fidelbrand]

I suggest a truly democratic socialism, a moderate market monitored by the government and the people concurrently.

----A balanced version of capitalism, a stage set for up and coming communism in the future---

[anomaly]

But is capitalism always 'evil', is it always 'bad' (in other words, is it something we should eagerly want to destroy, always)? In the USA, I'd say that capitalism functions exceedingly well for a nation so large (the same can be said for Canada and the greater part of Europe). The places in which I wish to see communism develop are the third world nations. In saying this, I am completely disagreeing with Marx's idea that no epoch may be skipped, that there is a definite order to all epochs. I say that communism can be had before capitalism, though I realize this is not a popular view, here least of all. However, American capitalism seems to hold the third world back, so it obviously must go sometime. But should any revolution that will one day change the world into a communist one begin in the USA? Certainly not.

[bolshevik butcher]

No ones saying that it should Just about all countries in the world are now industrialized enough to be considered captialist. The countries in Latin America for instance.

[ComradeOm]

Marx acknowledged that a number of nations had skipped some of the earlier stages and arrived straight at capitalism due to the arrival of European settlers. Whether capitalism can be skipped though… The problem of course being that the vanguard of socialism will be the proletariat, a class that can only exist in capitalism. Even Russia, as undeveloped as it was, had a small proletarian body to lead the Revolution. So I think some degree of industrialisation is necessary. I’d imagine that most nations of the world (with the possible exception of a number of Oceanic or African ones) have achieved some level of capitalism. In the world today the only places where I can see revolution is these developing nations. Revolution there would serve the purpose of limiting the reach of globalisation and therefore weaken the capitalist regimes throughout the West.

[anomaly]

I would be all for skipping socialism as well as capitalism, and going straight towards communism. If not this, then perhaps use a transitionary model similary to the Paris commune. But either way, I think that socialism had its chance in the twentieth century-and failed miserably.

[JKP]

Skipping capitalism? Straight from peasantry to communism? It's impossible. That's disregarding material conditions; and material reality always wins.

[Morpheus]

The problem of course being that the vanguard of socialism will be the proletariat, a class that can only exist in capitalism

Why can't peasants, serfs or slaves take up that role? It seems to me any oppressed class would benefit from communism and potentially be attracted to it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:17 AM

The problem of course being that the vanguard of socialism will be the proletariat, a class that can only exist in capitalism

Why can't peasants, serfs or slaves take up that role? It seems to me any oppressed class would benefit from communism and potentially be attracted to it.
Well the most obvious answer is because they haven't. If history proves anything its that the isolated peasant and serf rebellions have almost always ended in complete failure. Its only when tied to a genuinely revolutionary party, such as the liberals back in their day and later the communists, that they have achieved any change.

I'm sure there are plenty of quotes throughout the various writings of Marx that apply here but I couldn't be arsed looking for them. The thinking that I've always taken from my readings is that capitalism is the one system that sunders the ties between the lowest classes and the land. The serf was the lowest of the low but he had his plot of land which he could use to feed himself. He was not forced into wage slavery. Of course the fact that he had *his* plot of land ingrained the idea of private ownership of the land into the culture. He was nothing but at least he could pass his land onto his sons. This is why the peasants have always been a reactionary class.

Of course the very nature of the proletariat’s work lends itself to developing a class consciousness. Working in close proximity with a common enemy are the hallmarks of the industrial class. Peasants on the other hand rarely see beyond their own village and have little contact with anyone outside it. They can play a revolutionary role but only when led by another class. Even then, as Lenin found out, they're a menace to the ideals of the revolution.

I’m sure others can explain it better than me but those have always been the main points in my mind.

[Livetrueordie]

Class Struggle is whats Evil...

[Scars]

The other thing about Capitalism is it is not sustainable and eventually it will collapse in on itself. Even incredibly right wing economics (of the sort I was taught at school) indirectly admits this. Because of this inevitable complete and total collapse of the present system I think it's kinda important we avoid such an occurance by replacing capitalism with something that will not, you know, destroy society.