Capitalism

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

When all the Countries in the World are developed to current first world standards, what will happen?

Are there any contending theories about this?

From my understanding, the west has the ability to provide cheap products for western citizens because of the cheap labour in countries where they are produced.

However, because technology has already been invented doesnt this mean development in the third world could increase quickly?

Thus eventually causing a problem for western nations about where to produce cheap products that can be sold at home?

As development will increase in the current third world countries and wages rise and the gap between first and third world countries decreases, will we see capitalism in the west begin to suffer because there are no longer cheap labour markets?

Anything you could reccommend to me about this topic would be good.

From both sides if thats cool.

[Kuro Morfos]

Capitalism permits growth, which is good. Socialism cleans up the mess, which is good. I think any ideal society should have both.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think any ideal society should have both.

Exploitation is a good thing?

Capitalism actually restricts growth. lol

Where there are no profits there is no development.

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:38 AM

I think any ideal society should have both.

Exploitation is a good thing?

Capitalism actually restricts growth. lol

Where there are no profits there is no development.
Asian countries show otherwise. Those countries grew rapidly after becoming Capitalist. The flaw of Capitalism is greed, the flaw of Socialism is static. Combine the two, you get neither.

[Janus]

The Asian Tigers are growing right now but an economic crisis is bound to come up sooner or later, some of the Tigers have already had one.

That characterizes one major problem with capitalism: the cycles of depression.

A "socialist" state with capitalist principles will have just as many problems.

There is growth in socialism and communism, we don't need unlimited economical growth that only benefits the wealthy and the so called free trade.

I don't have time to talk about all the problems with capitalism


As for the question, yes, some type of change will occur. By that time, there will be few markets left as most will already be saturated. Resources will be low and major problems with the economy will develop. If the situation gets bad enough, the people, mainily the workers, will take matters into their own hands.

[Herman]

When all the Countries in the World are developed to current first world standards, what will happen?

I don't think this is possible. The theory of Imperialism denies such statement.


Asian countries show otherwise. Those countries grew rapidly after becoming Capitalist. The flaw of Capitalism is greed, the flaw of Socialism is static. Combine the two, you get neither.

This does not mean, that the wealth in those countries is redistributed properly, if at all. If there is great wealth, it will mostly belong to the ruling class of such country.

[RebelDog]

The idea that one day all countries will operate under capitalism on some kind of 'level playing field' and all be of the same technological/industrial development is a misconception. I don't see any function of the free-market that could possibly produce this result. The market will always have the winners and losers. To have all countries one day at the same level would require possibly 100 years of universal strict regulation of the global market and even then thats impossible as growth would grind to a halt.

There will always exist a lowest bidder where the production of cheap goods is concerned. I heard a story of Indonesians getting 15 UK pence an hour for factory work. All that does is allow the boss to live in the 1st world. That is the reality of the eastern economic miracle.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Capitalism permits growth of a kind, and is a necessary stage in the move from feudal living to socialism, Kuro Morfos was not too far off in their statement here. Of course capitalism cannot provide sustainable growth for all.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Capitalism is the system of savages and animals and pigs. It leaves the less fortunate to die on the streets. It is a disgusting system.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 01:51 PM
The idea that one day all countries will operate under capitalism on some kind of 'level playing field' and all be of the same technological/industrial development is a misconception. I don't see any function of the free-market that could possibly produce this result. The market will always have the winners and losers. To have all countries one day at the same level would require possibly 100 years of universal strict regulation of the global market and even then thats impossible as growth would grind to a halt.

There will always exist a lowest bidder where the production of cheap goods is concerned. I heard a story of Indonesians getting 15 UK pence an hour for factory work. All that does is allow the boss to live in the 1st world. That is the reality of the eastern economic miracle.
I'd agree with that. The way corporations run these days is very similar to the way imperialist nations worked in the past; ie they extract resources as cheaply as possible from poor countries and poor people but invest as little as possible in both. Corporate-linked "development" is a farce and will never result in equality (whatever that means).

All it does is create a small wealthy elite, while exploiting the vast majority of people. These people will still form the supply of cheap labour needed by business.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:30 AM
When all the Countries in the World are developed to current first world standards, what will happen?

Are there any contending theories about this?

From my understanding, the west has the ability to provide cheap products for western citizens because of the cheap labour in countries where they are produced.

However, because technology has already been invented doesnt this mean development in the third world could increase quickly?

Thus eventually causing a problem for western nations about where to produce cheap products that can be sold at home?

As development will increase in the current third world countries and wages rise and the gap between first and third world countries decreases, will we see capitalism in the west begin to suffer because there are no longer cheap labour markets?

Anything you could reccommend to me about this topic would be good.

From both sides if thats cool.
I think there will be communist revolultion in the advanced capitalist countries long before many countries have even fully developed capitalism and left the semi-feudal conditions behind.

The developing capitalist countries (such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc) will take the place of the imperialist advanced capitalist countries (USA, Britain, etc). Eventually the "new" imperialist countries will be like the "advanced capitalist" countries we have now. They too would have communist revolutions and other less advanced countries would take their place, etc.

So after this has happened to every region in the world? I'm guessing some sort of global federation, but this is hundreds of years from now anyways, don't worry so much about it.

[Alexandria]

When all the Countries in the World are developed to current first world standards, what will happen?

I would rather keep it to if, as the senario is absolutly terrifing.

IF just 30% of the thrid world develops to the point that the first world has, the ecosystem will collapes and we, as well as most of the species on the planet, will all die horrible deaths - extinction, game over.





However, because technology has already been invented doesnt this mean development in the third world could increase quickly?


Unfortunatly yes and that's a bad thing. There is more than economics and techknology to consider, socialogical/cultural issues come into play.

It's the difference between organic growth and outside intervention/influence. Organic change is natural, it happens slowly and lets all the facets that make up a society react, along with the nessiary "corse corrections".

Sociological change imposed from the outside is like the introduction of foriegn species into the ecosystem, without the nessiary checks and balances the new changes expand expontionally and kill off the "native" culture faster than the natives can adapt.

Not a smart thing to do.


Thus eventually causing a problem for western nations about where to produce cheap products that can be sold at home?

As development will increase in the current third world countries and wages rise and the gap between first and third world countries decreases, will we see capitalism in the west begin to suffer because there are no longer cheap labour markets?

You didn't take into account how overpopulated the world is, especially China and India (both have over a billion people), if labour gets too expensive in one city/provience, industry will just move to another one, or import people from the undeveloped proviences to depress wages.

Secondly, their is a global overproduction capasity for just about everything, what slows growth is the cost of finite natural resources, not labor costs.

Again if the multinationals get their wish and increase the size of their consumer base, the ecosystem collapes that much faster as more and more people demand more and more of fewer and fewer natural resources.

Overpopulation can not be explained by explotiation, it's pure unadulterated human stupidty, many of the greatest minds of 1940-1970s warned world leaders and common citizens that if the population growth rate was not checked, their would be dire consequences.

The people didn't listen, the sensario is now a reality, and very hard realizations and decisions must be made.

It's sort of how people are refusing to deal with Global warming today, they will not do anything until it's too late. :(

[violencia.Proletariat]

Alexandria, its a trend among all Western industrialized countries to have level or declining population. The necessities and problems of the third world cause large populations booms but these level out when industrialization occurs.

[Alexandria]

Alexandria, its a trend among all Western industrialized countries to have level or declining population. The necessities and problems of the third world cause large populations booms but these level out when industrialization occurs.

Put it in perspective.
China
Pop. 1,313,973,713
Growth Rate:0.59%
Children/Women: 1.73

India
Pop. 1,095,351,995
Growth Rate:1.38%
Children/Women: 2.73

Indonesia
Pop.245,452,739
Growth Rate:1.41%
Children/Women: 2.4

The only country of any size I could find with a negative population growth rate was German

Germany

Pop.82,422,299
Growth Rate:-0.02%
Children/Women: 1.39

As you can see, Indonesia alone makes up for Germany alone, and yet India and China are adding even more people.

It's simply not true that the decreasing population of western Europe will pay for the Developing world's development.

we have surpased critical mass.

[Monty Cantsin]

according to "Dependency theory" it will never happpen because rich nations need poor nations for cheap labour and materials.

I'd say it's fairly right for the most part, because most countires that are developing now in Asia now didnt do it by following the advice of the IMF.

[Dreckt]

When all the Countries in the World are developed to current first world standards, what will happen?

The question is if first world countries would permit such a development. Cheap labour is a way of exploitation of the poor by the rich. But if it did happen somehow, maybe through the development of robots or something, then we have the environmental problems.


Capitalism permits growth, which is good. Socialism cleans up the mess, which is good. I think any ideal society should have both.

Capitalism works as a transisional period from monarchy into capitalism. Sure, it can be a progressive system at first sight, but it will decrease in effectivity (as it does in the first world today) and thus needs more recourses - thus the exploitation. Then, it is also a pretty rotten system to live in. Capitalism sooner or later will only focus on making profit for those who have the ability to do so, and these people are few - rich and powerful.

Socialism on the other hand, if it will ever work in the way we want it to work, will be a more humane society, it will work as a transisional phase from capitalism to communism. Among the ideas are a planned economy and stable work, health, educational and survival (food, water) programs that do work, every human will survive and will have something to do. But how society should work in this phase - that is, should there be one party or can there be many, should anyone control anything etc, is debatable.

What socialism showed us during the 20th century is a stable but unprogressive state. If we could morph the idea into something more progressive, then maybe it could work. I think this is one of the many topics we leftists want to solve.


I think any ideal society should have both.

An ideal society can not have both. You are either controlled by someone or you control yourself.


Asian countries show otherwise. Those countries grew rapidly after becoming Capitalist.

Yes - at the expence of their people. While most Asian countries are progressive their governments are not. For the rich, Asia is the ideal place, but for the poor it is a hell.


The flaw of Capitalism is greed, the flaw of Socialism is static. Combine the two, you get neither.

In any society where you can "make" something - money for example - there will always be greed and corruption. As long as you can collect something valuable depending on how much you work, then that is how long a society will be based on greed and wanting. A society should be about helping each other and building society for the very sake of it.

[LeninReborn]

How I despise capitalism. Apparently in 2005 drug companies spent more money on developing slimming drugs than all the governments of the worlds spent on fighting AIDS.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:48 AM
How I despise capitalism. Apparently in 2005 drug companies spent more money on developing slimming drugs than all the governments of the worlds spent on fighting AIDS.
That just about sums it up. Most people on this earth who have aids have little money, so cannot pay for treatment. Drug companies are gangsters. They are just concerned with profit. There are pills for everything these days in the west, for lots of made up conditions that don't even exist. All this crap while millions in the world are in immediate need of cheap pills that will save their lives. Insanity and its getting worse.

[Rawthentic]

yeah, I really despise drug companies because of the way that they keep medecines to themselves and only give them up for profit. They do not care if people are dying in mass numbers, they own those medecines and they want to profit.

But to answer the thread, yeah , I agree with most comrades that we can never reach an equilibrium because it would cause some nuclear war because of the constant competition by these now '1st world' nations. All these nations would fight to be the global superpower, as is the US, and it would result horribly I believe, just as capitalists create monopolies amongst themselves to be the main power in their respective markets.Such has caused WW1 and WW2, these wars were fought because of feuds between capitalist-imperialist nations. Just like in capitalism's relationship between boss and worker that keeps the worker oppressed, so is the the same for advanced nations and underdeveloped nations. This relationship in imperialism is the life-blood of capitalism, without it, America would not enjoy its riches. This relationship is used by advanced nations to super-exploit underdeveloped nations and thus reap the profits for themselves.


Even after revolution, underdeveloped nations cannot be "helped" into becoming socialist, they have to be helped in making the transistion to capitalism or even feudalism, if necessary. Trying to convert semi-feudal or feudal nations into socialist ones have resulted in horrible dictatoships (ie: Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba somewhat)

[Ol' Dirty]

Whatever keeps people happy, well fed and sheltered works.

Personally, I don't think this'll ever happen, but if it were, I'll survive.

Still, it'll never happen. We need some sort of socialization to keep things running.

[Rawthentic]

We need some revolution to bring equality, and then bring in the socialization for the people to run their resources and their freedom.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:13 PM
We need some revolution to bring equality, and then bring in the socialization for the people to run their resources and their freedom.
As I said in the other thread on this board, revolution everyday.