The 'Capitalism Raises All Boats' Argument.

[Oswy]

What is the best way to tackle the argument that while capitalism might not be perfect it has the proven capacity to raise everyone's standards of living beyond that which formerly existed (i.e that the poor in today's capitalist societies are generally fewer and less relatively poor to those living, say, twenty years ago, as they were in turn relative to twenty years or so prior to that, and so on)?

[JazzRemington]

In Haiti, when the country was opened up to neo-liberal policies and the international market, the standard of living dropped drastically. About 20 years ago, there was a relatively high standard of living and the country was more or less self-sufficient. Now, about 50% of the people live below the poverty line, they have to import 75% of their food, and most people live on about $2 a day and are forced to sell and eat dirt cookies.

But on the plus side, there still is a small minority of super rich individuals and foreign rice importers were making lots of money.

[EscapeFromSF]

JazzRemington has it right.

The argument is factually wrong. The industrial revolution did not improve standards of living for the people working in the factories, and sausage making--as illustrated by Upton Sinclair--certainly did not improve the health of the people. Point to rising homelessness, a scandalous infant mortality rate, and increasing numbers of people without medical insurance. I'm sure I'm forgetting about more.

[gilhyle]

Clearly the process of industrialisation and imperialism has radically improved the standard of living of the mass of people living in the UK....taking a two hundred year view. As part of the process, however, they were initially made a lot poorer and went through great tragedies and now enjoy a standard of living which requires the oppression of others.

This is a complicated argument.....and what you say depends entirely on who you are talking to.

[bootleg42]

What is the best way to tackle the argument that while capitalism might not be perfect it has the proven capacity to raise everyone's standards of living beyond that which formerly existed (i.e that the poor in today's capitalist societies are generally fewer and less relatively poor to those living, say, twenty years ago, as they were in turn relative to twenty years or so prior to that, and so on)?

That's the same argument used to keep slavery. The welfare of the slaves got better as time passed on. Would that be a reason to keep slavery??? Hell no!!!!!

So that's a terrible argument for capitalism.

[Oswy]

Clearly the process of industrialisation and imperialism has radically improved the standard of living of the mass of people living in the UK....taking a two hundred year view. As part of the process, however, they were initially made a lot poorer and went through great tragedies and now enjoy a standard of living which requires the oppression of others.

This is a complicated argument.....and what you say depends entirely on who you are talking to.

And also, in the case of the UK, workers' movements and occasional socialist orientated governments have had their hand in mediating the worst excesses of capitalist logic. It's no coincidence that some of the most obvious concessions to the poor, such as the creation of the NHS and the (much more recently implemented) minimum wage have come through left-orientated government.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Use Noam Chomsky's argument: chattel slavery raised the standard of living for all parties. Does that make it ethical?

[bcbm]

I think the claim that is raised standards of living also is misleading because it focuses only on individual material wealth. If we talk about things like free time, money and happiness, to name a few, I would say the standard of living has drastically declined.

[bobroberts]

Only a few people own boats under capitalism, the rest of us drown.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Only a few people own boats under capitalism, the rest of us drown.

Fitful phrasing.

Perhaps: Only a few people own boats. The rest of us have a choice of cleaning their boats or being thrown overboard? :laugh:

[RebelDog]

A video of Chomsky refuting this particular argument in person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM&feature=related

[rednordman]

This is an interesting point as it seems to be the most favourite argument for the capitalist. This is obviously, as most of you people and many others (Chomsky, etc) have proven a flawed argument. My brother for instance actually believes that the people in the poorest parts of the world will eventually catch up with our standard of living via globalisation!?? (what in like 10000years??) They (Capitalists) are correct in some ways but in my opinion, such advancements only come via strong working class movements and trade unions. I believe that if we never had these movements, than there would be a hell of a gulf between the rich and poor (there obviously already is some parts of the world but I’m referring to mainly UK, Europe and USA). Like a lot of the older people at my workplace have said on this issue, back before Thatcher’s rule, if their was any problems regarding pay, job security etc, most workers would strike successfully and people/worker power seemed to work to a degree, whereas nowadays it would just get you the sack.

In a nutshell, if it wasn’t for the unions+socialist movements being strong in the past than life may not have improved much from 100 years ago for many people in the West as there is honestly no limitations to the greed of an individual with power. There is probably more to it but that is my opinion anyhow.

[mikelepore]

In the U.S. I think geography has a lot to do with it. European society was transplanted here abruptly around the time that the age of machanization was beginning, and the settlers were able to take ten million square kilometers of land away from its previous owners by force. The amount of timber seemed to be infinite. There was so much land that anyone who wanted to try farming or ranching could acquire a thousand acres cheaply. The land was fertile and the climate was temperate for agriculture. That agriculture developed quickly as the settlers were permitted to kidnap people in other lands and put them into slavery. Because mining and quarrying were new, minerals in the ground were still close to the surface. For fishing and transportation, there were two large seacoasts, a few very long rivers, and a few very large lakes. Such conditions were like regular shots of vitamins for industrial development. The working class in the U.S. acquired a standard of living that is more comfortable than the standard of living in some "underdeveloped" countries. But some Americans want to give the credit not to temporary geographical advantages but to capitalism. They ought to note that capitalism doesn't have their expected effect when, for example, some countries have a smaller ratio of the area of fertile soil to the number of mouths to feed. If the U.S. "breadbasket" states were, say, covered with sand, the economic situation would be different.

[evil chris]

The fact that it's false is a good way.
"Studies show" (In speech marks because I can't remeber which one. sigh ) that the average wage of the English worker has less buying power than 20 years ago.
This means that in practice we're worse off.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

A video of Chomsky refuting this particular argument in person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM&feature=related
Yes, Chomsky pretty much covers it. His refutation is by far the best out there.

To sum it up for those who don't feel like watching the video: Yes, there is economic growth under capitalism, which means the average standard of living steadily improves. So what? There was economic growth in the Soviet Union (and in fact the Soviet economy grew faster than the American one until the late 70s, I might add). There was economic growth in Nazi Germany. There was economic growth in the slave states of the pre-Civil War USA. Nearly all industrial economies have economic growth nearly all of the time. Yes, capitalism raises all boats, but so does every other system.

Edit: I just checked the CIA World Factbook, and according to their figures, the US economy grew by 2.2% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ) in 2007, while the Cuban economy grew by 7% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Econ) in the same year. So the tide is actually rising boats faster in Cuba than in the US (and according to the CIA, no less)! Of course Cuba is poorer to begin with and it will take time for the rising tide to make everyone rich, but according to the capitalist argument it doesn't matter how long it takes, right?