Western Societies, Capitalism and Standards of Living.

[Oswy]

Capitalists argue that the success of capitalism is evidenced in the way societies like the US and UK have seen general, indeed significant, rises in the standard of living when considered across the period from the end of WWII onwards.

They argue that even if there is a crisis in capitalism currently, this doesn't detract from the overall trend over time which has seen people's material lives improve with greater availability and vareity of food, increasing home-ownership and more comfortable home life, improved medicines and generally greater access to those medicines.

How do I tackle these arguments?

My first thought is that much of the 'improvements' in living standards are superficial, my second that the advantages gained by some, such as those living in the US or western Europe, have come at the cost of the misery and exploitation of people outside those places.

Anyway, good arguments against the capitalists warmly welcomed.

[Lynx]

Advances in standard of living could be attributable to advances in technology.

[spice756]

My first thought is that much of the 'improvements' in living standards are superficial, my second that the advantages gained by some, such as those living in the US or western Europe, have come at the cost of the misery and exploitation of people outside those places


What do you mean by superficial ?




How do I tackle these arguments?


I believe it was ww2 and than the ( IT ) ( Information technology ) & electronic bubble that took them out of the depression.But I also believe most capitalist made a middle class to counter-left movments like communism ,strikes and labor unions.

Also keep mind the US and UK are very imperialist and had strong histry of it:cursing:

[ernie]

Capitalists argue that the success of capitalism is evidenced in the way societies like the US and UK have seen general, indeed significant, rises in the standard of living when considered across the period from the end of WWII onwards.

They argue that even if there is a crisis in capitalism currently, this doesn't detract from the overall trend over time which has seen people's material lives improve with greater availability and vareity of food, increasing home-ownership and more comfortable home life, improved medicines and generally greater access to those medicines.

How do I tackle these arguments?

My first thought is that much of the 'improvements' in living standards are superficial, my second that the advantages gained by some, such as those living in the US or western Europe, have come at the cost of the misery and exploitation of people outside those places.

Anyway, good arguments against the capitalists warmly welcomed.
In the US, my first argument would be that they're wrong (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits%3A+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29). Most statistics I've seen suggest the exact opposite, that is, that the standard of living in the US has been steadily declining in the last 30 years, especially for workers.

Besides the link I gave, you can check out website of The Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/). It's a really difficult site to navigate (possibly intentionally?), but you can get a lot of info there.

[KurtFF8]

Chomsky made a good quick argument that perhaps would help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

His argument is that just because standards of living have increased, it doesn't follow that the system under which those standards have increased is therefore "good" or "just". (He uses the example of slave systems and increases in standards there).

Also, Richard Wolff indirectly touches on this subject when explaining the current "financial crisis" :http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7382297202053077236&ei=6DkWSZD7DJKYrQLC5uTEDQ&q=richard+wolff+crisis

He talks about how the US working class has been the most "wealthy working class" which helps explain the standards of living, not something Marx would disagree with of course.

The thing is that capitalism itself is inherently flawed, and while standards to increase, the contradictions within capitalism cannot be solved by reforming it. Capitalists will always want wages to be lower while needing the workers to buy their products, there's no escaping that within the capitalist mode of production. So while we can be at a high point of capitalism (as opposed to a crisis like right now) where workers are "doing well", those contradictions will always be present.

[NerdVincent]

Who said there can't be no better standard of living in a communist society?
I'm against Castro's dictatorship, but which capitalist banana republics living of tobacco industry and tourism under embargo like Cuba has universal healthcare, almost inexistant unemployement, a life expectancy comparable to those of the US... If we look at island with comparable ressource, is there better standard of living in capitalist Haiti and Jamaica or in communist Cuba?

The thing is that there has been better standard of living for the richest 30% of the pop in the US, and a worsening of the standard of living in the 30% poorest. A comparable phenomeon can be observed at the international scale: rich are richer, poor are poorer, because of the way capitralism and globalization works.

[Bilan]

Standards of living have risen under capitalism. Especially considering the transition from Feudalism to capitalism.
That's because capitalism's development has been synonymous with an increase in technology, industrialisation, etc. These all contribute to a higher standard of living.

Over the last 30 years, however, following the rise (and of recent, the fall) of neoliberalism, the standard of living has stagnatated or declined. This is primarily due to the stage that capitalism is in.

Of course, general standards of living under socialism and communism would rise, due to the way production and distribution has been changed. The objectives of production have changed, rising the standard of living.

[BobKKKindle$]

The persistent increases in living standards in the first world and the corresponding lack of revolutionary struggle is not the result of any endogenous factor such as developments in technology. Instead, these increases can be attributed to the imperialist exploitation of the developing world through unequal trading relationships and other resource flows which relegate the global south to a status of permanent underdevelopment and dependency, and at the same time allow the bourgeoisie of the developed countries to buy off a section of the working class by using the profits generated from imperialism, and this section is then able to use their position within the organizations of the working class, including trade unions and reformist parties, to manage the rest of the proletariat and prevent any challenge to the capitalist order.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Keep in mind the advances we enjoy today would not be possible without welfare capitalism. I'm not sure what audience you're wanting to target, but there's something to be said about the poverty rate in the United States being close to 50% during the 1920s, and then down to 20% in 1960, and 11% by 1970 - all thanks to the Fair Deal, New Deal, and Great Society. Since then with a much more "conservative" oriented government poverty has actually increased to 13-15%.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Keep in mind the advances we enjoy today would not be possible without welfare capitalism. I'm not sure what audience you're wanting to target, but there's something to be said about the poverty rate in the United States being close to 50% during the 1920s, and then down to 20% in 1960, and 11% by 1970 - all thanks to the Fair Deal, New Deal, and Great Society. Since then with a much more "conservative" oriented government poverty has actually increased to 13-15%.




Even before the welfare state, standards of living rose from industrialization and developement alone...often times the agrarian lifestyle wasn't exactly pleasant. Ironically, this is a point that both right-libertarians and Marxists seem to stress, though for different reasons.

But yeah, in terms of what we have today compared to what we had a hundred years ago, you're probably right.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Capitalists argue that the success of capitalism is evidenced in the way societies like the US and UK have seen general, indeed significant, rises in the standard of living when considered across the period from the end of WWII onwards.

They argue that even if there is a crisis in capitalism currently, this doesn't detract from the overall trend over time which has seen people's material lives improve with greater availability and vareity of food, increasing home-ownership and more comfortable home life, improved medicines and generally greater access to those medicines.

How do I tackle these arguments?

My first thought is that much of the 'improvements' in living standards are superficial, my second that the advantages gained by some, such as those living in the US or western Europe, have come at the cost of the misery and exploitation of people outside those places.

Anyway, good arguments against the capitalists warmly welcomed.

I'd make the point that private ownership of the productive forces in no way generated the growth. In fact, the decreased demand and output of the post-war world could not of been 'self-corrected' by market forces - the 'diminishing returns' (i.e. declining profitability) of firms meant that they would not find it necessary to provide variable capital to helping unemployed workers.

It required the re-capitalization of overall production to switch from the arms industry to sectors that had a more guaranteed return on investment. The 'state' (oooh 'socialism') had to provide the cash for that growth, it had nothing to do with private capitalism.