After the failure of capitalism

[Tahar Joblis]

Er... actually, it took regulation to stop child labor in the US. Child labor continues in many countries. (So does slavery.)

Regulations - and the hard work of unions - have everything to do with the length of the work day. This is why the work day is much shorter in France than the US - because France has passed laws to make it so. It is not because France has vastly greater production than the US.

There is child labor in many developing countries. Had they been capitalist they would have advanced well past that point. If such regulations existed in, say China, they would be even poorer than they are. Such regulations are nice if you can afford them, but do nothing to address the issue of poverty.

But do address the issue of exploitation. If you "can afford" the regulation, so to speak, but don't exercise it, the practice of child labor will probably continue. If you don't address the issue of a minimum wage, the market won't magically come up with a living wage for unskilled laborers. If you don't address the work week, people will continue to work unhealthily long hours even when it's not needed to advance in prosperity and even when the efficiency of the worker goes down dramatically with longer workweeks.

The South here in the US would have held onto slavery well into the 20th century if it had been allowed to.

[Grave_n_idle]

Since we don't have any way to compare America-post-1971-with-OSHA against America-post-1971-without-OSHA, any argument that OSHA must have had no effect is obviously speculation.

I agree and disagree. You're right, we should always compare to the counter factor, or what could have happened, simply looking at a trend is meaningless and is not an argument. On the other hand, I disagree it's impossible to construct compelling arguments and/or evidence showing what America would have looked like without OSHA, it's just most likely beyond the ability of people in this thread.

Indeed, it is possible to make speculative arguments... for example, given the massive increase in automation and mechanisation, it's entirely likely that the 70s and 80s would have seen another spike in workplace fatalities, just like the 30s spike.

But it's just speculation, even if there is good reason to believe it.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it's lucky. There is no guarantee that an economy must always act as a simple harmonic oscillation.

What is obvious is that without OSHA the number of workplace deaths would instantly skyrocket!

Could.

[Sibirsky]

There is child labor in many developing countries. Had they been capitalist they would have advanced well past that point. If such regulations existed in, say China, they would be even poorer than they are. Such regulations are nice if you can afford them, but do nothing to address the issue of poverty.

But do address the issue of exploitation. If you "can afford" the regulation, so to speak, but don't exercise it, the practice of child labor will probably continue. If you don't address the issue of a minimum wage, the market won't magically come up with a living wage for unskilled laborers. If you don't address the work week, people will continue to work unhealthily long hours even when it's not needed to advance in prosperity and even when the efficiency of the worker goes down dramatically with longer workweeks.

The South here in the US would have held onto slavery well into the 20th century if it had been allowed to.

Nope, they won't. France has a lower standard of living than the US entirely due to the fact that they have a shorter workweek and longer vacations. They are indeed, more productive than the Americans, when they work. They just work less. When people can work less, for the same, or more money they will.

That's just speculation, on the south.

[Bendira]

You're the one that is full of theology.

I'm saying your argument is not supported - much less with what you claim as evidence. That's not a matter of 'belief', that's a matter of your poor evidence.

The Soviet Union's increase in production came at the cost of a massive famine in Ukraine (Holodomor) and on the backs of state slaves. With the end result being tens of millions dead.

Which is irrelevant to the point. Seriously, if you can't make an on-topic argument without shifting the goalposts, you're wasting my time.

Did you miss the graph?

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it's lucky. There is no guarantee that an economy must always act as a simple harmonic oscillation.

I'm not saying that. But the mechanisms aren't simply spontaneous, there are good reasons with lots of evidence, if you read the literature, why an economy will recover from a downturn eventually, and why it keeps happening in the past. I'm not saying it's akin to a physical law of the universe, but it's hardly a random game of chance.

The problem with the 'eventually' argument is that it's optimistic.

If the American economy fell hard enough and without adequate safety nets - people would be unemployed by the tens of millions, maybe by the hundreds. People would be starving by the tens of millions, maybe by the hundreds. The infrastructure that barely sustains us would collapse. Our political and social infrastructure relies on our physical infrastructure, and would collapse.

Sure, an economy will tend towards recovery after it reaches it's maximum trough... but if you're living in subsistence-economy feudal franchises by the time the worst is over, it's not going to be a short path back to recovery.

In other words... we've been lucky.

Our economy is a curious creature - it is both incredibly stable and incredibly UN-stable. It's kind of hard to push off track too far, but if you did, it would crash like Tunguska.

[Grave_n_idle]

Did you miss the graph?

No. Did you miss the point?

[Hydesland]

Our economy is a curious creature - it is both incredibly stable and incredibly UN-stable. It's kind of hard to push off track too far, but if you did, it would crash like Tunguska.

I think our economy is becoming more stable over time though, even including the current recession. Possibly relevant link

[Conserative Morality]

You are making a quality of life argument, which is wholly inadequate when dealing with concepts like "Right" and "Wrong"
Moral Relativism is intellectual bankrupt in that it's only practical application is to justify every evil act ever done by man to man.

The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are both entirely flawed and baseless to begin with, so I have no problem 'inadequately' dealing with them.

[Conserative Morality]

Interesting how you jump to communism as the only other possible solution. A bit close minded, aren't we?

I responded to the OP, which suggested Communism.

[Conserative Morality]

Capitalism is always on the verge of collapse, by it's very nature. It is inherently unstable and capricious. That's actually (also) it's greatest strength, so it's nonsensical to deny it.

It's not 'inherently unstable'. It lends itself to economic upturns and economic downturns, but like any system, all it depends on is the faith of the people supporting it and the force it wields (In the form of capital, in Capitalism's case). Therefore, while the economy it serves may be on the verge of collapse, the actual system is stable.

And how can a system with all 'it's failure corrected' not be a good thing?

Removes all the failures from Communism and you leave yourself without Communism.

[Angleter]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

Capitalism hasn't failed. Regulated capitalism is sustainable, and will replace what went before if not already in place. Countries very rarely collapse á la the USSR.

I don't think communism's ever going to take off in the West, or return to Eastern Europe. And it most certainly isn't a good system, failures of the past or no failures of the past.

[L3 Communications]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

1. Probably some kind of neo-Feudalism where everyone is their own lord, after we all hit post scarcity. Lol.
2. No, since post scarcity leads to economic and governmental collapse.

Communism (at least in a sense of Maoism, Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, Juche, and all other systems except Dengism) is dead. All the countries that have adopted it are terrible nations that would be better off getting cleansed by nuclear fire.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not 'inherently unstable'. It lends itself to economic upturns and economic downturns, but like any system, all it depends on is the faith of the people supporting it and the force it wields (In the form of capital, in Capitalism's case). Therefore, while the economy it serves may be on the verge of collapse, the actual system is stable.

Ah, I see what you're doing.

You're separating the system from the mechanism. Fair enough. In that case, capitalism is incredibly stable, but it doesn't mean anything - because all you're actually saying is that a lack of stability is a form of stability. Philosophically true, of course - but meaningless in real application.

Removes all the failures from Communism and you leave yourself without Communism.

Remove all the failures from communism and you'd leave yourself with communism.

[Conserative Morality]

Ah, I see what you're doing.

You're separating the system from the mechanism. Fair enough. In that case, capitalism is incredibly stable, but it doesn't mean anything - because all you're actually saying is that a lack of stability is a form of stability. Philosophically true, of course - but meaningless in real application.

Capitalism, as a system, enjoys a huge amount of support and power. As such, it, as a system, is unlikely to face replacement or any radical changes anytime soon. While Capitalist systems lend themselves to instability in what they effect, the economy, Capitalist systems themselves are quite stable in the First World. Entrenched, one might say.

The effect of a Stable System is an instable economy.

Remove all the failures from communism and you'd leave yourself with communism

In order to remove all failures from Communism, you would have to change many of the core principles of Communism. Once removed, the system in question would no more be Communism than Regulated Capitalism is Laissez-faire Capitalism.

[Grave_n_idle]

In order to remove all failures from Communism, you would have to change many of the core principles of Communism.

Like what?

What would you have to change, that would sufficiently alter the model that it was no longer communism?

[Conserative Morality]

Like what?

What would you have to change, that would sufficiently alter the model that it was no longer communism?

Get rid of Statelessness, Classlessness, lack of Private Property, free access to needs, etc.

Afterwords, that would be Capitalism, or perhaps some form of Socialism. But Capitalism has failings of it's own. Remove all of it's failings, and you no longer have Capitalism.

[Sibirsky]

In order to remove all failures from Communism, you would have to change many of the core principles of Communism.

Like what?

What would you have to change, that would sufficiently alter the model that it was no longer communism?

Private property. Freedom. Equality. Freedom and equality cannot coexist. You have to pick one. Most of the so called communist countries chose equality for the masses.

[L3 Communications]

Like what?

What would you have to change, that would sufficiently alter the model that it was no longer communism?

Private property. Freedom. Equality. Freedom and equality cannot coexist. You have to pick one. Most of the so called communist countries chose equality for the masses.

+1

[Greed and Death]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

You got it wrong social democracy is failing. That's why Europe is electing the more right leaning, this trend will continue until pure laissez-faire come about. Those protesting represent a shrinking minority, and are reactionaries.
They must be put down at all cost summary execution by corporate police forces will soon occur.

[Galloism]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

You got it wrong social democracy is failing. That's why Europe is electing the more right leaning, this trend will continue until pure laissez-faire come about. Those protesting represent a shrinking minority, and are reactionaries.
They must be put down at all cost summary execution by corporate police forces will soon occur.

In b4 someone takes you seriously.

I see you started early today.

Cheers!

[Hellestia]

I've always imagined the US being under a pseudo-communist economy, then being brought back into capitalist regime.

[Kurdazistan]

The capitalist experiment that we have been doing in most of the western world is failing on a massive scale, it is not substainable an will at some point have to be replaced by something. This begs two question:

1. What will replace capitalism?
2. Will the current government be able to handle it, or will we see countries collapse as well?

I suspect that we will end up with some form of communism. It is a good system if the failures of the past can be corrected.

China is being capitalist. That is the ONLY REASON they are doing so well now.

What are you, in Middle School and your father is a Marxist?

[Hellestia]

China is being capitalist.

Highly unlikely. Most of the economic figures of China are regulated by the trade and financial departments. All wages are set at a fixated amount.

They're only being fed capitalist spoils.

[Grave_n_idle]

Like what?

What would you have to change, that would sufficiently alter the model that it was no longer communism?

Private property. Freedom. Equality. Freedom and equality cannot coexist. You have to pick one. Most of the so called communist countries chose equality for the masses.

Private property is a failing in communism? OR the abolition of private property (which some forms of communism might require) is a failing?

Similarly, you seem to be describing freedom and equality as failures of communism.

Perhaps you're just finding it hard to express yourself in a way that actually answers the question?