I dont know if this forum is the place to ask this but Marx's name can be found almost in every Philosophy book so i decided to post my question here. Why do you think that capitalism didnt destroy capitalist countries as Marx has predited? (If you want i can write more about this and make my question more clear)
there is still plenty of time for capitilistic countries to destroy each other and don't you think they are doing a rather nice job of it now?
Because the workers didn't become dissatisfied enough with the system to to rise up against it. This was basically because unions were allowed and negotiated better working conditions. Governments also became more involved in, and probably more adept at, managing the economy so it was more stable.
I agree with skyederman. Marx probably wasn't talking about capitalism in the sense of what's commonly thought as capitalism today. Most functional systems that are dotted with captialism have a healthy dose of socialism too. Taking the USA as an example, around the late 1800's its capitialism system was getting out of control, with grueling child labor, horrible working conditions, and an increasing wealth gap between the working class and the employers. There was also the huge "trust companies" from the oil, steel, and railroad industry that were threatening to eat the captialist system from inside out by destroying small businesses and competition in the market. There were some crucial changes to business practices that steered the USA away from eventual economic destruction. I haven't read Marx's material but it sounds like he would've been right about capitalist countires destroying themselves sooner or later....if they stayed purely capitalist.
countries like america were able to compromise. while we're still capitalist, we have lotsa socialist functions like welfare, medicaid, and public services for orads and such. if we had indeed stayed as a pure capitalist country, we would have no doubt destoryed ourselves by now
I think communism failed because it misjudged the amount of economic and technical growth possible to be made in human societies. Intelligent communists have probably always recognised that individual freedom over decisions of production and consumption(aka capitalism) was more productive than communism. At some point, potentially anyways, increases in productive may become impossible or very difficult anyway. In such a situation, it is not too difficult to imagine communism. If economic and technical growth reach a natural limit, the freedoms associated with capitalism may become superfluous, adding nothing to human life. Then again, there may not be a natural limt on growth... Cheers!
True about the workers not being dissatisfied enough to rebel against it. However, I don't think Marx would approve too much of the unions that exist today. Unions have too much power and at times rule the workers as much as the capitalist employers. And the notion of Government involvement resulting in a so called more stable economy could also be seen by Marx to be a means to keep the working class as the working class. The notion of giving with one hand while taking more from the other. Workers may get paid more and having better working conditions, however they pay more in taxes and are expected to have a higher output, thereby earning more for their employers and also for the Government. Marx would argue that such a compromise is a means of maintaining the class system. Functions such as welfare, medicaid and public services are a way of maintaining the working class as they help to ensure that the working class is kept at a lower place in the capitalist ladder. Welfare payments are not the same as the wage of a company director, thus ensuring that a difference in class remains. A company director will not take a pay cut to the level that the Government pays an individual in welfare as this would bring him down to the level of a worker. Welfare recipients are rarely able to become property owners or employers with the amount of money received. The notion of publically funded medicare or medicaid also ensures that the working class remain just that. They get a bare minimum of medical cover while the capitalist employer can afford the best of care. It is only when all receive the same level of care can things be seen to be equal according to Marx. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One correction: Pure capitalism does not destroy anything. Capitalism in earlier this century was very rigged. Right now capitalism is still rigged but not nearly as much as it was. Capitalism needs fair competition and level playing field in order to function properly, and the lack thereof WAS the problem earlier this century. Another thing is today we know a hell lot more about capitalism and how it should work compare to a century ago. The only downfall of capitalism is the lack of social responsibility because it has nothing to do with profit and therefore companies lacks incentive to care about it. The ironic thing is that competition, which is the foundation of capitalism, is often the culprit. Fierce competition and greed can create overwelming drive for profit. The overwelming drive for profit will often cause CEO's and executives to override their sense of ethics and social responsibility. For example, Enron created energy shortage on purpose to create a spike on their stock price. This kind of behavior benefits the stock holders but harms the society. Now socialism came about really as a remedy to this problem. It forces social responsibility upon capitalism in the expense of market efficiency. However more socialism means more waste. Is socialism the best remedy? That's up for debate. That is another post at another time. Another big problem with capitalism today is the lack of economic democracy. Our corporations are NOT democratic institutions. They are dictatorships rather. Our CEO's and executives have absolute power to rig their own outragous pays and compensation packages. Another big problem is our economy only functions to benefit the financial elite because of the way the system works. That's an essay by itself. Those two reasons are the main contributors to the widening income gaps in US. Capitalism is the way to go, but it's not perfect. I believe it's better to find ways to fix the flaws and improve capitalism rather than to bastardize it with socialism or any other form of ineffecient system.
Communism failed because it assumed egalitarianism. The concept of human equality cannot be seriously entertained.
Because the capitalist system made enough concessions so as to keep its populace contented for the period of time required to slowly erode communist states through the arms race and overspending. The middle class, created to buffer the strains between the upper and lower classes, absorbed the strains of capitalistic plutocracy and inequality and gave enough time to the capitalistic system to erode, through attrition, the communist system that could not compete in expenditure and weaponry but could only challenge through ideology. The capitalistic system also absorbed and adopted many communist ideas as to enable it to compete against an ideology that spoke directly to the masses and the underprivileged. Minimum wage, healthcare, workers unions were all the product of a capitalisms strategic retreat during a historic period when it was most vulnerable. As we can see today, when the communist threat has been substantially eroded and almost completely eradicated, capitalism is regaining its lost ground and destroying the products of its past battle against capitalism. All the concessions made during the period of the Cold War are now being reversed. In fact what is happening is that the socialist ideas that were incorporated into the capitalist system so as to keep the masses pacified are now being rejected and destroyed, causing in the process, political and social strains. Even free speech and human rights are threatened now that no viable alternative to capitalism exists. For example, the Iraqi War and the War on Terrorism were used as excuses to take back power and to re-establish old class balances. The slow destruction of the Middle-Class, now unneeded, has begun and will continue in slow methodical steps so as to not cause too much stress and so as to remain mostly unnoticed. The eradication of the Middle-Class actually started soon after the fall of the Soviet system when “corporate downsizing” and money problems were used to explain how a wealthy economy all of a sudden was hard pressed to find funds and how corporations earning profits saw fit to cut jobs and spending in the name of supposed efficiency and enhanced competitiveness. It is not coincidental that unions and overall middle-class health was at its peak during the time when communism posed the highest threat to capitalism, that is during the sixties and seventies, and that their strength and health was directly proportional to the strength and health of the threat against capitalism. As communism declined so did the middle-class
