Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 4th, 2012, 01:07 AM   #41

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
Is it? Do you have any quotes from historic feudal figures to that effect?
I'll try to dig in few medieval forums

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
Human progress has not stopped, but there's a limit to the number of times you can reinvent economics and still have a viable system.
Economics is always the same. Plants need sun and water to grow, coal and gas need oxygen to burn, people need food and energy. What changes is way we organize it. As human society and technology changes, so does way we conduct economics. We were changing economic systems for thousands years. There is no reason to believe that we suddenly stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
Capitalism isn't going anywhere.
I agree. And that is reason I believe it will be replaced
arras is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 4th, 2012, 01:26 AM   #42

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangas Coloradas View Post
I doubt there is anything that will replace capitalism and the profit motive. All creatures do something to get something. Words may change and concepts but the basics don't.
In this you are very mistaken. If profit would be only thing motivating peoples actions, we would not have civilisation. Most basic motivation of humans is not profit, it is survival. And best way to survive is in society.

There were many interesting psychologic experiments done which shows that people readily give up their personal advantage for advantage of society. This can be seen for example in a way how we react if somebody breaks unwritten social rules. It is somewhere deep inside us, we do it daily without noticing it.

Capitalists claim that profit and enterpreteurism is best vehicle of development. History shows it is not true. Greatest discoveries, greatest works of art and culture, greatest scientific finds were not done in search of profit. Quit the opposite, they were often made despite great loose and suffering.

One might say that civilisation exist despite, not thanks to search of profit.
arras is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 10:11 AM   #43

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

The desire to have wealth is an intrinsic impulse of most humans. The desire to have tremendous wealth is a neurotic Obssessive Compulsion.
What might be put into place in the future is a socio-economic system where rewards might be accrued through beneficent behavior rather than greedy acquisition. If you spend 20 hours a week performing altruistic deeds, you can acquire an upgrade in living conditions or receive a special gift of technology or some form of special comfort. This would be how additional resources might be acquired. You could also devote your entire work life to just such purpose and be guaranteed a life without any worry for food, water, comfort and enyertainment. Any additional monetary gain would come through mercantile processes or service related occupations. And such services would be monitored for excessive greed and quality provided.
Some Limits might be placed on monetary achievement within reason. How much monetary accumulation does one require to be guaranteed comfort for life? 3-10 million might be very sufficient. No one would be able to "inherit" wealth or property. Since such should always be "earned." This would keep the desire to upgrade, vigorous and always fresh. People, who inherit anything tend to believe they are somehow "better" than others and never appreciate what it actually takes to earn wealth. Social position and vanity would be somewhat discouraged, but not completely, Re-educating people to believe in their abilites and not their appearance might take some time, but could be achieved. However, beauty should never be discouraged. Good health and physical perfection might be great incentives for all to achieve. And with new technologies and genetic knowledge, within reach of everyone.
It should be reasonably gauged as to what level of physical "limit" might be placed on the acquisition of monetary wealth. Then a "potential" account of excess wealth might be created. One, which any individual could access in case it was ever needed. But such access would never be more than the actual limits of what one should be able to have at any one time. This "limit" might have to be adjusted from time to time due to inflation (if any) or other potential economic changes. The government would be able to take a portion of this "potential" wealth, while a person lives and continue after death until it entirely evaporates. It can never be transferred to anyone else. Personal taxes would disappear. Sales tax and service taxes will be all that exists. If even these. Whatever one achieves in life belongs to them up to a reasonable point for as long as they live.
However, anyone who accrues even higher amounts of this "potential" wealth would be offered special "vacations" to fabulous places or rare technological improvements for every tens of millions of these potential "credits", they may have accumulated. A kind of phantom legacy. However, with the elimination of inheritance, such OC behavior would be limited to the legacy of only the individual, who had acquired it. These monies the government might acrue would be used to educate everyone to the highest level desired by any individual. The education system would be revamped to capability and interest. Only the basic tools required to exist within society would be required. Every other educational tool would then be chosen for as long as that individual lived.
Physical comfort, health care and basic entertainment technologies would be freely available to every living human being. Anything above basic need would be acquired primarily through behavior conducted that is beneficial to everyone else. Populations would have to be strictly monitored and strictly controlled within reasonable economic and comfort based sustainable levels. Unfettered births would be a thing of the past. However, certain people could trade their right to have a certain number of children for additional technologies or outright monetary renumeration if they so chose. As long as the population levels are under reasonable and sustainable control, this might actually prove viable. Society would then chose new priorities, such as extraterrestrial exploration and colonization. DNA understanding would be perfected to eliminated crime, disease and genetic "errors" before they enter into any alive state. The government would play no part in this "error" decision, only the parents. People would be able to "design" their desired offspring. Self-evolution would enable every human to emigrate to any form of climate or ecology anywhere in the universe.
However, be forewarned, there is no system of human interface, acquisition of wealth and/or politics that is completely resistant to abuse. A totally free information system must always be at the foundation of such a society.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:33 PM   #44
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluehawk
A. Capitalism is not en Empire, and therefore not subject to falling

B. Buying cheap and selling dear is as human as blood
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
I think this is right. While those empires that had been mentioned had fallen, but the way of the markets never changed in the society where such is tolerated. After capitalism was invented as a way to create commerce and industry, such was halted for a while during the era of communism of the Soviets, but it was proven that the same was impractical.
Wholeheartedly thirded here
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 12:38 PM   #45
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2

Capitalism isn't necessarily bound to fail. The main flaw in capitalism is the potential for greedy corporations to outsmart the system. The way this is prevented is through reforms. In the early 1900s, corporations were gaining way too much power. Their power was checked and reduced due to many laws enacted during this time, including an anti-trust one, which diminished corporations' power, thus making the system fair for all. By the way, here is a blog about world history that I just started. The More Things Change
historyblogger123 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #46

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,658

Quote:
Originally Posted by historyblogger123 View Post
Capitalism isn't necessarily bound to fail. The main flaw in capitalism is the potential for greedy corporations to outsmart the system. The way this is prevented is through reforms. In the early 1900s, corporations were gaining way too much power. Their power was checked and reduced due to many laws enacted during this time, including an anti-trust one, which diminished corporations' power, thus making the system fair for all.
Problem is, corporations then again "outsmarted" system by taking over politics and media. No matter whom you vote for, you are going to vote candidate of corporations. That is why those "checks" were removed since.
arras is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #47

lemage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 506

We don't know what will replace it after it falls, it might not even fall. Capitalism only succeeded up to this point because it was humanized, regulated and controlled. But a trend from the 70's and 80's is the rise of economic neo-liberalism. It's taking back society to the 1800's letting corporations do what they want. Laissez faire economics has support which is dangerously high, and people are blind to its consequences. And there becomes the problem that is unique since the 21st century, "cultural capitalism", we brought anti-consumerism and capitalism together and we know longer have to feel bad about consumerism. We brought tied charity to corporations (i.e fairtrade and starbucks, shops using charity as an advertisement) so it has prolonged capitalism, humanizing it without it actually being humanized.

So capitalism is easily going to be here for at least another 50 years, and no one can predict what system will replace it.
lemage is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:54 PM   #48

Zoltan's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: USA, New Jersey
Posts: 110

With regards to Zarin and his proposition of a replacing system for capitalism,

Let me say first that it was quite an impressive and commendable post! I do have some issues with your system however, one of which I can't help but bring up now.

I've noticed that while you did acknowledge the human desire for acquiring wealth and possessions, greed, you forgot to fully account for one particular emotion that would jeopardize the entire system: the human capacity for jealousy.

Lets take a look. You have your system established in such a way that people would be rewarded with materialistic wealth by doing things that are deemed good (by who or what is another matter entirely) - by doing altruistic deeds.

Assume that someone initially does good acts for the benefit of others, and is rewarded by lavish material goods. In seeing this, this person's neighbor, perhaps someone who isn't as active in helping others, would grow to be envious of these things. Instead of doing these deeds because they are seen as good in and of themselves, the neighbor would instead do them out of jealousy of material wealth. Herein lies the danger: an altruistic act is no longer altruistic when it is inspired by personal motivation, thus the system's core values would allow for what you called the "neurotic obsessive compulsion" associated with acquiring great wealth. In seeing their neighbor rapidly rise up in awarded technologies and desirable things, people might then seek these things aggressively, bringing new harm.

You might say this is acceptable, so long as people do good acts. Acts that stem from personal motivation and nothing else however, stem from exactly the same ethical principals that we find so frustratingly present in a capitalist society. I'll only do good if it helps me. Maybe that is okay for some people, but admittedly, it also wouldn't be a whole lot different than our present system at least from an ethical perspective.

I'll end here, though I'd be happy to continue the discussion
Zoltan is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 08:56 PM   #49
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 74

One government. A single world government force that will eliminate the necessity for pitiful and boring economic theories.
Locke is offline  
Old November 10th, 2012, 09:08 PM   #50

Zoltan's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: USA, New Jersey
Posts: 110

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
One government. A single world government force that will eliminate the necessity for pitiful and boring economic theories.
Ooo. How so? Its a complex world, and a world government would necessarily be complex and require all sorts of systems and theories that go behind why these systems ought to be in place...
Zoltan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
capitalism, replace


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So, capitalism, what's your take on it? Camille Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 12 May 10th, 2012 04:49 PM
How Did Homo Sapiens replace Neanderthals? Zeno Natural Environment 36 December 21st, 2011 12:57 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.