Capitalism refers to an economic system based on private ownership and competition in a free market. But more than this, Capitalism is a philosophical viewpoint that espouses the belief that individuals, guided by the Invisible Hand, make decisions that not only benefit themselves, but also the rest of society. Anti-capitalism sees an individual’s self-interest as negative because they don’t believe it benefits the whole of society. It’s not so much an argument of whether or not individuals are self-interested, rather the difference is that anti-capitalism believes that this self-interest needs to be reined in because it damages the rest of society.
The impact of anti-capitalism is two-fold: a restriction of individual liberty and more government regulations. In the last decade, government intervention increased dramatically, ultimately being a major cause of the housing crisis. Government regulations such as the CRA Act and the regulations placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by HUD (their regulator at the time) were based on a belief that in their self-interested acts, banks were failing to provide for the good of the whole society, which the government defined as home-ownership for everyone.
Capitalism is not without its flaws—but it is ultimately a system that is based on a pessimistic viewpoint that individuals are going to act in their own best interest, but that their self-interested acts will ultimately benefit the rest of society. It’s important to note that capitalism is not anti-government. The foundations of capitalism—individual freedom, rule of law, etc.—can’t exist without a government. It’s the role of the government that capitalists and anti-capitalists disagree on. Anti-capitalism believes that, contrary to Hayek’s article, The Use of Knowledge in Society, the government should be the ultimate planner in determining the needs of society and how to achieve them.
Capitalism refers to an economic system based on private ownership and competition in a free market. But more than this, Capitalism is a philosophical viewpoint that espouses the belief that individuals, guided by the Invisible Hand,
mention Adam Smith
make decisions that not only benefit themselves, but also the rest of society. Anti-capitalism sees an individual’s self-interest as negative because they don’t believe it benefits the whole of society. It’s not so much an argument of whether or not individuals are self-interested, rather the difference is that anti-capitalism believes that this self-interest needs to be reined in because it damages the rest of society.
The impact of anti-capitalism is two-fold: a restriction of individual liberty and more government regulations. In the last decade, government intervention increased dramatically, ultimately being a major cause of the housing crisis. Government regulations such as the CRA Act
do you mean
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) provides a framework for financial institutions, state and local governments, and community organizations to jointly promote banking services to all members of a community. In a nutshell, the CRA
* Prohibits redlining (denying or increasing the cost of banking to residents of racially defined neighborhoods), and
* Encourages efforts to meet the credit needs of all community members, including residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
and the regulations placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by HUD (their regulator at the time) were based on a belief that in their self-interested acts, banks were failing to provide for the good of the whole society, which the government defined as home-ownership for everyone.
Capitalism is not without its flaws—but it is ultimately a system that is based on a pessimistic viewpoint that individuals are going to act in their own best interest, but that their self-interested acts will ultimately benefit the rest of society. It’s important to note that capitalism is not anti-government. The foundations of capitalism—individual freedom, rule of law, etc.—can’t exist without a government. It’s the role of the government that capitalists and anti-capitalists disagree on. Anti-capitalism believes that, contrary to Hayek’s article, The Use of Knowledge in Society, the government should be the ultimate planner in determining the needs of society and how to achieve them.
Good explanations on what capitalism is and what is meant to do. Also, a good explanation of anti-capitalism and the flaws that come along with it. Interesting point about how capitalism is not anti-government, it gave me a different perspective and opens my eyes to that fact.
Anti-capitalism has left a negative impact on this country for a number of reasons.
okay; those in the anti-capitalist camp use the term greed;
First off, anti-capitalism has gone against the principles and freedoms that built this country. At one point the United States had a booming economy due to capitalistic thinking. Everyone was focused on their own purchases, but flaws in this system soon came about when Americans began to live beyond their means. Many individuals were purchasing lavish homes, expensive cars, and unnecessary items at an alarming rate. The result of this excess was the economic recession of just a couple years ago, along with this recession was the expansion of government powers on companies such as General Motors and Fannie Mae. Government intervention would go on to take on many forms, furthering the anti-capitalist movement. Many countries began to lose respect for the United States as they looked for loans from other countries, and taking loans from China. Anti-capitalism to this point has stalled the economy as the country looks at the unemployment rate hover around 10%, and the government pay freeze of 2 years is seen as necessary, but scary solution to the government workforce. Right now the arrow is pointing down, but as always hope is still alive, and as the economy gets better hopefully the government will loosen its belt and let capitalism reign again with some regulation to prevent making the same mistakes as the past.
Good explanations on what capitalism is and what is meant to do. Also, a good explanation of anti-capitalism and the flaws that come along with it. Interesting point about how capitalism is not anti-government, it gave me a different perspective and opens my eyes to that fact.
The anti capitalist movement increases with the increase of government intervention and control. The government should make efforts to reframe the concept of “self-interest.” Government regulation in entertainment and influence over the structure of our communities need to reflect a positive, optimistic consciousness. This may be done through emphasis on improving quality of life in meaningful ways. That is, to teach citizens that it is in our self interest to develop efficacy and through understanding their role within the scale of their communities, country and world- will further become effective, civic members of society.
For example, promoting healthy diet, exercise, work tips instead of allowing advertisements to flourish. Influence corporations to adopts systems of cooperation, asking management to open their attention to the ideas and external resource networks staff may be willing to offer. The government should push for a society of higher moral value, investing in the well being of it’s people, cutting back on marketing and hedonist pleasures.
With all of the power the government holds, they should use it to redefine the meaning of happiness and success in a progressive, modern American society; our social mobility needs to depend on the ethics of our work, the quality of our relationships and dedicated pursuit of a self/social good. Capitalism may still function, it just needs to be approached with the consideration and care. The benefits of capitalism are more than well-worth-it and deserves a balanced and moderated approach. People need to be more considerate and responsible in their actions and desires in order to sustain a functional way of life among the rising urgency of global problems; these of which require the collective attention of every individual of every nation and society.
The anti capitalist movement increases with the increase of government intervention and control.
Do you mean neoliberal? The neoliberal small government movement increases with government intervention
The government should make efforts to reframe the concept of “self-interest.” Government regulation in entertainment and influence over the structure of our communities need to reflect a positive, optimistic consciousness. This may be done through emphasis on improving quality of life in meaningful ways. That is, to teach citizens that it is in our self interest to develop efficacy and through understanding their role within the scale of their communities, country and world- will further become effective, civic members of society. For example, promoting healthy diet, exercise, work tips instead of allowing advertisements to flourish. Influence corporations to adopts systems of cooperation, asking management to open their attention to the ideas and external resource networks staff may be willing to offer. The government should push for a society of higher moral value, investing in the well being of it’s people, cutting back on marketing and hedonist pleasures. With all of the power the government holds, they should use it to redefine the meaning of happiness and success in a progressive, modern American society; our social mobility needs to depend on the ethics of our work, the quality of our relationships and dedicated pursuit of a self/social good. Capitalism may still function, it just needs to be approached with the consideration and care. The benefits of capitalism are more than well-worth-it and deserves a balanced and moderated approach. People need to be more considerate and responsible in their actions and desires in order to sustain a functional way of life among the rising urgency of global problems; these of which require the collective attention of every individual of every nation and society.
Very interesting! However, I think no mater how hard a government tries to push “self-interest” and good habits and ideals, it will never truly take hold, at least not in a country like the United States. There will always be those people who think their way is the best way and in a democratic nation like the U.S. the government can only “force” so much on the people without causing backlash. Also, although the intentions of promoting a healthier life style and being kinder to people are good ones, this kind of method in the government can also be used for bad, such as promoting hatred of a certain type of person, race, or gender.
Anti-capitalism has left a negative impact on this country for a number of reasons. First off, anti-capitalism has gone against the principles and freedoms that built this country. At one point the United States had a booming economy due to capitalistic thinking. Everyone was focused on their own purchases, but flaws in this system soon came about when Americans began to live beyond their means. Many individuals were purchasing lavish homes, expensive cars, and unnecessary items at an alarming rate. The result of this excess was the economic recession of just a couple years ago, along with this recession was the expansion of government powers on companies such as General Motors and Fannie Mae. Government intervention would go on to take on many forms, furthering the anti-capitalist movement. Many countries began to lose respect for the United States as they looked for loans from other countries, and taking loans from China. Anti-capitalism to this point has stalled the economy as the country looks at the unemployment rate hover around 10%, and the government pay freeze of 2 years is seen as necessary, but scary solution to the government workforce. Right now the arrow is pointing down, but as always hope is still alive, and as the economy gets better hopefully the government will loosen its belt and let capitalism reign again with some regulation to prevent making the same mistakes as the past.
I like your comment about the expansion of gov’t powers on companies. It’s always interesting to see how/why the gov’t steps in. I can understand why they bailed out the banks to help with the credit crisis, but what always kinda amazes me is the way they bailed out companies like GM. The market is self-correcting, but the gov’t (and the lobbyists) didn’t like what the outcome would be so they decided to step in. Companies go bankrupt and go out of business all the time, but the gov’t doesn’t step and bail them all out. I think it’s rather telling about how powerful the union lobbyists have become.
I really agree with everything you said. It is very telling about what power can do for you in our society and it could be a little more telling, maybe, that “capitalism” (or our version of it) has a little more gray area in it than the black-and-white definition of capitalism we are taught and informed of.
really agree with everything you said. It is very telling about what power can do for you in our society and it could be a little more telling, maybe, that “capitalism” (or our version of it) has a little more gray area in it than the black-and-white definition of capitalism we are taught and informed of.
I do agree with you James, U.S. citizens have become more selfish. Greed has taken over the U.S. and has put this country in debt because of it. I am very hopeful that this country will wake up soon and change it’s ways. The first thing the U.S. needs to do is get out of debt, then we can focus on creating jobs here in the U.S. instead of sending them overseas for cheap labor. Capitalism will not go away. The Government will have to play a big role in how it is going to intervene to prevent disaster.
I agree that government regulation of corporations like General Motors and Fannie Mae has shifted the United States towards the anti-capitalism. Regulation of the housing market which has hindered the economy is another sign towards anti capitalism but the United States feels that the government needs to regulate these companies and markets to maintain or save our economy that is currently in the middle of a recession. I also agree with the fact that economical respect has been lost because of the fact that are our economy is doing so bad, as well as the the transfer of jobs by corporations to other nations like China, India, and Mexico who allow the occurrence of low wages compared to the United States. The United States has as a result of the terrible economy had to borrow money from China. The United States currently owes forty-one cents to the dollar.
While the US Government has acted in an Anti-Capitalistic behavior, this was necessary for the prevention of the failure that the US could have experienced if it were not for the Bailout. Keeping the businesses afloat so they can continue creating revenue to pay back the government was a great idea because this will then lead to the large businesses free of their obligation to the US Government.
What would have happened if the Government did not bailout out the financial institutions or businesses? The businesses would not be able to have enough finance to conduct their business therefore letting more employees go. The businesses could have completely been eliminated and as a result globalization could have decreased. Ultimately, bailing out the businesses and institutions was a good idea in order to stabilize our economy for the long run.
While the US Government has acted in an Anti-Capitalistic behavior,
how did the US government pursue anti captialism? Neoliberism supports capitalims. If social welfare is pursued to the extend of enlarging government and reducing the role of markets that could be construed as anti capitalism
this was necessary for the prevention of the failure that the US could have experienced if it were not for the Bailout. Keeping the businesses afloat so they can continue creating revenue to pay back the government was a great idea because this will then lead to the large businesses free of their obligation to the US Government. What would have happened if the Government did not bailout out the financial institutions or businesses? The businesses would not be able to have enough finance to conduct their business therefore letting more employees go. The businesses could have completely been eliminated and as a result globalization could have decreased. Ultimately, bailing out the businesses and institutions was a good idea in order to stabilize our economy for the long run.
Capitalism like any system that is implemented under ideal conditions can lead to a net economic gain for a country. However, it is not a perfect system. Under the ideological capitalism that some people support there would still be sweat shops in this country because some people would be willing to work for nothing. Monopolies would also run rampant leading to a lack of competition. The way to improve the economy isn’t to swing our policies wildly in one direction or the other. It is to work out a balance where freedom and competition are allowed to exists while the public interest in areas such as employment and fair regulations to prevent abuse is met.
Capitalism like any system that is implemented under ideal conditions can lead to a net economic gain for a country. However, it is not a perfect system. Under the ideological capitalism that some people support there would still be sweat shops in this country because some people would be willing to work for nothing. Monopolies would also run rampant leading to a lack of competition. The way to improve the economy isn’t to swing our policies wildly in one direction or the other. It is to work out a balance where freedom and competition are allowed to exists while the public interest in areas such as employment and fair regulations to prevent abuse is met.
correct; competition is fierce and companies avoid the innovation necessary to stay competitive.
It looks like anti-capitalism is gaining power in the US and the impact of it is yet to be seen. With the recent financial crisis the blame fell mostly on the capitalistic structure, not the government. However, government regulations were the reason for the crisis. The government blamed capitalism so it could gain more control over its citizens. Now it has a share in each of the major banks in America for the first time in history. The Patriot Act of 2001 gave more powers to the government to invade personal privacy. Anti-capitalism, in the history of other countries, either slowed down economic development or completely destroyed it in the past. Let’s take the Soviet Union, for example. It was a poor country with poor people living in tiny apartments; little food in the stores where lines for food where out the door, educated people that couldn’t survive on their salaries, all while the government was spending money on technological advances and military. The government had control over every aspect of the lives of its citizens. No freedom of speech, no opposition views or critical views on the government were ever tolerated. People died in millions, and millions more were sent to prisons for anti-government views. Will the future look like that in the US? It seems that more and more people expect help from the government. But do they know the price beyond that help? Let’s take the big healthcare debate, for example. If government will be paying for healthcare, where is the money going to come from? – Taxpayers are where the government gets its money so, essentially, we will be paying for our own healthcare. The quality of free healthcare cannot be good because US doctors won’t work for free, and those who will take a small pay won’t do their job as well. That is just one example of what can happen as the government slowly takes over businesses and the rights of citizens. That is not to say that Capitalism is a perfect system, but history has proven that it is a better working system than any other.
Anti-capitalism challenges people to shift their attention from blinding sensationalism of the Western world’s free market society to it’s criticisms. This creates and fuels an environment which furthers the opportunity for a transfer of powers.
Capitalism is encouraged and spreads with a positive and direct correlation to the growth of democracy and globalization. Based on the theories of Adam Smith who argues self interest and competition may lead to economic success. Democracy, also, has parallels to neoclassical economics, focusing on individual choices and a sense of ‘openness,’ denoting free markets and a limited government.
Anti-capitalism is linked to American resentment, in regard that America, the leading superpower, sets precedent for developing countries. Rather, an American presence, economically or politically, in foreign countries have left local economies and lives shatter and perish.
When underdeveloped countries adopt both a government based on democratic values and a open market economy, it can be a recipe for disaster.
America is the global driver of capitalism. American prosperity and democratic ideology is accepted as a lead example for other nations, in consideration of the “justice” and “equality” democracy boasts. Other reasons for American idolization include the beseeching luxury of American wealth; the sway and influence of multinational corporations and abundance of opportunities for education and jobs.
In Amy Chua’s World on Fire, she claims Anti-Americanism in the past was based on our past behavior, but it has evolved. Now, Anti-Americanism includes fighting the whole culture America embodies, making it seem more like an ideology or political movement (246).
Within the developing world, anti-americanism is fervent. The benefits of globalization varies with great partiality among classes of people, usually causing large wealth disparities between the rich and poor. In the Middle East and former Soviet empire, poverty has increased. Although other developing nations have seen an increase in growth rates, Chua says the wealth is only being centralized among the upper classes. IMF policies have thrown many families into hopeless poverty (255). The poor people are now more aware of whats available and what they don’t have, thus they attain a higher standard of social desires, allowing for a stronger sense of resentment and unrest.
America has to adopt more integrative solutions before they will be forced to. As anti capitalism increases, so does anti-americanism; both are on the rise with the growth of globalization and democracy. I fear these are the precipitating events of a deep and long conflict that will be mimicked among countries, especially developing countries, that lead to the rise of anti-capitalist revolutionaries and revolutions.
Anti-capitalism challenges people to shift their attention from blinding sensationalism of the Western world’s free market society to it’s criticisms. This creates and fuels an environment which furthers the opportunity for a transfer of powers.
Capitalism is encouraged and spreads with a positive and direct correlation to the growth of democracy and globalization. Based on the theories of Adam Smith who argues self interest and competition may lead to economic success. Democracy, also, has parallels to neoclassical economics, focusing on individual choices and a sense of ‘openness,’ denoting free markets and a limited government.
you’re reading a good deal of material. That’s great
Anti-capitalism is linked to American resentment, in regard that America, the leading superpower, sets precedent for developing countries. Rather, an American presence, economically or politically, in foreign countries have left local economies and lives shatter and perish.
When underdeveloped countries adopt both a government based on democratic values and a open market economy, it can be a recipe for disaster.
America is the global driver of capitalism.
I think you’re correct. Pay attention to how the rise of the Asian Tigers challenged oligopolies in the US. In the 1950s the oligopolies were common in manufacturing and labor.
American prosperity and democratic ideology is accepted as a lead example for other nations, in consideration of the “justice” and “equality” democracy boasts. Other reasons for American idolization include the beseeching luxury of American wealth; the sway and influence of multinational corporations and abundance of opportunities for education and jobs.
In Amy Chua’s World on Fire, she claims Anti-Americanism in the past was based on our past behavior, but it has evolved. Now, Anti-Americanism includes fighting the whole culture America embodies, making it seem more like an ideology or political movement (246).
Within the developing world, anti-americanism is fervent. The benefits of globalization varies with great partiality among classes of people, usually causing large wealth disparities between the rich and poor. In the Middle East and former Soviet empire, poverty has increased. Although other developing nations have seen an increase in growth rates, Chua says the wealth is only being centralized among the upper classes. IMF policies have thrown many families into hopeless poverty (255). The poor people are now more aware of whats available and what they don’t have, thus they attain a higher standard of social desires, allowing for a stronger sense of resentment and unrest.
America has to adopt more integrative solutions before they will be forced to. As anti capitalism increases, so does anti-americanism; both are on the rise with the growth of globalization and democracy. I fear these are the precipitating events of a deep and long conflict that will be mimicked among countries, especially developing countries, that lead to the rise of anti-capitalist revolutionaries and revolutions.
There’s been a lot of hype lately about anti-capitalism/anti-americanism. I’ve had a couple classes where they focused a lot on the “anti-americanism movement” in the world. I’ve read books and articles that claim that this sentiment is very wide-spread, especially among the developing countries. I’ve lived in and traveled to many developing countries in Eastern Europe and have spoken to many other people who have grown up in former soviet states. Very, very few of them are “anti-americanism”. It seems that the people claiming that there is a large “anti-americanism” sentiment around the world are either American, or are part of the more wealthy “elite” in their own country. I find this somewhat ironic. The resentful sentiment that comes from the poor when they realize how much more other people have is generally not directed towards America. It is instead often directed towards their own governmental system that’s preventing them from even trying to achieve more.
You also claimed that when underdeveloped countries adopt democracy and free-markets, it can be a recipe for disaster. This is somewhat correct. The transition to a democratic, free-market system is often unstable and ugly for developing countries. Some do not actually fully transition to democracies and free markets, but are left stuck in the middle somewhere. But many countries still strive for it. Why? Because … as Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I like the way you tied in anti-capitalism with the growth of globalization. I too believe that as globalization increases so will anti-capitalists beliefs. I also wrote my post about the disparities of rich vs. poor in regards to developing and developed countries. I liked the way you spoke about if developing countries adopt systems like ours this may be a recipe for disaster. There are two sides to that argument but the initial thing I thought about was the issue of education. Developing countries may lack in the field of education and simply may not know the fundamental beliefs that these systems comprise of. They may not practice or enforce the same values that the United States imposes which will in turn be a disaster for the rest of the world to follow. Every country has their own unique way of running things, and being the “follower” in this case will have negative impacts unless they can come up on top stronger than ever. The issue of education may also impact the job market system in developing countries as well. Without the proper education; these people may not be suitable for certain jobs which will in turn effect productivity. The more I think about it, the more I can see how you said it can be a “disaster”. Hope is not all lost, I believe though on a global scale we have a long way to go to be able to peacefully work with one another.
Capitalism is an economic system that functions around making a profit. The concept of supply and demand applies to this system along with means of production. Through production and labor, workers supply and provide the goods in return for a profit. The idea of capitalism can be traced back to the economic thinker and philosopher Adam Smith. An idea created by Adam Smith, which I have learned about in other classes is the “Invisible Hand”. This is the idea that in a free-market system people are competing to get ahead and produce the most, while guided by their self interests. Competition and self interest when combined can create and maximize the “supply and demand” process as well as interests of society as a whole. This “invisible hand” can be said to be the natural and guiding force in how capitalism runs. Capitalism can also be defined as a social system because of the impact it has on the individual. Capitalism stresses that individuals have certain economic freedoms that they are allowed to practice. Anti-capitalists’ impact has had negative effects locally and on a global level. I have read that anti-capitalism can also linked and labeled as “anti globalization”. As capitalism spreads globally, the United States may suffer economically which with the recent economic crisis has been proven. With foreign interests and investments outside of the United States taking place, the US will in turn suffer. This suffering will occur on a local economic level because all the money that should be going into homegrown investments, projects, infrastructure ect. is now being found and funded overseas. These outside sources are everything from outsourcing to military bases in other countries. On a global level as developing and under developing countries try to adopt systems like capitalism, this may in fact hurt the United States. The United States may not remain on top and competition may in fact increase dramatically. This can be seen as a good thing though because the core value of capitalism is derived under competition and self –interest. Another negative impact that anti-capitalists have impacted is the power of the individual. Under anti-capitalists, individuals lose their economic freedoms and their ability to control certain things that they no longer have the right or power to. This concept takes away the idea of individualism and places the power on a more socialistic movement by the people and not by the individual.
Whether we want to admit it or not, we live in a global era where governments and countries around the world are working closely with one another socially, economically and politically. The critics of “anti globalization” say that as countries progress there will always be other countries lacking either technologically, politically or socially. There will always be an inequality gap between developed and developing countries. For example, Dubai has developed as a country dramatically over the past ten years. However, the labor workers in the country suffer inequality issues that make the country lacking in social issues. Even though economically the country has boomed and flourished they too suffered a recent economic debt setback. No matter how developed a country is problems will always exist. The same concept can be applied to capitalism and anti-capitalism. The existence of the two sides will always exist.
Capitalism is an economic system that functions around making a profit. The concept of supply and demand applies to this system along with means of production. Through production and labor, workers supply and provide the goods in return for a profit. The idea of capitalism can be traced back to the economic thinker and philosopher Adam Smith. An idea created by Adam Smith, which I have learned about in other classes is the “Invisible Hand”. This is the idea that in a free-market system people are competing to get ahead and produce the most, while guided by their self interests. Competition and self interest when combined can create and maximize the “supply and demand” process as well as interests of society as a whole. This “invisible hand” can be said to be the natural and guiding force in how capitalism runs. Capitalism can also be defined as a social system because of the impact it has on the individual. Capitalism stresses that individuals have certain economic freedoms that they are allowed to practice. Anti-capitalists’ impact has had negative effects locally and on a global level. I have read that anti-capitalism can also linked and labeled as “anti globalization”. As capitalism spreads globally, the United States may suffer economically which with the recent economic crisis has been proven. With foreign interests and investments outside of the United States taking place, the US will in turn suffer. This suffering will occur on a local economic level because all the money that should be going into homegrown investments, projects, infrastructure ect. is now being found and funded overseas. These outside sources are everything from outsourcing to military bases in other countries. On a global level as developing and under developing countries try to adopt systems like capitalism, this may in fact hurt the United States. The United States may not remain on top and competition may in fact increase dramatically. This can be seen as a good thing though because the core value of capitalism is derived under competition and self –interest. Another negative impact that anti-capitalists have impacted is the power of the individual. Under anti-capitalists, individuals lose their economic freedoms and their ability to control certain things that they no longer have the right or power to. This concept takes away the idea of individualism and places the power on a more socialistic movement by the people and not by the individual. Whether we want to admit it or not, we live in a global era where governments and countries around the world are working closely with one another socially, economically and politically. The critics of “anti globalization” say that as countries progress there will always be other countries lacking either technologically, politically or socially. There will always be an inequality gap between developed and developing countries. For example, Dubai has developed as a country dramatically over the past ten years. However, the labor workers in the country suffer inequality issues that make the country lacking in social issues. Even though economically the country has boomed and flourished they too suffered a recent economic debt setback. No matter how developed a country is problems will always exist. The same concept can be applied to capitalism and anti-capitalism. The existence of the two sides will always exist.
I like the way you tied in anti-capitalism with the growth of globalization. I too believe that as globalization increases so will anti-capitalists beliefs.
In 1999 I wrote an article that said the same think. I predicted terrorism and ethnic hatred. It came out before 9/11//01
I also wrote my post about the disparities of rich vs. poor in regards to developing and developed countries. I liked the way you spoke about if developing countries adopt systems like ours this may be a recipe for disaster. There are two sides to that argument but the initial thing I thought about was the issue of education. Developing countries may lack in the field of education and simply may not know the fundamental beliefs that these systems comprise of. They may not practice or enforce the same values that the United States imposes which will in turn be a disaster for the rest of the world to follow. Every country has their own unique way of running things, and being the “follower” in this case will have negative impacts unless they can come up on top stronger than ever. The issue of education may also impact the job market system in developing countries as well. Without the proper education; these people may not be suitable for certain jobs which will in turn effect productivity. The more I think about it, the more I can see how you said it can be a “disaster”. Hope is not all lost, I believe though on a global scale we have a long way to go to be able to peacefully work with one another.
the other problem with globalization comes in the form of disasters such as that in Japan. We’ll see how the world reactions both in terms of economic recovery and assistance to Japan.
Globalization maybe more fragile than we think. The period after the turn of the 20th century where money and business flowed freely was a disaster in the form of the Great Depression.
I also discussed the relation of globalization and capitalism. The economic factor of globalization is the driving force of it, in my opinion. However, I don’t agree with you that anti-capitalist ideas are always bad for our society. Anti-capitalists may not have a perfect solution but they shed light on many important things that supporters of capitalism tend to overlook. Many believe that wealth will trickle down from the elites down to the poorest of the poor. However, I can’t think of one place where this process has been completed. Even in leading economic powers such as the U.S., western Europe and China still have issues of poverty and inequality. I’m not saying that capitalism is all bad, however I do think that anti-capitalism is worth thinking about to try and work towards a system that allows for growth while addressing human needs such as education, access to resources, and the overall ability to improve their life, even for the poorest of the poor.
I also discussed the relation of globalization and capitalism. The economic factor of globalization is the driving force of it, in my opinion. However, I don’t agree with you that anti-capitalist ideas are always bad for our society.
a good jolt might be helpful.
Anti-capitalists may not have a perfect solution but they shed light on many important things that supporters of capitalism tend to overlook. Many believe that wealth will trickle down from the elites down to the poorest of the poor. However, I can’t think of one place where this process has been completed. Even in leading economic powers such as the U.S., western Europe and China still have issues of poverty and inequality. I’m not saying that capitalism is all bad, however I do think that anti-capitalism is worth thinking about to try and work towards a system that allows for growth while addressing human needs such as education, access to resources, and the overall ability to improve their life, even for the poorest of the poor.
I’m sure the impact of anti-capitalism in our modern and majorly globalized world will grow more rapidly in the upcoming years.
We have definitely seen the impacts of anti-capitalism with the housing crisis mentioned in a comment above. Also, there was much government interference when it came down to the United States’ economy being aided to get out of the financial crisis. There was much controversy on exactly who the aid went to, as well. None of the steps taken prescribed purely to the “capitalist” school of thought, invisible hand, etc. It really seems like it will be a domino effect and the impact of it all (of this particular issue) will be seen and unpredictable by the masses in the up coming years. This is only a particular issue but I’m sure the same problem can be related to many others.
Although capitalism isn’t inherently evil it can be looked at that way by a lot of people because it is related to the western world which has a lot of blood on their hands. I can understand their point somewhat because it seems that those who were born on the bottom, will most likely stay on the bottom. Especially when looking at the world debt for third world countries and how their indebtedness (world bank, IMF loans) to the countries in the developed world inhibits their development. Capitalism could be looked at as a tool for the rich for those against it. The anti-capitalism spans from being a disagreeing with a school of thought to something much more and has created a lot of confusion, conflict and ignorance amongst both those against and also those for capitalism (or globalization, because people make it interchangeable sometimes).
Again, with this growing and even more globalizing world, there will definitely be more social, economic and political impact in our world from anti-capitalism as pro-capitalism is spreading so rapidly. It seems like a reaction.
I agree that much of the perception towards capitalism is negative in todays world. This is not because Capitalism is a faulty system, but because many countries tried to assimilate a very modern style of capitalism in which corporations increase their assets. At it’s core, Capitalism is an economic form that looks to distribute resources to its most productive use. This yields its greatest purpose when competition is allowed without government intervention, or a lack of contractual enforcement by its government. The problem with these countries is that their situation is not suited for the large scale capitalism that flourishes in the developed
I agree that much of the perception towards capitalism is negative in todays world. This is not because Capitalism is a faulty system, but because many countries tried to assimilate a very modern style of capitalism in which corporations increase their assets. At it’s core, Capitalism is an economic form that looks to distribute resources to its most productive use.
scarcity breeds choice and within a market system it is supply and demand which has an impact on price
This yields its greatest purpose when competition is allowed without government intervention, or a lack of contractual enforcement by its government. The problem with these countries is that their situation is not suited for the large scale capitalism that flourishes in the developed
Many people consider capitalism to be a key component of globalization. Supporters of this idea point to the symbols of Wal-mart and McDonalds as proof that capitalism is almost synonymous with globalization. To a great extent, this fact is true. The economic aspects of globalization are the most visible ones. Huge corporations utilize the greater connection resulting from globalization to increase access to markets and to earn more profits. The huge profits of these companies make them very influential in world affairs. Although CEO’s of international corporations may not have a seat on the UN Security Council, they do dictate what happens globally. Governments often support big business because it is the driving force of their countries’ economies. This pattern in turn affects the international community; the countries with the strongest economies have more influence than weaker countries.
However, there are also many who are against globalization because of the power of capitalism. Capitalism works by creating competition between different parties, whether that be individuals, companies or countries. Competition always ends with a winner and a loser, or many losers. Capitalism is no different. It creates inequality in the world between the winners and the losers. This is the major problem that anti-capitalists have with globalization.
The anti-capitalist movement is growing throughout the world. In previous eras, the main international players were states. Then, as the role of multinational corporations started to increase, so did the role of other influential players including civil society, NGOs, and individuals. Many of these groups have spoken out against capitalism and globalization pointing to extreme inequality. While the West is extremely wealthy and developed, much of the rest of the world is living in poverty and is underdeveloped. People born into such areas not only lack income but also lack a future. These areas face a lack of educational options, high unemployment, low health standards, government corruption, and oftentimes violence or social unrest. They are at an extreme disadvantage compared to those born in the developed world.
Anti-capitalist ideas have become very strong in recent years. Members of civil society, NGOs, and individual citizens are able to utilize means such as the internet to spread their ideas and resources throughout the world and often have large followings. These groups are sometimes recognized by federal governments and even have been invited to speak at the UN. Their message is that, like communism, capitalism does not work for the international community as a whole. They call for increased government control over multinational corporations as well as focus on local community development. They urge people to invest in local goods and businesses as opposed to multinational corporations.
Although capitalism has not been eradicated, and probably never will completely, the anti-capitalist movement has brought many issues to light such as inequality and poverty. The movement pushes people to hold corporations, governments, and elites in general accountable for their actions. Up until this point in history, only two major economic systems have emerged: communism and capitalism. Communism has failed for the most part. On the microeconomic level, communism seems to improve the well-being of the normal citizen; however, it does not promote national growth after a certain point. Capitalism is seen to have been the right answer because communism was the wrong answer. It seems to work because on the macroeconomic level, it allows countries’ economies to grow tremendously. However, on the microeconomic level, individual people suffer. The anti-capitalist movement is trying to find a third option between these two systems.
Many people consider capitalism to be a key component of globalization. Supporters of this idea point to the symbols of Wal-mart and McDonalds as proof that capitalism is almost synonymous with globalization. To a great extent, this fact is true. The economic aspects of globalization are the most visible ones. Huge corporations utilize the greater connection resulting from globalization to increase access to markets and to earn more profits. The huge profits of these companies make them very influential in world affairs. Although CEO’s of international corporations may not have a seat on the UN Security Council, they do dictate what happens globally. Governments often support big business because it is the driving force of their countries’ economies. This pattern in turn affects the international community; the countries with the strongest economies have more influence than weaker countries. However, there are also many who are against globalization because of the power of capitalism. Capitalism works by creating competition between different parties, whether that be individuals, companies or countries. Competition always ends with a winner and a loser, or many losers. Capitalism is no different. It creates inequality in the world between the winners and the losers. This is the major problem that anti-capitalists have with globalization. The anti-capitalist movement is growing throughout the world. In previous eras, the main international players were states. Then, as the role of multinational corporations started to increase, so did the role of other influential players including civil society, NGOs, and individuals. Many of these groups have spoken out against capitalism and globalization pointing to extreme inequality. While the West is extremely wealthy and developed, much of the rest of the world is living in poverty and is underdeveloped. People born into such areas not only lack income but also lack a future. These areas face a lack of educational options, high unemployment, low health standards, government corruption, and oftentimes violence or social unrest. They are at an extreme disadvantage compared to those born in the developed world. Anti-capitalist ideas have become very strong in recent years. Members of civil society, NGOs, and individual citizens are able to utilize means such as the internet to spread their ideas and resources throughout the world and often have large followings. These groups are sometimes recognized by federal governments and even have been invited to speak at the UN. Their message is that, like communism, capitalism does not work for the international community as a whole. They call for increased government control over multinational corporations as well as focus on local community development. They urge people to invest in local goods and businesses as opposed to multinational corporations. Although capitalism has not been eradicated, and probably never will completely, the anti-capitalist movement has brought many issues to light such as inequality and poverty. The movement pushes people to hold corporations, governments, and elites in general accountable for their actions. Up until this point in history, only two major economic systems have emerged: communism and capitalism. Communism has failed for the most part. On the microeconomic level, communism seems to improve the well-being of the normal citizen; however, it does not promote national growth after a certain point. Capitalism is seen to have been the right answer because communism was the wrong answer. It seems to work because on the macroeconomic level, it allows countries’ economies to grow tremendously. However, on the microeconomic level, individual people suffer. The anti-capitalist movement is trying to find a third option between these two systems.
Anti-Capitalism is a movement that is critical of globalization and capitalism. Followers of this movement are critical of the undemocratic nature of capitalist globalization. The term self-interest is one that can be debated to be changed. An idea created by Adam Smith, the “Invisible Hand”, where in a self-regulating economy individuals are guided by their self-interests. Anti-Capitalists see self-interest as detrimental to the rest of society.
In these times, the economy doesn’t seem to be “self-regulating.” We have entered a time where the government feels it needs to “bail out” private companies in order for them to stay afloat. Government intervention is a major problem in this country right now and their constant need for new regulations have ultimately led to this recession. The government now seems to feel the need to be involved in every aspect of our economy such as, from the banking system, to personal privacy, to health-care. The government sees the need to intervene in the private sector even though the economy should be able to self-correct. Citizens all over this country are looking to the government for assistance and are not thinking of the consequences of their requests. They don’t realize that by asking the government to become a main provider for their life that they are ultimately losing privacy and control over their own lives. The government is slowly infiltrating many main private sectors in this country because people aren’t strong enough to provide for themselves and feel the need for others to pay for their lives. This country needs to reassess the direction that it is going and look back to the ideas that it was founded on. American’s need to stop living beyond their means and spend only what they have or else they are slowly going to give away their freedoms to the government.
Anti-Capitalism is a movement that is critical of globalization and capitalism. Followers of this movement are critical of the undemocratic nature of capitalist globalization. The term self-interest is one that can be debated to be changed. An idea created by Adam Smith, the “Invisible Hand”, where in a self-regulating economy individuals are guided by their self-interests. Anti-Capitalists see self-interest as detrimental to the rest of society.
melding self and social interest is a challenge. Negative externalities include “race to the bottom.”
In these times, the economy doesn’t seem to be “self-regulating.” We have entered a time where the government feels it needs to “bail out” private companies in order for them to stay afloat. Government intervention is a major problem in this country right now and their constant need for new regulations have ultimately led to this recession. The government now seems to feel the need to be involved in every aspect of our economy such as, from the banking system, to personal privacy, to health-care. The government sees the need to intervene in the private sector even though the economy should be able to self-correct. Citizens all over this country are looking to the government for assistance and are not thinking of the consequences of their requests. They don’t realize that by asking the government to become a main provider for their life that they are ultimately losing privacy and control over their own lives. The government is slowly infiltrating many main private sectors in this country because people aren’t strong enough to provide for themselves and feel the need for others to pay for their lives. This country needs to reassess the direction that it is going and look back to the ideas that it was founded on. American’s need to stop living beyond their means and spend only what they have or else they are slowly going to give away their freedoms to the government.
I completely agree that the government is a little to involved and the economy should indeed self correct, which it can do if there were not so many interventions and regulations. Great post.
Capitalism is a system of governance in which the exchange of wealth is privately held. The theory of capitalism involves the idea of the “free market” where the government does not intervene in economic affairs. Philosopher Adam Smith has been highly credited as the father of modern capitalism for promoting free market values in his work, “The Wealth of Nations.” Anti-capitalism refers to the notion or belief that a privately-held system such as capitalism can and often does lead to greed and corruption. Anti-capitalists often champion increased government intervention to ensure that there is proper oversight over the dealings of private economic entities. This is done to ensure that democracy is not being compromised for the sake of capitalism.
Many anti-capitalists believe that the economic recession that we, as a nation, currently face can be directly attributed to the lack of financial regulation of private industries under President George W. Bush. Without any governmental oversight or regulation at all, there would be no minimum wage for workers and big companies could demand longer hours for lower compensation from employees. If individuals’ human rights are violated as a result of no governmental intervention then democracy fails — a nation that does not provide its citizens with basic protections has no legitimacy. President Barack Obama urges government oversight over the dealings of private entities because he understands that human beings are often not selfless beings and that greed is dangerous to the prosperity of our nation. Socialist philosopher Karl Marx wrote about the dangers of capitalism on the worker and
Capitalism is an excellent economic system; however, in order to ensure that capitalism does not impede democracy, certain checks and balances must be put into place. Capitalism should increase competition to bring down the costs of products in a demanding economy but it often fails to do so because big corporations are only interested in growing and often buy out smaller competitors. The greed that can go along with capitalism increases corporate desires to outsource jobs to nations without minimum wage regulations and with lower taxes. While the government is certainly not the answer to all of a nation’s problems, it has been shown that nations with increased government intervention in their respective economies are often less affected by global financial disasters. For example, the economy of Sweden slid into a recession in 2008 but had a strong turn around and came out as one of the strongest economies in Europe. Sweden’s economy incorporates certain elements of capitalism but with strong governmental oversight. Both pro-capitalist and anti-capital activists have great arguments and neither is incorrect. In this nation, capitalism must reign but not without proper regulation.
Capitalism is a system of governance in which the exchange of wealth is privately held.
use of exchange is important. Take contract; exchange of promises for things of value
Here’s a definition
An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. The agreement can be formal, informal, written, oral or just plain understood. Some contracts are required to be in writing in order to be enforced. (2) An agreement between two or more parties which creates obligations to do or not do the specific things that are the subject of that agreement. Examples of a contract are a lease, a promissory note, or a rental agreement.
but as with all sites now, it will have advertisements
The theory of capitalism involves the idea of the “free market” where the government does not intervene in economic affairs. Philosopher Adam Smith has been highly credited as the father of modern capitalism for promoting free market values in his work, “The Wealth of Nations.” Anti-capitalism refers to the notion or belief that a privately-held system such as capitalism can and often does lead to greed and corruption. Anti-capitalists often champion increased government intervention to ensure that there is proper oversight over the dealings of private economic entities. This is done to ensure that democracy is not being compromised for the sake of capitalism. Many anti-capitalists believe that the economic recession that we, as a nation, currently face can be directly attributed to the lack of financial regulation of private industries under President George W. Bush. Without any governmental oversight or regulation at all, there would be no minimum wage for workers and big companies could demand longer hours for lower compensation from employees. If individuals’ human rights are violated as a result of no governmental intervention then democracy fails — a nation that does not provide its citizens with basic protections has no legitimacy. President Barack Obama urges government oversight over the dealings of private entities because he understands that human beings are often not selfless beings and that greed is dangerous to the prosperity of our nation. Socialist philosopher Karl Marx wrote about the dangers of capitalism on the worker and Capitalism is an excellent economic system; however, in order to ensure that capitalism does not impede democracy, certain checks and balances must be put into place. Capitalism should increase competition to bring down the costs of products in a demanding economy but it often fails to do so because big corporations are only interested in growing and often buy out smaller competitors. The greed that can go along with capitalism increases corporate desires to outsource jobs to nations without minimum wage regulations and with lower taxes. While the government is certainly not the answer to all of a nation’s problems, it has been shown that nations with increased government intervention in their respective economies are often less affected by global financial disasters. For example, the economy of Sweden slid into a recession in 2008 but had a strong turn around and came out as one of the strongest economies in Europe. Sweden’s economy incorporates certain elements of capitalism but with strong governmental oversight. Both pro-capitalist and anti-capital activists have great arguments and neither is incorrect. In this nation, capitalism must reign but not without proper regulation.
Anti-capitalism in essence is the belief held by individuals that the wealthy or government should have sole custody of power and resources. Various philosophers, economists, and scholars have come to a common ground that there is no concrete definition of what capitalism is; as a result, anti-capitalism does not have concrete definition either. Many believe that, anti-capitalism can be broadly defined as “eliminating the profit motives.” Anti-capitalists believe that the competitive motivation does not help society; in fact it is believed to be a major problem; As a result, morals should stimulate capitalism instead of motives. It could also be argued that the system works for businesses instead of the people (Romanos, 2008). Anti-capitalist believes in profit for human needs and consumption as opposed to producing for a profit (Porritt, 2007). The spread of capitalism across the world is a result of economic growth and free trade.
Devastation and disruption for a majority of a society is a result of privatization and free market economies according to anti-capitalists. Lives are disrupted because work is privatized; many workers’ lose their benefits and jobs as a result. “The anti-capitalist argument is that the people in these factories are not being treated fairly. They have low wages, few workers rights, and there are concerns over child labor and other human rights abuses. They also argue that these giant corporations are the only ones being rewarded by the capitalist system”
In a case study analysis, a comparison was done of the capitalist and anti-capitalist views of the development between Taiwan, 50 years ago, and Vietnam today. Capitalist believe that one of the major success factors for Taiwan was that the government allocated land to farmers. This in turn encouraged wealth generation through entrepreneurship and innovation. Eventually manufacturing plants sprang up and generated more wealth for the country. In addition, employees have higher wages than they would have otherwise received. If Vietnam follows in the footstep of Taiwan, the Vietnamese would be just as successful, because undergoing the same phases are essentially for positive growth and development, according to anti-capitalists (Romanos, 2008).
On the other hand, arguments of anti-capitalists include the people in the manufacturing plants being treated in an ill manner, being paid low wages, and child labor rights are being abused. To counteract the issue with worker rights violations, capitalists make the argument that the workers are happier because they have a job and are able to send their children to school amongst other necessities. All in all, the impact of capitalism in immeasurable, because it has some good and bad aspects it all depends on the person, and on the incident in which they are placed. For the most part it provides a productive society. With that said, anti-capitalism has the opposite effect of what proponents desire it to be; essentially, capitalism has lead to a great amount of development due to this productivity (Romanos, 2008).
Anti-capitalism in essence is the belief held by individuals that the wealthy or government should have sole custody of power and resources.
I’ll be interested in seeing how you support this statement
Various philosophers, economists, and scholars have come to a common ground that there is no concrete definition of what capitalism is; as a result, anti-capitalism does not have concrete definition either.
I had not thought about the lack of definition approach. My preference is come as close as possible to a definition and then offer caveats about that definitions. In professional work, no definition might not work
Many believe that, anti-capitalism can be broadly defined as “eliminating the profit motives.”
good effort; start with this definition and then offer the view that this definition is difficult to develop
Anti-capitalists believe that the competitive motivation does not help society; in fact it is believed to be a major problem; As a result, morals should stimulate capitalism instead of motives. It could also be argued that the system works for businesses instead of the people (Romanos, 2008). Anti-capitalist believes in profit for human needs and consumption as opposed to producing for a profit (Porritt, 2007). The spread of capitalism across the world is a result of economic growth and free trade. Devastation and disruption for a majority of a society is a result of privatization and free market economies according to anti-capitalists. Lives are disrupted because work is privatized; many workers’ lose their benefits and jobs as a result. “The anti-capitalist argument is that the people in these factories are not being treated fairly. They have low wages, few workers rights, and there are concerns over child labor and other human rights abuses. They also argue that these giant corporations are the only ones being rewarded by the capitalist system” In a case study analysis, a comparison was done of the capitalist and anti-capitalist views of the development between Taiwan, 50 years ago, and Vietnam today. Capitalist believe that one of the major success factors for Taiwan was that the government allocated land to farmers. This in turn encouraged wealth generation through entrepreneurship and innovation. Eventually manufacturing plants sprang up and generated more wealth for the country. In addition, employees have higher wages than they would have otherwise received. If Vietnam follows in the footstep of Taiwan, the Vietnamese would be just as successful, because undergoing the same phases are essentially for positive growth and development, according to anti-capitalists (Romanos, 2008). On the other hand, arguments of anti-capitalists include the people in the manufacturing plants being treated in an ill manner, being paid low wages, and child labor rights are being abused. To counteract the issue with worker rights violations, capitalists make the argument that the workers are happier because they have a job and are able to send their children to school amongst other necessities. All in all, the impact of capitalism in immeasurable, because it has some good and bad aspects it all depends on the person, and on the incident in which they are placed. For the most part it provides a productive society. With that said, anti-capitalism has the opposite effect of what proponents desire it to be; essentially, capitalism has lead to a great amount of development due to this productivity (Romanos, 2008). Bibliography Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism : As If the World Matters . London: Earthscan . Romanos, E. (2008, February 26). Capitalism Or Anti-Capitalism: Approaches To Africa’s Development. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from African Loft: http://www.africanloft.com/capitalism-or-anti-capitalism-approaches-to-africa’s-development/
Capitalism is an economic system that was first introduced by Adam Smith, often referred to as “The Father of Capitalism”. While there is no single, central definition of capitalism, there are some aspects of the system that are universally agreed upon. In capitalist systems, the means of production (property) are privately owned and operate in a relatively free, open marketplace. Individuals, and/or companies, utilize wealth within enterprise with the goal of creating more wealth, or capital, in return. There is freedom to act, trade, invent and invest. Proponents of capitalism may go as far as to define it as the economic concept of prosperity.
Even Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nation, acknowledges the self-interested nature of humanity that drives capitalism. In his analysis, however, Smith coined the term “the invisible hand” to show how even self-interest (even without intent) often results in the public interest. As competition in an open market increases, capitalists are encouraged by self interest to find more innovative and less expensive means of production. In order to continue the growth of their capital, individuals/companies must continue to make sales and the lowest price to the consumer is the most direct method. Thereby, the market and offerings therein, are thought to be self regulating (in this example, specifically in the way of cost to the consumer) initially resulting from self interest, but in the end to the benefit of all actors within the system.
Anti-Capitalism is a broad term and reflects various ideas, attitudes and movements which are opposed to the concept of capitalism. The foundational criticism of Anti-Capitalists is the unfair distribution of wealth that occurs within the capitalist system. Since the direction of the economy and means of production are relatively unplanned, instead of achieving prosperity of the whole, capitalism creates inconsistencies and contradictions according to many anti-capitalists. Critics believe that with planning and regulation, societies, and the people therein, can achieve prosperity without being subject to disadvantages beyond one’s control and minimize exploitation.
In modern day America most citizens, to one extent or another, have been impacted by capitalism and resultant anti-capitalism, as it applies to the housing market. Economic prosperity followed deregulation imposed by the Reagan administration and individuals as well as companies were confident in the market and its capabilities to self-regulate. Self interest on the part of all parties increased lending and borrowing within the rising housing market. In 2008 housing prices began to fall, unemployment rose and as a result foreclosures and short sales of homes soon replaced the competitive buying market of yesterday. Families were displaced, large and prosperous financial institutions faced unknown hardship, the economy seemingly turned upside down overnight.
For many – individuals, families, companies and the government – the economic environment seemed to turn upside down without notice. The realization of this situation caused an extreme reaction in the opposite direction. The most qualified individuals had difficulty obtaining credit and loans as banks/lenders were consumed with efforts to minimize their loss given the unexpected turn. The federal government held serious discussions regarding regulation at a level that had not been seen before (at least as applicable to the banking/mortgage industries). Citizens did everything in their power to maintain employment and avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy. The banking and mortgage industries experienced loss and bankruptcies crippling lending capabilities.
The economic system’s inability to regulate itself left the government, industry and individuals with scenarios unseen in a lifetime and the pendulum swung. Even the most qualified borrowers were denied credit. Homes became available at levels unseen, but qualified individuals were denied opportunities to ‘bail out’ unqualified lenders. Drastic measures were taken at economic and governmental levels to regulate and correct the mistakes that led to the housing/lending crisis. The United States began to consider and institute policies previously considered being ‘Anti-capitalist’, by enforcing regulation where the economic system failed to regulate itself.
Although this is one example many of us can relate to immediately, it is imperative that the housing crisis not define anti-capitalism, as it is a broad term that embodies many ideologies. The impact of capitalism is wide-spread, and so to, is its opposition. Anti-capitalism is also exhibited through many environmentalist groups. These organizations often focus on the unsustainable nature of capitalism. Capitalism is founded in the concept of growth and in definition, has no limits. The concern here is that we do in fact live in a finite world, with finite resources. How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain. In a world where internet access, SUVs and McMansions have become the goal, where does moderation and recognition of sustainability come into play? Many environmentalist groups believe that capitalism is directly responsible for depletion of natural resources and directly correlates our desires to the inability to sustain them.
Other anti-capitalist groups include those who are anti-globalization. These groups often believe that capitalism is in fact, inhuman. The goal of work is not for the survival and comfort of individuals, families, societies, but rather to sustain a lifestyle that is comfortable, but in reality much more than the standard of comfort. People become so accustomed to given goods that without them, life seems tragic, although it may in fact (from some perspectives) be more fulfilling in means outside of commodities and goods.
The western world, comprising the “Great Powers”- that often act on behalf of, as diplomatic figures for and economic contributors to smaller nation states – imposes self interested goals on nations that otherwise may not have such goals/expectations. The question, then, becomes blurry – for who is the benefit – the ‘proxy’ great power state or the state for which it purports to act on behalf? Often the proxy states fail to recognize that what is in its own best interest is not necessarily in the best interest of the nurtured state. We often forget, or neglect, to consider specific cultures, histories, relationships, etc in consideration of outcomes for the other party. Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports?
The United States, in its short history has been exceptionally successful, by capitalist standards. This often blinds us to the reality that what is beneficial for our own society, may be detrimental to other nations with thousands of years of history and relationships, culture and societal and political structure. We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful. Anti-Globalization supporters may believe this is one of our largest failures.
It is because Anti-Capitalism takes so many and such various forms that the impacts have been wide spread. All the major transnational economic and political institutions – the G8, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) – have been targeted by mass protests, intended to negatively impact their legitimacy on the world stage. The efforts have been successful. Media outlets have, at times, focused on anti-capitalist protests to such an extent that the context of the meetings themselves go without coverage. Meetings and summits held by these organizations have been cancelled, held in remote locations and generally reduced the public’s insights into their on-goings. Anti-capitalism, whether it is the United States’ government’s reaction to the recent economic/housing crisis, environmental issues, globalization concerns, etc, has had a tremendous impact on national and international levels in the past several decades.
wow, this is more than a post; I’m eager to read it
Capitalism is an economic system that was first introduced by Adam Smith, often referred to as “The Father of Capitalism”. While there is no single, central definition of capitalism, there are some aspects of the system that are universally agreed upon.
As I said to other students and in my writing style rules present your best effort at a definition and theme then give your caveats and reservations
In capitalist systems, the means of production (property) are privately owned and operate in a relatively free, open marketplace. Individuals, and/or companies, utilize wealth within enterprise with the goal of creating more wealth, or capital, in return.
good definition
There is freedom to act, trade, invent and invest. Proponents of capitalism may go as far as to define it as the economic concept of prosperity. Even Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nation, acknowledges the self-interested nature of humanity that drives capitalism. In his analysis, however, Smith coined the term “the invisible hand” to show how even self-interest (even without intent) often results in the public interest. As competition in an open market increases, capitalists are encouraged by self interest to find more innovative and less expensive means of production. In order to continue the growth of their capital, individuals/companies must continue to make sales and the lowest price to the consumer is the most direct method. Thereby, the market and offerings therein, are thought to be self regulating (in this example, specifically in the way of cost to the consumer) initially resulting from self interest, but in the end to the benefit of all actors within the system. Anti-Capitalism is a broad term and reflects various ideas, attitudes and movements which are opposed to the concept of capitalism. The foundational criticism of Anti-Capitalists is the unfair distribution of wealth that occurs within the capitalist system.
good, can you provide a citation?
Since the direction of the economy and means of production are relatively unplanned, instead of achieving prosperity of the whole, capitalism creates inconsistencies and contradictions according to many anti-capitalists. Critics believe that with planning and regulation, societies, and the people therein, can achieve prosperity without being subject to disadvantages beyond one’s control and minimize exploitation. In modern day America most citizens, to one extent or another, have been impacted by capitalism and resultant anti-capitalism, as it applies to the housing market. Economic prosperity followed deregulation imposed by the Reagan administration and individuals as well as companies were confident in the market and its capabilities to self-regulate. Self interest on the part of all parties increased lending and borrowing within the rising housing market. In 2008 housing prices began to fall, unemployment rose and as a result foreclosures and short sales of homes soon replaced the competitive buying market of yesterday. Families were displaced, large and prosperous financial institutions faced unknown hardship, the economy seemingly turned upside down overnight. For many – individuals, families, companies and the government – the economic environment seemed to turn upside down without notice. The realization of this situation caused an extreme reaction in the opposite direction. The most qualified individuals had difficulty obtaining credit and loans as banks/lenders were consumed with efforts to minimize their loss given the unexpected turn. The federal government held serious discussions regarding regulation at a level that had not been seen before (at least as applicable to the banking/mortgage industries). Citizens did everything in their power to maintain employment and avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy. The banking and mortgage industries experienced loss and bankruptcies crippling lending capabilities. The economic system’s inability to regulate itself left the government, industry and individuals with scenarios unseen in a lifetime and the pendulum swung. Even the most qualified borrowers were denied credit. Homes became available at levels unseen, but qualified individuals were denied opportunities to ‘bail out’ unqualified lenders. Drastic measures were taken at economic and governmental levels to regulate and correct the mistakes that led to the housing/lending crisis. The United States began to consider and institute policies previously considered being ‘Anti-capitalist’, by enforcing regulation where the economic system failed to regulate itself. Although this is one example many of us can relate to immediately, it is imperative that the housing crisis not define anti-capitalism, as it is a broad term that embodies many ideologies. The impact of capitalism is wide-spread, and so to, is its opposition. Anti-capitalism is also exhibited through many environmentalist groups. These organizations often focus on the unsustainable nature of capitalism. Capitalism is founded in the concept of growth and in definition, has no limits. The concern here is that we do in fact live in a finite world, with finite resources. How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain. In a world where internet access, SUVs and McMansions have become the goal, where does moderation and recognition of sustainability come into play? Many environmentalist groups believe that capitalism is directly responsible for depletion of natural resources and directly correlates our desires to the inability to sustain them. Other anti-capitalist groups include those who are anti-globalization. These groups often believe that capitalism is in fact, inhuman. The goal of work is not for the survival and comfort of individuals, families, societies, but rather to sustain a lifestyle that is comfortable, but in reality much more than the standard of comfort. People become so accustomed to given goods that without them, life seems tragic, although it may in fact (from some perspectives) be more fulfilling in means outside of commodities and goods. The western world, comprising the “Great Powers”- that often act on behalf of, as diplomatic figures for and economic contributors to smaller nation states – imposes self interested goals on nations that otherwise may not have such goals/expectations. The question, then, becomes blurry – for who is the benefit – the ‘proxy’ great power state or the state for which it purports to act on behalf? Often the proxy states fail to recognize that what is in its own best interest is not necessarily in the best interest of the nurtured state. We often forget, or neglect, to consider specific cultures, histories, relationships, etc in consideration of outcomes for the other party. Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports? The United States, in its short history has been exceptionally successful, by capitalist standards. This often blinds us to the reality that what is beneficial for our own society, may be detrimental to other nations with thousands of years of history and relationships, culture and societal and political structure. We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful. Anti-Globalization supporters may believe this is one of our largest failures. It is because Anti-Capitalism takes so many and such various forms that the impacts have been wide spread. All the major transnational economic and political institutions – the G8, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) – have been targeted by mass protests, intended to negatively impact their legitimacy on the world stage. The efforts have been successful. Media outlets have, at times, focused on anti-capitalist protests to such an extent that the context of the meetings themselves go without coverage. Meetings and summits held by these organizations have been cancelled, held in remote locations and generally reduced the public’s insights into their on-goings. Anti-capitalism, whether it is the United States’ government’s reaction to the recent economic/housing crisis, environmental issues, globalization concerns, etc, has had a tremendous impact on national and international levels in the past several decades.
Wow! What a great post! You touch on many things that I found quite interesting. I did not really think about capitalism and anti-capitalism in terms of environmental issues. You say “How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain.” You pose a very interesting question. I think Globalization will disrupt this “sustainability” as more resources are being found overseas in terms of outsourcing and job availability. I think outsourcing is a big solution that many large and small companies have turned to in terms of making a profit. You also state that “We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful.” I do believe that many in the US believe that “our way” everything from democracy to our economic system should be adopted and spread universally. We as a nation and as individuals must always have in mind that just because something has been successful in one country does not necessarily mean it will be successful everywhere else globally. There are many factors from social, political and economical issues that apply and affect this idea of spreading ideologies. “Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports?” I keep reverting back to Globalization, but I do strongly believe that most of the issues discussed stem from this term. To answer your question, I believe that natural progression for some can affect others in the opposite way. There exists an uneven distribution of power that I think will always exist. According to Karl Marx, class struggles exist throughout our society and the famous example he uses is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The same kind of thinking can be applied to countries globally progressing while small nation-states are not. Anti-capitalism I think is too broad to try and define in one or even two sentences. It has however left an impact some positive and some negative throughout our society as a whole.
This country was built upon capitalism, where one may come to this country and be free to work where he/she pleases and make as much money as he/she pleases given he/she put in the time and effort. As a result of this many people began spending more than they can afford on an individual basis, while pay had not increased tremendously. This thought of borrowing has steadily increased and can be seen on every level of the US, at the top from the Government down to the individual. There were many individuals not being able to pay off their debt to the big businesses causing the businesses to borrow money from the US Government. This is where one form of anti-capitalism took place, when the Government intervened.
One impact of having this would be that the Government now in turn has authority over a financial institution and can dictate how it can conduct its business. Obviously the government is here to help its citizens and would not conversely use its authority to deceive them. Continuing the trend of anti-capitalist acts could further lead to a point where many of the big financial institutions could be controlled by the government, where now the money that is being borrowed and interest is essentially being paid back to the government. This does not sound anything like capitalism or laissez-faire. One word heard often associated with a destructive form of capitalism is greed, too much of this can conversely cause anti-capitalistic actions. This is the one largest single fault of capitalism.
This country was built upon capitalism, where one may come to this country and be free to work where he/she pleases and make as much money as he/she pleases given he/she put in the time and effort. As a result of this many people began spending more than they can afford on an individual basis, while pay had not increased tremendously. This thought of borrowing has steadily increased and can be seen on every level of the US, at the top from the Government down to the individual. There were many individuals not being able to pay off their debt to the big businesses causing the businesses to borrow money from the US Government. This is where one form of anti-capitalism took place, when the Government intervened. One impact of having this would be that the Government now in turn has authority over a financial institution and can dictate how it can conduct its business. Obviously the government is here to help its citizens and would not conversely use its authority to deceive them. Continuing the trend of anti-capitalist acts could further lead to a point where many of the big financial institutions could be controlled by the government, where now the money that is being borrowed and interest is essentially being paid back to the government. This does not sound anything like capitalism or laissez-faire. One word heard often associated with a destructive form of capitalism is greed, too much of this can conversely cause anti-capitalistic actions. This is the one largest single fault of capitalism.
Capitalism is known as “a means in which production is privately owned and guided and income is distributed largely through the operation of markets” (Britannica 2011). We often hear capitalism described as a free market; one in which people are the deciding factor in how business is conducted. Adam Smith was one of the first people to implement ideas of capitalism into society. In his book, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations” written in the 18th century, he recommends “leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces” (Britannica 2011). This style of governing leaves room for a laissez faire ruling. Where the government has little to no involvement with their people. Citizens are able to invest in their own private interests. People are solely seeking profit for themselves and not for any higher intentity. Smith promotes the idea of being more productive – doing whatever it takes to increase your own investments.
The negative side to capitalism is that there is no distribution of wealth. Everyone is working for their own gain. In some cases this can be beneificial for the lower class working upward to build there gain. However, the disadvantages of team building within corporations and developing partnerships is completely done away with. It is also of no benefit to not have the government at least a little involved.
I think the impact of anti-capitalism was beneficial. It developed a sense of social reform and made benefits available to all classes of life. Karl Marx’s idea of socialism, which I think anti-capitalists tend to favor more, presents a system where the government controls business and property and wealth is evenly distributed. In some cases this can be detrimental, because such practices can lead to communism, in which case the government starts to have too much control. Through socialism, the society as a whole is able to benefit from the production of goods and services. Not one single person will obtain more than another.
The downfalls to this is that money is taken from those who technically “earn it” to benefit everyone within the society. This promotes more laziness and less motivation for people to invent and try to stay ahead of the game. In the same sense, anti-capitalists motives are fueled by government involvement. The more a government is involved and simply practicing their governing abilities the less likely capitalism will remain in effect.
“Capitalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
Capitalism is known as “a means in which production is privately owned and guided and income is distributed largely through the operation of markets” (Britannica 2011). We often hear capitalism described as a free market; one in which people are the deciding factor in how business is conducted. Adam Smith was one of the first people to implement ideas of capitalism into society. In his book, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations” written in the 18th century, he recommends “leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces” (Britannica 2011). This style of governing leaves room for a laissez faire ruling. Where the government has little to no involvement with their people. Citizens are able to invest in their own private interests. People are solely seeking profit for themselves and not for any higher intentity. Smith promotes the idea of being more productive – doing whatever it takes to increase your own investments. The negative side to capitalism is that there is no distribution of wealth. Everyone is working for their own gain. In some cases this can be beneificial for the lower class working upward to build there gain. However, the disadvantages of team building within corporations and developing partnerships is completely done away with. It is also of no benefit to not have the government at least a little involved. I think the impact of anti-capitalism was beneficial. It developed a sense of social reform and made benefits available to all classes of life. Karl Marx’s idea of socialism, which I think anti-capitalists tend to favor more, presents a system where the government controls business and property and wealth is evenly distributed. In some cases this can be detrimental, because such practices can lead to communism, in which case the government starts to have too much control. Through socialism, the society as a whole is able to benefit from the production of goods and services. Not one single person will obtain more than another. The downfalls to this is that money is taken from those who technically “earn it” to benefit everyone within the society. This promotes more laziness and less motivation for people to invent and try to stay ahead of the game. In the same sense, anti-capitalists motives are fueled by government involvement. The more a government is involved and simply practicing their governing abilities the less likely capitalism will remain in effect. “Capitalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
nicely done; glad to see you used a variety of sources but in the future be absolutely sure to use material from the readings
jsacco
Whose Lost Decade-2000-2009? 
Shannon Pedroni said
Capitalism refers to an economic system based on private ownership and competition in a free market. But more than this, Capitalism is a philosophical viewpoint that espouses the belief that individuals, guided by the Invisible Hand, make decisions that not only benefit themselves, but also the rest of society. Anti-capitalism sees an individual’s self-interest as negative because they don’t believe it benefits the whole of society. It’s not so much an argument of whether or not individuals are self-interested, rather the difference is that anti-capitalism believes that this self-interest needs to be reined in because it damages the rest of society.
The impact of anti-capitalism is two-fold: a restriction of individual liberty and more government regulations. In the last decade, government intervention increased dramatically, ultimately being a major cause of the housing crisis. Government regulations such as the CRA Act and the regulations placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by HUD (their regulator at the time) were based on a belief that in their self-interested acts, banks were failing to provide for the good of the whole society, which the government defined as home-ownership for everyone.
Capitalism is not without its flaws—but it is ultimately a system that is based on a pessimistic viewpoint that individuals are going to act in their own best interest, but that their self-interested acts will ultimately benefit the rest of society. It’s important to note that capitalism is not anti-government. The foundations of capitalism—individual freedom, rule of law, etc.—can’t exist without a government. It’s the role of the government that capitalists and anti-capitalists disagree on. Anti-capitalism believes that, contrary to Hayek’s article, The Use of Knowledge in Society, the government should be the ultimate planner in determining the needs of society and how to achieve them.
jsacco said
Capitalism refers to an economic system based on private ownership and competition in a free market. But more than this, Capitalism is a philosophical viewpoint that espouses the belief that individuals, guided by the Invisible Hand,
mention Adam Smith
make decisions that not only benefit themselves, but also the rest of society. Anti-capitalism sees an individual’s self-interest as negative because they don’t believe it benefits the whole of society. It’s not so much an argument of whether or not individuals are self-interested, rather the difference is that anti-capitalism believes that this self-interest needs to be reined in because it damages the rest of society.
The impact of anti-capitalism is two-fold: a restriction of individual liberty and more government regulations. In the last decade, government intervention increased dramatically, ultimately being a major cause of the housing crisis. Government regulations such as the CRA Act
do you mean
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) provides a framework for financial institutions, state and local governments, and community organizations to jointly promote banking services to all members of a community. In a nutshell, the CRA
* Prohibits redlining (denying or increasing the cost of banking to residents of racially defined neighborhoods), and
* Encourages efforts to meet the credit needs of all community members, including residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
and the regulations placed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by HUD (their regulator at the time) were based on a belief that in their self-interested acts, banks were failing to provide for the good of the whole society, which the government defined as home-ownership for everyone.
Capitalism is not without its flaws—but it is ultimately a system that is based on a pessimistic viewpoint that individuals are going to act in their own best interest, but that their self-interested acts will ultimately benefit the rest of society. It’s important to note that capitalism is not anti-government. The foundations of capitalism—individual freedom, rule of law, etc.—can’t exist without a government. It’s the role of the government that capitalists and anti-capitalists disagree on. Anti-capitalism believes that, contrary to Hayek’s article, The Use of Knowledge in Society, the government should be the ultimate planner in determining the needs of society and how to achieve them.
thanks, nicely done
James Dallas said
Good explanations on what capitalism is and what is meant to do. Also, a good explanation of anti-capitalism and the flaws that come along with it. Interesting point about how capitalism is not anti-government, it gave me a different perspective and opens my eyes to that fact.
jsacco said
Anti-capitalism has left a negative impact on this country for a number of reasons.
okay; those in the anti-capitalist camp use the term greed;
First off, anti-capitalism has gone against the principles and freedoms that built this country. At one point the United States had a booming economy due to capitalistic thinking. Everyone was focused on their own purchases, but flaws in this system soon came about when Americans began to live beyond their means. Many individuals were purchasing lavish homes, expensive cars, and unnecessary items at an alarming rate. The result of this excess was the economic recession of just a couple years ago, along with this recession was the expansion of government powers on companies such as General Motors and Fannie Mae. Government intervention would go on to take on many forms, furthering the anti-capitalist movement. Many countries began to lose respect for the United States as they looked for loans from other countries, and taking loans from China. Anti-capitalism to this point has stalled the economy as the country looks at the unemployment rate hover around 10%, and the government pay freeze of 2 years is seen as necessary, but scary solution to the government workforce. Right now the arrow is pointing down, but as always hope is still alive, and as the economy gets better hopefully the government will loosen its belt and let capitalism reign again with some regulation to prevent making the same mistakes as the past.
look at both sides but otherwise fine
jsacco said
Good explanations on what capitalism is and what is meant to do. Also, a good explanation of anti-capitalism and the flaws that come along with it. Interesting point about how capitalism is not anti-government, it gave me a different perspective and opens my eyes to that fact.
thanks, and your post looks at both sides
Vicky Phung said
The anti capitalist movement increases with the increase of government intervention and control. The government should make efforts to reframe the concept of “self-interest.” Government regulation in entertainment and influence over the structure of our communities need to reflect a positive, optimistic consciousness. This may be done through emphasis on improving quality of life in meaningful ways. That is, to teach citizens that it is in our self interest to develop efficacy and through understanding their role within the scale of their communities, country and world- will further become effective, civic members of society.
For example, promoting healthy diet, exercise, work tips instead of allowing advertisements to flourish. Influence corporations to adopts systems of cooperation, asking management to open their attention to the ideas and external resource networks staff may be willing to offer. The government should push for a society of higher moral value, investing in the well being of it’s people, cutting back on marketing and hedonist pleasures.
With all of the power the government holds, they should use it to redefine the meaning of happiness and success in a progressive, modern American society; our social mobility needs to depend on the ethics of our work, the quality of our relationships and dedicated pursuit of a self/social good. Capitalism may still function, it just needs to be approached with the consideration and care. The benefits of capitalism are more than well-worth-it and deserves a balanced and moderated approach. People need to be more considerate and responsible in their actions and desires in order to sustain a functional way of life among the rising urgency of global problems; these of which require the collective attention of every individual of every nation and society.
jsacco said
The anti capitalist movement increases with the increase of government intervention and control.
Do you mean neoliberal? The neoliberal small government movement increases with government intervention
The government should make efforts to reframe the concept of “self-interest.” Government regulation in entertainment and influence over the structure of our communities need to reflect a positive, optimistic consciousness. This may be done through emphasis on improving quality of life in meaningful ways. That is, to teach citizens that it is in our self interest to develop efficacy and through understanding their role within the scale of their communities, country and world- will further become effective, civic members of society. For example, promoting healthy diet, exercise, work tips instead of allowing advertisements to flourish. Influence corporations to adopts systems of cooperation, asking management to open their attention to the ideas and external resource networks staff may be willing to offer. The government should push for a society of higher moral value, investing in the well being of it’s people, cutting back on marketing and hedonist pleasures. With all of the power the government holds, they should use it to redefine the meaning of happiness and success in a progressive, modern American society; our social mobility needs to depend on the ethics of our work, the quality of our relationships and dedicated pursuit of a self/social good. Capitalism may still function, it just needs to be approached with the consideration and care. The benefits of capitalism are more than well-worth-it and deserves a balanced and moderated approach. People need to be more considerate and responsible in their actions and desires in order to sustain a functional way of life among the rising urgency of global problems; these of which require the collective attention of every individual of every nation and society.
thanks see my comment about neoliberalism
see
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
and get back to me via BB if you find this url helpful
kallen11 said
Very interesting! However, I think no mater how hard a government tries to push “self-interest” and good habits and ideals, it will never truly take hold, at least not in a country like the United States. There will always be those people who think their way is the best way and in a democratic nation like the U.S. the government can only “force” so much on the people without causing backlash. Also, although the intentions of promoting a healthier life style and being kinder to people are good ones, this kind of method in the government can also be used for bad, such as promoting hatred of a certain type of person, race, or gender.
James Dallas said
Anti-capitalism has left a negative impact on this country for a number of reasons. First off, anti-capitalism has gone against the principles and freedoms that built this country. At one point the United States had a booming economy due to capitalistic thinking. Everyone was focused on their own purchases, but flaws in this system soon came about when Americans began to live beyond their means. Many individuals were purchasing lavish homes, expensive cars, and unnecessary items at an alarming rate. The result of this excess was the economic recession of just a couple years ago, along with this recession was the expansion of government powers on companies such as General Motors and Fannie Mae. Government intervention would go on to take on many forms, furthering the anti-capitalist movement. Many countries began to lose respect for the United States as they looked for loans from other countries, and taking loans from China. Anti-capitalism to this point has stalled the economy as the country looks at the unemployment rate hover around 10%, and the government pay freeze of 2 years is seen as necessary, but scary solution to the government workforce. Right now the arrow is pointing down, but as always hope is still alive, and as the economy gets better hopefully the government will loosen its belt and let capitalism reign again with some regulation to prevent making the same mistakes as the past.
Shannon Pedroni said
I like your comment about the expansion of gov’t powers on companies. It’s always interesting to see how/why the gov’t steps in. I can understand why they bailed out the banks to help with the credit crisis, but what always kinda amazes me is the way they bailed out companies like GM. The market is self-correcting, but the gov’t (and the lobbyists) didn’t like what the outcome would be so they decided to step in. Companies go bankrupt and go out of business all the time, but the gov’t doesn’t step and bail them all out. I think it’s rather telling about how powerful the union lobbyists have become.
Bianca AdamsGregory said
I really agree with everything you said. It is very telling about what power can do for you in our society and it could be a little more telling, maybe, that “capitalism” (or our version of it) has a little more gray area in it than the black-and-white definition of capitalism we are taught and informed of.
jsacco said
really agree with everything you said. It is very telling about what power can do for you in our society and it could be a little more telling, maybe, that “capitalism” (or our version of it) has a little more gray area in it than the black-and-white definition of capitalism we are taught and informed of.
the use of “gray” might be apt
thanks
Raul Perez Jr. said
I do agree with you James, U.S. citizens have become more selfish. Greed has taken over the U.S. and has put this country in debt because of it. I am very hopeful that this country will wake up soon and change it’s ways. The first thing the U.S. needs to do is get out of debt, then we can focus on creating jobs here in the U.S. instead of sending them overseas for cheap labor. Capitalism will not go away. The Government will have to play a big role in how it is going to intervene to prevent disaster.
Alejandra Monteagudo said
I agree that government regulation of corporations like General Motors and Fannie Mae has shifted the United States towards the anti-capitalism. Regulation of the housing market which has hindered the economy is another sign towards anti capitalism but the United States feels that the government needs to regulate these companies and markets to maintain or save our economy that is currently in the middle of a recession. I also agree with the fact that economical respect has been lost because of the fact that are our economy is doing so bad, as well as the the transfer of jobs by corporations to other nations like China, India, and Mexico who allow the occurrence of low wages compared to the United States. The United States has as a result of the terrible economy had to borrow money from China. The United States currently owes forty-one cents to the dollar.
chris nikola said
While the US Government has acted in an Anti-Capitalistic behavior, this was necessary for the prevention of the failure that the US could have experienced if it were not for the Bailout. Keeping the businesses afloat so they can continue creating revenue to pay back the government was a great idea because this will then lead to the large businesses free of their obligation to the US Government.
What would have happened if the Government did not bailout out the financial institutions or businesses? The businesses would not be able to have enough finance to conduct their business therefore letting more employees go. The businesses could have completely been eliminated and as a result globalization could have decreased. Ultimately, bailing out the businesses and institutions was a good idea in order to stabilize our economy for the long run.
jsacco said
While the US Government has acted in an Anti-Capitalistic behavior,
how did the US government pursue anti captialism? Neoliberism supports capitalims. If social welfare is pursued to the extend of enlarging government and reducing the role of markets that could be construed as anti capitalism
this was necessary for the prevention of the failure that the US could have experienced if it were not for the Bailout. Keeping the businesses afloat so they can continue creating revenue to pay back the government was a great idea because this will then lead to the large businesses free of their obligation to the US Government. What would have happened if the Government did not bailout out the financial institutions or businesses? The businesses would not be able to have enough finance to conduct their business therefore letting more employees go. The businesses could have completely been eliminated and as a result globalization could have decreased. Ultimately, bailing out the businesses and institutions was a good idea in order to stabilize our economy for the long run.
Christina Leppo said
Capitalism like any system that is implemented under ideal conditions can lead to a net economic gain for a country. However, it is not a perfect system. Under the ideological capitalism that some people support there would still be sweat shops in this country because some people would be willing to work for nothing. Monopolies would also run rampant leading to a lack of competition. The way to improve the economy isn’t to swing our policies wildly in one direction or the other. It is to work out a balance where freedom and competition are allowed to exists while the public interest in areas such as employment and fair regulations to prevent abuse is met.
jsacco said
Capitalism like any system that is implemented under ideal conditions can lead to a net economic gain for a country. However, it is not a perfect system. Under the ideological capitalism that some people support there would still be sweat shops in this country because some people would be willing to work for nothing. Monopolies would also run rampant leading to a lack of competition. The way to improve the economy isn’t to swing our policies wildly in one direction or the other. It is to work out a balance where freedom and competition are allowed to exists while the public interest in areas such as employment and fair regulations to prevent abuse is met.
correct; competition is fierce and companies avoid the innovation necessary to stay competitive.
Marina Walls said
It looks like anti-capitalism is gaining power in the US and the impact of it is yet to be seen. With the recent financial crisis the blame fell mostly on the capitalistic structure, not the government. However, government regulations were the reason for the crisis. The government blamed capitalism so it could gain more control over its citizens. Now it has a share in each of the major banks in America for the first time in history. The Patriot Act of 2001 gave more powers to the government to invade personal privacy. Anti-capitalism, in the history of other countries, either slowed down economic development or completely destroyed it in the past. Let’s take the Soviet Union, for example. It was a poor country with poor people living in tiny apartments; little food in the stores where lines for food where out the door, educated people that couldn’t survive on their salaries, all while the government was spending money on technological advances and military. The government had control over every aspect of the lives of its citizens. No freedom of speech, no opposition views or critical views on the government were ever tolerated. People died in millions, and millions more were sent to prisons for anti-government views. Will the future look like that in the US? It seems that more and more people expect help from the government. But do they know the price beyond that help? Let’s take the big healthcare debate, for example. If government will be paying for healthcare, where is the money going to come from? – Taxpayers are where the government gets its money so, essentially, we will be paying for our own healthcare. The quality of free healthcare cannot be good because US doctors won’t work for free, and those who will take a small pay won’t do their job as well. That is just one example of what can happen as the government slowly takes over businesses and the rights of citizens. That is not to say that Capitalism is a perfect system, but history has proven that it is a better working system than any other.
Vicky Phung said
What was the impact of anti-capitalism?
Anti-capitalism challenges people to shift their attention from blinding sensationalism of the Western world’s free market society to it’s criticisms. This creates and fuels an environment which furthers the opportunity for a transfer of powers.
Capitalism is encouraged and spreads with a positive and direct correlation to the growth of democracy and globalization. Based on the theories of Adam Smith who argues self interest and competition may lead to economic success. Democracy, also, has parallels to neoclassical economics, focusing on individual choices and a sense of ‘openness,’ denoting free markets and a limited government.
Anti-capitalism is linked to American resentment, in regard that America, the leading superpower, sets precedent for developing countries. Rather, an American presence, economically or politically, in foreign countries have left local economies and lives shatter and perish.
When underdeveloped countries adopt both a government based on democratic values and a open market economy, it can be a recipe for disaster.
America is the global driver of capitalism. American prosperity and democratic ideology is accepted as a lead example for other nations, in consideration of the “justice” and “equality” democracy boasts. Other reasons for American idolization include the beseeching luxury of American wealth; the sway and influence of multinational corporations and abundance of opportunities for education and jobs.
In Amy Chua’s World on Fire, she claims Anti-Americanism in the past was based on our past behavior, but it has evolved. Now, Anti-Americanism includes fighting the whole culture America embodies, making it seem more like an ideology or political movement (246).
Within the developing world, anti-americanism is fervent. The benefits of globalization varies with great partiality among classes of people, usually causing large wealth disparities between the rich and poor. In the Middle East and former Soviet empire, poverty has increased. Although other developing nations have seen an increase in growth rates, Chua says the wealth is only being centralized among the upper classes. IMF policies have thrown many families into hopeless poverty (255). The poor people are now more aware of whats available and what they don’t have, thus they attain a higher standard of social desires, allowing for a stronger sense of resentment and unrest.
America has to adopt more integrative solutions before they will be forced to. As anti capitalism increases, so does anti-americanism; both are on the rise with the growth of globalization and democracy. I fear these are the precipitating events of a deep and long conflict that will be mimicked among countries, especially developing countries, that lead to the rise of anti-capitalist revolutionaries and revolutions.
jsacco said
Anti-capitalism challenges people to shift their attention from blinding sensationalism of the Western world’s free market society to it’s criticisms. This creates and fuels an environment which furthers the opportunity for a transfer of powers.
Capitalism is encouraged and spreads with a positive and direct correlation to the growth of democracy and globalization. Based on the theories of Adam Smith who argues self interest and competition may lead to economic success. Democracy, also, has parallels to neoclassical economics, focusing on individual choices and a sense of ‘openness,’ denoting free markets and a limited government.
you’re reading a good deal of material. That’s great
Anti-capitalism is linked to American resentment, in regard that America, the leading superpower, sets precedent for developing countries. Rather, an American presence, economically or politically, in foreign countries have left local economies and lives shatter and perish.
When underdeveloped countries adopt both a government based on democratic values and a open market economy, it can be a recipe for disaster.
America is the global driver of capitalism.
I think you’re correct. Pay attention to how the rise of the Asian Tigers challenged oligopolies in the US. In the 1950s the oligopolies were common in manufacturing and labor.
American prosperity and democratic ideology is accepted as a lead example for other nations, in consideration of the “justice” and “equality” democracy boasts. Other reasons for American idolization include the beseeching luxury of American wealth; the sway and influence of multinational corporations and abundance of opportunities for education and jobs.
In Amy Chua’s World on Fire, she claims Anti-Americanism in the past was based on our past behavior, but it has evolved. Now, Anti-Americanism includes fighting the whole culture America embodies, making it seem more like an ideology or political movement (246).
Within the developing world, anti-americanism is fervent. The benefits of globalization varies with great partiality among classes of people, usually causing large wealth disparities between the rich and poor. In the Middle East and former Soviet empire, poverty has increased. Although other developing nations have seen an increase in growth rates, Chua says the wealth is only being centralized among the upper classes. IMF policies have thrown many families into hopeless poverty (255). The poor people are now more aware of whats available and what they don’t have, thus they attain a higher standard of social desires, allowing for a stronger sense of resentment and unrest.
America has to adopt more integrative solutions before they will be forced to. As anti capitalism increases, so does anti-americanism; both are on the rise with the growth of globalization and democracy. I fear these are the precipitating events of a deep and long conflict that will be mimicked among countries, especially developing countries, that lead to the rise of anti-capitalist revolutionaries and revolutions.
nicely done
Shannon Pedroni said
There’s been a lot of hype lately about anti-capitalism/anti-americanism. I’ve had a couple classes where they focused a lot on the “anti-americanism movement” in the world. I’ve read books and articles that claim that this sentiment is very wide-spread, especially among the developing countries. I’ve lived in and traveled to many developing countries in Eastern Europe and have spoken to many other people who have grown up in former soviet states. Very, very few of them are “anti-americanism”. It seems that the people claiming that there is a large “anti-americanism” sentiment around the world are either American, or are part of the more wealthy “elite” in their own country. I find this somewhat ironic. The resentful sentiment that comes from the poor when they realize how much more other people have is generally not directed towards America. It is instead often directed towards their own governmental system that’s preventing them from even trying to achieve more.
You also claimed that when underdeveloped countries adopt democracy and free-markets, it can be a recipe for disaster. This is somewhat correct. The transition to a democratic, free-market system is often unstable and ugly for developing countries. Some do not actually fully transition to democracies and free markets, but are left stuck in the middle somewhere. But many countries still strive for it. Why? Because … as Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Khadija said
I like the way you tied in anti-capitalism with the growth of globalization. I too believe that as globalization increases so will anti-capitalists beliefs. I also wrote my post about the disparities of rich vs. poor in regards to developing and developed countries. I liked the way you spoke about if developing countries adopt systems like ours this may be a recipe for disaster. There are two sides to that argument but the initial thing I thought about was the issue of education. Developing countries may lack in the field of education and simply may not know the fundamental beliefs that these systems comprise of. They may not practice or enforce the same values that the United States imposes which will in turn be a disaster for the rest of the world to follow. Every country has their own unique way of running things, and being the “follower” in this case will have negative impacts unless they can come up on top stronger than ever. The issue of education may also impact the job market system in developing countries as well. Without the proper education; these people may not be suitable for certain jobs which will in turn effect productivity. The more I think about it, the more I can see how you said it can be a “disaster”. Hope is not all lost, I believe though on a global scale we have a long way to go to be able to peacefully work with one another.
Khadija said
Capitalism is an economic system that functions around making a profit. The concept of supply and demand applies to this system along with means of production. Through production and labor, workers supply and provide the goods in return for a profit. The idea of capitalism can be traced back to the economic thinker and philosopher Adam Smith. An idea created by Adam Smith, which I have learned about in other classes is the “Invisible Hand”. This is the idea that in a free-market system people are competing to get ahead and produce the most, while guided by their self interests. Competition and self interest when combined can create and maximize the “supply and demand” process as well as interests of society as a whole. This “invisible hand” can be said to be the natural and guiding force in how capitalism runs. Capitalism can also be defined as a social system because of the impact it has on the individual. Capitalism stresses that individuals have certain economic freedoms that they are allowed to practice. Anti-capitalists’ impact has had negative effects locally and on a global level. I have read that anti-capitalism can also linked and labeled as “anti globalization”. As capitalism spreads globally, the United States may suffer economically which with the recent economic crisis has been proven. With foreign interests and investments outside of the United States taking place, the US will in turn suffer. This suffering will occur on a local economic level because all the money that should be going into homegrown investments, projects, infrastructure ect. is now being found and funded overseas. These outside sources are everything from outsourcing to military bases in other countries. On a global level as developing and under developing countries try to adopt systems like capitalism, this may in fact hurt the United States. The United States may not remain on top and competition may in fact increase dramatically. This can be seen as a good thing though because the core value of capitalism is derived under competition and self –interest. Another negative impact that anti-capitalists have impacted is the power of the individual. Under anti-capitalists, individuals lose their economic freedoms and their ability to control certain things that they no longer have the right or power to. This concept takes away the idea of individualism and places the power on a more socialistic movement by the people and not by the individual.
Whether we want to admit it or not, we live in a global era where governments and countries around the world are working closely with one another socially, economically and politically. The critics of “anti globalization” say that as countries progress there will always be other countries lacking either technologically, politically or socially. There will always be an inequality gap between developed and developing countries. For example, Dubai has developed as a country dramatically over the past ten years. However, the labor workers in the country suffer inequality issues that make the country lacking in social issues. Even though economically the country has boomed and flourished they too suffered a recent economic debt setback. No matter how developed a country is problems will always exist. The same concept can be applied to capitalism and anti-capitalism. The existence of the two sides will always exist.
jsacco said
Capitalism is an economic system that functions around making a profit. The concept of supply and demand applies to this system along with means of production. Through production and labor, workers supply and provide the goods in return for a profit. The idea of capitalism can be traced back to the economic thinker and philosopher Adam Smith. An idea created by Adam Smith, which I have learned about in other classes is the “Invisible Hand”. This is the idea that in a free-market system people are competing to get ahead and produce the most, while guided by their self interests. Competition and self interest when combined can create and maximize the “supply and demand” process as well as interests of society as a whole. This “invisible hand” can be said to be the natural and guiding force in how capitalism runs. Capitalism can also be defined as a social system because of the impact it has on the individual. Capitalism stresses that individuals have certain economic freedoms that they are allowed to practice. Anti-capitalists’ impact has had negative effects locally and on a global level. I have read that anti-capitalism can also linked and labeled as “anti globalization”. As capitalism spreads globally, the United States may suffer economically which with the recent economic crisis has been proven. With foreign interests and investments outside of the United States taking place, the US will in turn suffer. This suffering will occur on a local economic level because all the money that should be going into homegrown investments, projects, infrastructure ect. is now being found and funded overseas. These outside sources are everything from outsourcing to military bases in other countries. On a global level as developing and under developing countries try to adopt systems like capitalism, this may in fact hurt the United States. The United States may not remain on top and competition may in fact increase dramatically. This can be seen as a good thing though because the core value of capitalism is derived under competition and self –interest. Another negative impact that anti-capitalists have impacted is the power of the individual. Under anti-capitalists, individuals lose their economic freedoms and their ability to control certain things that they no longer have the right or power to. This concept takes away the idea of individualism and places the power on a more socialistic movement by the people and not by the individual. Whether we want to admit it or not, we live in a global era where governments and countries around the world are working closely with one another socially, economically and politically. The critics of “anti globalization” say that as countries progress there will always be other countries lacking either technologically, politically or socially. There will always be an inequality gap between developed and developing countries. For example, Dubai has developed as a country dramatically over the past ten years. However, the labor workers in the country suffer inequality issues that make the country lacking in social issues. Even though economically the country has boomed and flourished they too suffered a recent economic debt setback. No matter how developed a country is problems will always exist. The same concept can be applied to capitalism and anti-capitalism. The existence of the two sides will always exist.
nicely done
jsacco said
I like the way you tied in anti-capitalism with the growth of globalization. I too believe that as globalization increases so will anti-capitalists beliefs.
In 1999 I wrote an article that said the same think. I predicted terrorism and ethnic hatred. It came out before 9/11//01
I also wrote my post about the disparities of rich vs. poor in regards to developing and developed countries. I liked the way you spoke about if developing countries adopt systems like ours this may be a recipe for disaster. There are two sides to that argument but the initial thing I thought about was the issue of education. Developing countries may lack in the field of education and simply may not know the fundamental beliefs that these systems comprise of. They may not practice or enforce the same values that the United States imposes which will in turn be a disaster for the rest of the world to follow. Every country has their own unique way of running things, and being the “follower” in this case will have negative impacts unless they can come up on top stronger than ever. The issue of education may also impact the job market system in developing countries as well. Without the proper education; these people may not be suitable for certain jobs which will in turn effect productivity. The more I think about it, the more I can see how you said it can be a “disaster”. Hope is not all lost, I believe though on a global scale we have a long way to go to be able to peacefully work with one another.
the other problem with globalization comes in the form of disasters such as that in Japan. We’ll see how the world reactions both in terms of economic recovery and assistance to Japan.
Globalization maybe more fragile than we think. The period after the turn of the 20th century where money and business flowed freely was a disaster in the form of the Great Depression.
thanks
Maria Beller said
I also discussed the relation of globalization and capitalism. The economic factor of globalization is the driving force of it, in my opinion. However, I don’t agree with you that anti-capitalist ideas are always bad for our society. Anti-capitalists may not have a perfect solution but they shed light on many important things that supporters of capitalism tend to overlook. Many believe that wealth will trickle down from the elites down to the poorest of the poor. However, I can’t think of one place where this process has been completed. Even in leading economic powers such as the U.S., western Europe and China still have issues of poverty and inequality. I’m not saying that capitalism is all bad, however I do think that anti-capitalism is worth thinking about to try and work towards a system that allows for growth while addressing human needs such as education, access to resources, and the overall ability to improve their life, even for the poorest of the poor.
jsacco said
I also discussed the relation of globalization and capitalism. The economic factor of globalization is the driving force of it, in my opinion. However, I don’t agree with you that anti-capitalist ideas are always bad for our society.
a good jolt might be helpful.
Anti-capitalists may not have a perfect solution but they shed light on many important things that supporters of capitalism tend to overlook. Many believe that wealth will trickle down from the elites down to the poorest of the poor. However, I can’t think of one place where this process has been completed. Even in leading economic powers such as the U.S., western Europe and China still have issues of poverty and inequality. I’m not saying that capitalism is all bad, however I do think that anti-capitalism is worth thinking about to try and work towards a system that allows for growth while addressing human needs such as education, access to resources, and the overall ability to improve their life, even for the poorest of the poor.
Bianca AdamsGregory said
I’m sure the impact of anti-capitalism in our modern and majorly globalized world will grow more rapidly in the upcoming years.
We have definitely seen the impacts of anti-capitalism with the housing crisis mentioned in a comment above. Also, there was much government interference when it came down to the United States’ economy being aided to get out of the financial crisis. There was much controversy on exactly who the aid went to, as well. None of the steps taken prescribed purely to the “capitalist” school of thought, invisible hand, etc. It really seems like it will be a domino effect and the impact of it all (of this particular issue) will be seen and unpredictable by the masses in the up coming years. This is only a particular issue but I’m sure the same problem can be related to many others.
Although capitalism isn’t inherently evil it can be looked at that way by a lot of people because it is related to the western world which has a lot of blood on their hands. I can understand their point somewhat because it seems that those who were born on the bottom, will most likely stay on the bottom. Especially when looking at the world debt for third world countries and how their indebtedness (world bank, IMF loans) to the countries in the developed world inhibits their development. Capitalism could be looked at as a tool for the rich for those against it. The anti-capitalism spans from being a disagreeing with a school of thought to something much more and has created a lot of confusion, conflict and ignorance amongst both those against and also those for capitalism (or globalization, because people make it interchangeable sometimes).
Again, with this growing and even more globalizing world, there will definitely be more social, economic and political impact in our world from anti-capitalism as pro-capitalism is spreading so rapidly. It seems like a reaction.
Alejandro Aguayo said
I agree that much of the perception towards capitalism is negative in todays world. This is not because Capitalism is a faulty system, but because many countries tried to assimilate a very modern style of capitalism in which corporations increase their assets. At it’s core, Capitalism is an economic form that looks to distribute resources to its most productive use. This yields its greatest purpose when competition is allowed without government intervention, or a lack of contractual enforcement by its government. The problem with these countries is that their situation is not suited for the large scale capitalism that flourishes in the developed
jsacco said
I agree that much of the perception towards capitalism is negative in todays world. This is not because Capitalism is a faulty system, but because many countries tried to assimilate a very modern style of capitalism in which corporations increase their assets. At it’s core, Capitalism is an economic form that looks to distribute resources to its most productive use.
scarcity breeds choice and within a market system it is supply and demand which has an impact on price
This yields its greatest purpose when competition is allowed without government intervention, or a lack of contractual enforcement by its government. The problem with these countries is that their situation is not suited for the large scale capitalism that flourishes in the developed
Maria Beller said
Many people consider capitalism to be a key component of globalization. Supporters of this idea point to the symbols of Wal-mart and McDonalds as proof that capitalism is almost synonymous with globalization. To a great extent, this fact is true. The economic aspects of globalization are the most visible ones. Huge corporations utilize the greater connection resulting from globalization to increase access to markets and to earn more profits. The huge profits of these companies make them very influential in world affairs. Although CEO’s of international corporations may not have a seat on the UN Security Council, they do dictate what happens globally. Governments often support big business because it is the driving force of their countries’ economies. This pattern in turn affects the international community; the countries with the strongest economies have more influence than weaker countries.
However, there are also many who are against globalization because of the power of capitalism. Capitalism works by creating competition between different parties, whether that be individuals, companies or countries. Competition always ends with a winner and a loser, or many losers. Capitalism is no different. It creates inequality in the world between the winners and the losers. This is the major problem that anti-capitalists have with globalization.
The anti-capitalist movement is growing throughout the world. In previous eras, the main international players were states. Then, as the role of multinational corporations started to increase, so did the role of other influential players including civil society, NGOs, and individuals. Many of these groups have spoken out against capitalism and globalization pointing to extreme inequality. While the West is extremely wealthy and developed, much of the rest of the world is living in poverty and is underdeveloped. People born into such areas not only lack income but also lack a future. These areas face a lack of educational options, high unemployment, low health standards, government corruption, and oftentimes violence or social unrest. They are at an extreme disadvantage compared to those born in the developed world.
Anti-capitalist ideas have become very strong in recent years. Members of civil society, NGOs, and individual citizens are able to utilize means such as the internet to spread their ideas and resources throughout the world and often have large followings. These groups are sometimes recognized by federal governments and even have been invited to speak at the UN. Their message is that, like communism, capitalism does not work for the international community as a whole. They call for increased government control over multinational corporations as well as focus on local community development. They urge people to invest in local goods and businesses as opposed to multinational corporations.
Although capitalism has not been eradicated, and probably never will completely, the anti-capitalist movement has brought many issues to light such as inequality and poverty. The movement pushes people to hold corporations, governments, and elites in general accountable for their actions. Up until this point in history, only two major economic systems have emerged: communism and capitalism. Communism has failed for the most part. On the microeconomic level, communism seems to improve the well-being of the normal citizen; however, it does not promote national growth after a certain point. Capitalism is seen to have been the right answer because communism was the wrong answer. It seems to work because on the macroeconomic level, it allows countries’ economies to grow tremendously. However, on the microeconomic level, individual people suffer. The anti-capitalist movement is trying to find a third option between these two systems.
jsacco said
Many people consider capitalism to be a key component of globalization. Supporters of this idea point to the symbols of Wal-mart and McDonalds as proof that capitalism is almost synonymous with globalization. To a great extent, this fact is true. The economic aspects of globalization are the most visible ones. Huge corporations utilize the greater connection resulting from globalization to increase access to markets and to earn more profits. The huge profits of these companies make them very influential in world affairs. Although CEO’s of international corporations may not have a seat on the UN Security Council, they do dictate what happens globally. Governments often support big business because it is the driving force of their countries’ economies. This pattern in turn affects the international community; the countries with the strongest economies have more influence than weaker countries. However, there are also many who are against globalization because of the power of capitalism. Capitalism works by creating competition between different parties, whether that be individuals, companies or countries. Competition always ends with a winner and a loser, or many losers. Capitalism is no different. It creates inequality in the world between the winners and the losers. This is the major problem that anti-capitalists have with globalization. The anti-capitalist movement is growing throughout the world. In previous eras, the main international players were states. Then, as the role of multinational corporations started to increase, so did the role of other influential players including civil society, NGOs, and individuals. Many of these groups have spoken out against capitalism and globalization pointing to extreme inequality. While the West is extremely wealthy and developed, much of the rest of the world is living in poverty and is underdeveloped. People born into such areas not only lack income but also lack a future. These areas face a lack of educational options, high unemployment, low health standards, government corruption, and oftentimes violence or social unrest. They are at an extreme disadvantage compared to those born in the developed world. Anti-capitalist ideas have become very strong in recent years. Members of civil society, NGOs, and individual citizens are able to utilize means such as the internet to spread their ideas and resources throughout the world and often have large followings. These groups are sometimes recognized by federal governments and even have been invited to speak at the UN. Their message is that, like communism, capitalism does not work for the international community as a whole. They call for increased government control over multinational corporations as well as focus on local community development. They urge people to invest in local goods and businesses as opposed to multinational corporations. Although capitalism has not been eradicated, and probably never will completely, the anti-capitalist movement has brought many issues to light such as inequality and poverty. The movement pushes people to hold corporations, governments, and elites in general accountable for their actions. Up until this point in history, only two major economic systems have emerged: communism and capitalism. Communism has failed for the most part. On the microeconomic level, communism seems to improve the well-being of the normal citizen; however, it does not promote national growth after a certain point. Capitalism is seen to have been the right answer because communism was the wrong answer. It seems to work because on the macroeconomic level, it allows countries’ economies to grow tremendously. However, on the microeconomic level, individual people suffer. The anti-capitalist movement is trying to find a third option between these two systems.
these exchanges are quite good.
thanks
Katlin Hill said
Anti-Capitalism is a movement that is critical of globalization and capitalism. Followers of this movement are critical of the undemocratic nature of capitalist globalization. The term self-interest is one that can be debated to be changed. An idea created by Adam Smith, the “Invisible Hand”, where in a self-regulating economy individuals are guided by their self-interests. Anti-Capitalists see self-interest as detrimental to the rest of society.
In these times, the economy doesn’t seem to be “self-regulating.” We have entered a time where the government feels it needs to “bail out” private companies in order for them to stay afloat. Government intervention is a major problem in this country right now and their constant need for new regulations have ultimately led to this recession. The government now seems to feel the need to be involved in every aspect of our economy such as, from the banking system, to personal privacy, to health-care. The government sees the need to intervene in the private sector even though the economy should be able to self-correct. Citizens all over this country are looking to the government for assistance and are not thinking of the consequences of their requests. They don’t realize that by asking the government to become a main provider for their life that they are ultimately losing privacy and control over their own lives. The government is slowly infiltrating many main private sectors in this country because people aren’t strong enough to provide for themselves and feel the need for others to pay for their lives. This country needs to reassess the direction that it is going and look back to the ideas that it was founded on. American’s need to stop living beyond their means and spend only what they have or else they are slowly going to give away their freedoms to the government.
jsacco said
Anti-Capitalism is a movement that is critical of globalization and capitalism. Followers of this movement are critical of the undemocratic nature of capitalist globalization. The term self-interest is one that can be debated to be changed. An idea created by Adam Smith, the “Invisible Hand”, where in a self-regulating economy individuals are guided by their self-interests. Anti-Capitalists see self-interest as detrimental to the rest of society.
melding self and social interest is a challenge. Negative externalities include “race to the bottom.”
see
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Race%20to%20the%20bottom
In these times, the economy doesn’t seem to be “self-regulating.” We have entered a time where the government feels it needs to “bail out” private companies in order for them to stay afloat. Government intervention is a major problem in this country right now and their constant need for new regulations have ultimately led to this recession. The government now seems to feel the need to be involved in every aspect of our economy such as, from the banking system, to personal privacy, to health-care. The government sees the need to intervene in the private sector even though the economy should be able to self-correct. Citizens all over this country are looking to the government for assistance and are not thinking of the consequences of their requests. They don’t realize that by asking the government to become a main provider for their life that they are ultimately losing privacy and control over their own lives. The government is slowly infiltrating many main private sectors in this country because people aren’t strong enough to provide for themselves and feel the need for others to pay for their lives. This country needs to reassess the direction that it is going and look back to the ideas that it was founded on. American’s need to stop living beyond their means and spend only what they have or else they are slowly going to give away their freedoms to the government.
Rstewarb said
I completely agree that the government is a little to involved and the economy should indeed self correct, which it can do if there were not so many interventions and regulations. Great post.
jsacco said
good to see the exchanges and different points of view especially when they are backed by citations
Lily Bolourian said
Capitalism is a system of governance in which the exchange of wealth is privately held. The theory of capitalism involves the idea of the “free market” where the government does not intervene in economic affairs. Philosopher Adam Smith has been highly credited as the father of modern capitalism for promoting free market values in his work, “The Wealth of Nations.” Anti-capitalism refers to the notion or belief that a privately-held system such as capitalism can and often does lead to greed and corruption. Anti-capitalists often champion increased government intervention to ensure that there is proper oversight over the dealings of private economic entities. This is done to ensure that democracy is not being compromised for the sake of capitalism.
Many anti-capitalists believe that the economic recession that we, as a nation, currently face can be directly attributed to the lack of financial regulation of private industries under President George W. Bush. Without any governmental oversight or regulation at all, there would be no minimum wage for workers and big companies could demand longer hours for lower compensation from employees. If individuals’ human rights are violated as a result of no governmental intervention then democracy fails — a nation that does not provide its citizens with basic protections has no legitimacy. President Barack Obama urges government oversight over the dealings of private entities because he understands that human beings are often not selfless beings and that greed is dangerous to the prosperity of our nation. Socialist philosopher Karl Marx wrote about the dangers of capitalism on the worker and
Capitalism is an excellent economic system; however, in order to ensure that capitalism does not impede democracy, certain checks and balances must be put into place. Capitalism should increase competition to bring down the costs of products in a demanding economy but it often fails to do so because big corporations are only interested in growing and often buy out smaller competitors. The greed that can go along with capitalism increases corporate desires to outsource jobs to nations without minimum wage regulations and with lower taxes. While the government is certainly not the answer to all of a nation’s problems, it has been shown that nations with increased government intervention in their respective economies are often less affected by global financial disasters. For example, the economy of Sweden slid into a recession in 2008 but had a strong turn around and came out as one of the strongest economies in Europe. Sweden’s economy incorporates certain elements of capitalism but with strong governmental oversight. Both pro-capitalist and anti-capital activists have great arguments and neither is incorrect. In this nation, capitalism must reign but not without proper regulation.
jsacco said
Capitalism is a system of governance in which the exchange of wealth is privately held.
use of exchange is important. Take contract; exchange of promises for things of value
Here’s a definition
An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. The agreement can be formal, informal, written, oral or just plain understood. Some contracts are required to be in writing in order to be enforced. (2) An agreement between two or more parties which creates obligations to do or not do the specific things that are the subject of that agreement. Examples of a contract are a lease, a promissory note, or a rental agreement.
this site is good for legal definitions
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c123.htm
but as with all sites now, it will have advertisements
The theory of capitalism involves the idea of the “free market” where the government does not intervene in economic affairs. Philosopher Adam Smith has been highly credited as the father of modern capitalism for promoting free market values in his work, “The Wealth of Nations.” Anti-capitalism refers to the notion or belief that a privately-held system such as capitalism can and often does lead to greed and corruption. Anti-capitalists often champion increased government intervention to ensure that there is proper oversight over the dealings of private economic entities. This is done to ensure that democracy is not being compromised for the sake of capitalism. Many anti-capitalists believe that the economic recession that we, as a nation, currently face can be directly attributed to the lack of financial regulation of private industries under President George W. Bush. Without any governmental oversight or regulation at all, there would be no minimum wage for workers and big companies could demand longer hours for lower compensation from employees. If individuals’ human rights are violated as a result of no governmental intervention then democracy fails — a nation that does not provide its citizens with basic protections has no legitimacy. President Barack Obama urges government oversight over the dealings of private entities because he understands that human beings are often not selfless beings and that greed is dangerous to the prosperity of our nation. Socialist philosopher Karl Marx wrote about the dangers of capitalism on the worker and Capitalism is an excellent economic system; however, in order to ensure that capitalism does not impede democracy, certain checks and balances must be put into place. Capitalism should increase competition to bring down the costs of products in a demanding economy but it often fails to do so because big corporations are only interested in growing and often buy out smaller competitors. The greed that can go along with capitalism increases corporate desires to outsource jobs to nations without minimum wage regulations and with lower taxes. While the government is certainly not the answer to all of a nation’s problems, it has been shown that nations with increased government intervention in their respective economies are often less affected by global financial disasters. For example, the economy of Sweden slid into a recession in 2008 but had a strong turn around and came out as one of the strongest economies in Europe. Sweden’s economy incorporates certain elements of capitalism but with strong governmental oversight. Both pro-capitalist and anti-capital activists have great arguments and neither is incorrect. In this nation, capitalism must reign but not without proper regulation.
thanks, nicely done
Rstewarb said
Anti-capitalism in essence is the belief held by individuals that the wealthy or government should have sole custody of power and resources. Various philosophers, economists, and scholars have come to a common ground that there is no concrete definition of what capitalism is; as a result, anti-capitalism does not have concrete definition either. Many believe that, anti-capitalism can be broadly defined as “eliminating the profit motives.” Anti-capitalists believe that the competitive motivation does not help society; in fact it is believed to be a major problem; As a result, morals should stimulate capitalism instead of motives. It could also be argued that the system works for businesses instead of the people (Romanos, 2008). Anti-capitalist believes in profit for human needs and consumption as opposed to producing for a profit (Porritt, 2007). The spread of capitalism across the world is a result of economic growth and free trade.
Devastation and disruption for a majority of a society is a result of privatization and free market economies according to anti-capitalists. Lives are disrupted because work is privatized; many workers’ lose their benefits and jobs as a result. “The anti-capitalist argument is that the people in these factories are not being treated fairly. They have low wages, few workers rights, and there are concerns over child labor and other human rights abuses. They also argue that these giant corporations are the only ones being rewarded by the capitalist system”
In a case study analysis, a comparison was done of the capitalist and anti-capitalist views of the development between Taiwan, 50 years ago, and Vietnam today. Capitalist believe that one of the major success factors for Taiwan was that the government allocated land to farmers. This in turn encouraged wealth generation through entrepreneurship and innovation. Eventually manufacturing plants sprang up and generated more wealth for the country. In addition, employees have higher wages than they would have otherwise received. If Vietnam follows in the footstep of Taiwan, the Vietnamese would be just as successful, because undergoing the same phases are essentially for positive growth and development, according to anti-capitalists (Romanos, 2008).
On the other hand, arguments of anti-capitalists include the people in the manufacturing plants being treated in an ill manner, being paid low wages, and child labor rights are being abused. To counteract the issue with worker rights violations, capitalists make the argument that the workers are happier because they have a job and are able to send their children to school amongst other necessities. All in all, the impact of capitalism in immeasurable, because it has some good and bad aspects it all depends on the person, and on the incident in which they are placed. For the most part it provides a productive society. With that said, anti-capitalism has the opposite effect of what proponents desire it to be; essentially, capitalism has lead to a great amount of development due to this productivity (Romanos, 2008).
Bibliography
Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism : As If the World Matters . London: Earthscan .
Romanos, E. (2008, February 26). Capitalism Or Anti-Capitalism: Approaches To Africa’s Development. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from African Loft: http://www.africanloft.com/capitalism-or-anti-capitalism-approaches-to-africa’s-development/
jsacco said
Anti-capitalism in essence is the belief held by individuals that the wealthy or government should have sole custody of power and resources.
I’ll be interested in seeing how you support this statement
Various philosophers, economists, and scholars have come to a common ground that there is no concrete definition of what capitalism is; as a result, anti-capitalism does not have concrete definition either.
I had not thought about the lack of definition approach. My preference is come as close as possible to a definition and then offer caveats about that definitions. In professional work, no definition might not work
Many believe that, anti-capitalism can be broadly defined as “eliminating the profit motives.”
good effort; start with this definition and then offer the view that this definition is difficult to develop
Anti-capitalists believe that the competitive motivation does not help society; in fact it is believed to be a major problem; As a result, morals should stimulate capitalism instead of motives. It could also be argued that the system works for businesses instead of the people (Romanos, 2008). Anti-capitalist believes in profit for human needs and consumption as opposed to producing for a profit (Porritt, 2007). The spread of capitalism across the world is a result of economic growth and free trade. Devastation and disruption for a majority of a society is a result of privatization and free market economies according to anti-capitalists. Lives are disrupted because work is privatized; many workers’ lose their benefits and jobs as a result. “The anti-capitalist argument is that the people in these factories are not being treated fairly. They have low wages, few workers rights, and there are concerns over child labor and other human rights abuses. They also argue that these giant corporations are the only ones being rewarded by the capitalist system” In a case study analysis, a comparison was done of the capitalist and anti-capitalist views of the development between Taiwan, 50 years ago, and Vietnam today. Capitalist believe that one of the major success factors for Taiwan was that the government allocated land to farmers. This in turn encouraged wealth generation through entrepreneurship and innovation. Eventually manufacturing plants sprang up and generated more wealth for the country. In addition, employees have higher wages than they would have otherwise received. If Vietnam follows in the footstep of Taiwan, the Vietnamese would be just as successful, because undergoing the same phases are essentially for positive growth and development, according to anti-capitalists (Romanos, 2008). On the other hand, arguments of anti-capitalists include the people in the manufacturing plants being treated in an ill manner, being paid low wages, and child labor rights are being abused. To counteract the issue with worker rights violations, capitalists make the argument that the workers are happier because they have a job and are able to send their children to school amongst other necessities. All in all, the impact of capitalism in immeasurable, because it has some good and bad aspects it all depends on the person, and on the incident in which they are placed. For the most part it provides a productive society. With that said, anti-capitalism has the opposite effect of what proponents desire it to be; essentially, capitalism has lead to a great amount of development due to this productivity (Romanos, 2008). Bibliography Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism : As If the World Matters . London: Earthscan . Romanos, E. (2008, February 26). Capitalism Or Anti-Capitalism: Approaches To Africa’s Development. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from African Loft: http://www.africanloft.com/capitalism-or-anti-capitalism-approaches-to-africa’s-development/
well done and well documented
Alicia Koerner said
Capitalism is an economic system that was first introduced by Adam Smith, often referred to as “The Father of Capitalism”. While there is no single, central definition of capitalism, there are some aspects of the system that are universally agreed upon. In capitalist systems, the means of production (property) are privately owned and operate in a relatively free, open marketplace. Individuals, and/or companies, utilize wealth within enterprise with the goal of creating more wealth, or capital, in return. There is freedom to act, trade, invent and invest. Proponents of capitalism may go as far as to define it as the economic concept of prosperity.
Even Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nation, acknowledges the self-interested nature of humanity that drives capitalism. In his analysis, however, Smith coined the term “the invisible hand” to show how even self-interest (even without intent) often results in the public interest. As competition in an open market increases, capitalists are encouraged by self interest to find more innovative and less expensive means of production. In order to continue the growth of their capital, individuals/companies must continue to make sales and the lowest price to the consumer is the most direct method. Thereby, the market and offerings therein, are thought to be self regulating (in this example, specifically in the way of cost to the consumer) initially resulting from self interest, but in the end to the benefit of all actors within the system.
Anti-Capitalism is a broad term and reflects various ideas, attitudes and movements which are opposed to the concept of capitalism. The foundational criticism of Anti-Capitalists is the unfair distribution of wealth that occurs within the capitalist system. Since the direction of the economy and means of production are relatively unplanned, instead of achieving prosperity of the whole, capitalism creates inconsistencies and contradictions according to many anti-capitalists. Critics believe that with planning and regulation, societies, and the people therein, can achieve prosperity without being subject to disadvantages beyond one’s control and minimize exploitation.
In modern day America most citizens, to one extent or another, have been impacted by capitalism and resultant anti-capitalism, as it applies to the housing market. Economic prosperity followed deregulation imposed by the Reagan administration and individuals as well as companies were confident in the market and its capabilities to self-regulate. Self interest on the part of all parties increased lending and borrowing within the rising housing market. In 2008 housing prices began to fall, unemployment rose and as a result foreclosures and short sales of homes soon replaced the competitive buying market of yesterday. Families were displaced, large and prosperous financial institutions faced unknown hardship, the economy seemingly turned upside down overnight.
For many – individuals, families, companies and the government – the economic environment seemed to turn upside down without notice. The realization of this situation caused an extreme reaction in the opposite direction. The most qualified individuals had difficulty obtaining credit and loans as banks/lenders were consumed with efforts to minimize their loss given the unexpected turn. The federal government held serious discussions regarding regulation at a level that had not been seen before (at least as applicable to the banking/mortgage industries). Citizens did everything in their power to maintain employment and avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy. The banking and mortgage industries experienced loss and bankruptcies crippling lending capabilities.
The economic system’s inability to regulate itself left the government, industry and individuals with scenarios unseen in a lifetime and the pendulum swung. Even the most qualified borrowers were denied credit. Homes became available at levels unseen, but qualified individuals were denied opportunities to ‘bail out’ unqualified lenders. Drastic measures were taken at economic and governmental levels to regulate and correct the mistakes that led to the housing/lending crisis. The United States began to consider and institute policies previously considered being ‘Anti-capitalist’, by enforcing regulation where the economic system failed to regulate itself.
Although this is one example many of us can relate to immediately, it is imperative that the housing crisis not define anti-capitalism, as it is a broad term that embodies many ideologies. The impact of capitalism is wide-spread, and so to, is its opposition. Anti-capitalism is also exhibited through many environmentalist groups. These organizations often focus on the unsustainable nature of capitalism. Capitalism is founded in the concept of growth and in definition, has no limits. The concern here is that we do in fact live in a finite world, with finite resources. How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain. In a world where internet access, SUVs and McMansions have become the goal, where does moderation and recognition of sustainability come into play? Many environmentalist groups believe that capitalism is directly responsible for depletion of natural resources and directly correlates our desires to the inability to sustain them.
Other anti-capitalist groups include those who are anti-globalization. These groups often believe that capitalism is in fact, inhuman. The goal of work is not for the survival and comfort of individuals, families, societies, but rather to sustain a lifestyle that is comfortable, but in reality much more than the standard of comfort. People become so accustomed to given goods that without them, life seems tragic, although it may in fact (from some perspectives) be more fulfilling in means outside of commodities and goods.
The western world, comprising the “Great Powers”- that often act on behalf of, as diplomatic figures for and economic contributors to smaller nation states – imposes self interested goals on nations that otherwise may not have such goals/expectations. The question, then, becomes blurry – for who is the benefit – the ‘proxy’ great power state or the state for which it purports to act on behalf? Often the proxy states fail to recognize that what is in its own best interest is not necessarily in the best interest of the nurtured state. We often forget, or neglect, to consider specific cultures, histories, relationships, etc in consideration of outcomes for the other party. Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports?
The United States, in its short history has been exceptionally successful, by capitalist standards. This often blinds us to the reality that what is beneficial for our own society, may be detrimental to other nations with thousands of years of history and relationships, culture and societal and political structure. We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful. Anti-Globalization supporters may believe this is one of our largest failures.
It is because Anti-Capitalism takes so many and such various forms that the impacts have been wide spread. All the major transnational economic and political institutions – the G8, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) – have been targeted by mass protests, intended to negatively impact their legitimacy on the world stage. The efforts have been successful. Media outlets have, at times, focused on anti-capitalist protests to such an extent that the context of the meetings themselves go without coverage. Meetings and summits held by these organizations have been cancelled, held in remote locations and generally reduced the public’s insights into their on-goings. Anti-capitalism, whether it is the United States’ government’s reaction to the recent economic/housing crisis, environmental issues, globalization concerns, etc, has had a tremendous impact on national and international levels in the past several decades.
jsacco said
wow, this is more than a post; I’m eager to read it
Capitalism is an economic system that was first introduced by Adam Smith, often referred to as “The Father of Capitalism”. While there is no single, central definition of capitalism, there are some aspects of the system that are universally agreed upon.
As I said to other students and in my writing style rules present your best effort at a definition and theme then give your caveats and reservations
In capitalist systems, the means of production (property) are privately owned and operate in a relatively free, open marketplace. Individuals, and/or companies, utilize wealth within enterprise with the goal of creating more wealth, or capital, in return.
good definition
There is freedom to act, trade, invent and invest. Proponents of capitalism may go as far as to define it as the economic concept of prosperity. Even Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nation, acknowledges the self-interested nature of humanity that drives capitalism. In his analysis, however, Smith coined the term “the invisible hand” to show how even self-interest (even without intent) often results in the public interest. As competition in an open market increases, capitalists are encouraged by self interest to find more innovative and less expensive means of production. In order to continue the growth of their capital, individuals/companies must continue to make sales and the lowest price to the consumer is the most direct method. Thereby, the market and offerings therein, are thought to be self regulating (in this example, specifically in the way of cost to the consumer) initially resulting from self interest, but in the end to the benefit of all actors within the system. Anti-Capitalism is a broad term and reflects various ideas, attitudes and movements which are opposed to the concept of capitalism. The foundational criticism of Anti-Capitalists is the unfair distribution of wealth that occurs within the capitalist system.
good, can you provide a citation?
Since the direction of the economy and means of production are relatively unplanned, instead of achieving prosperity of the whole, capitalism creates inconsistencies and contradictions according to many anti-capitalists. Critics believe that with planning and regulation, societies, and the people therein, can achieve prosperity without being subject to disadvantages beyond one’s control and minimize exploitation. In modern day America most citizens, to one extent or another, have been impacted by capitalism and resultant anti-capitalism, as it applies to the housing market. Economic prosperity followed deregulation imposed by the Reagan administration and individuals as well as companies were confident in the market and its capabilities to self-regulate. Self interest on the part of all parties increased lending and borrowing within the rising housing market. In 2008 housing prices began to fall, unemployment rose and as a result foreclosures and short sales of homes soon replaced the competitive buying market of yesterday. Families were displaced, large and prosperous financial institutions faced unknown hardship, the economy seemingly turned upside down overnight. For many – individuals, families, companies and the government – the economic environment seemed to turn upside down without notice. The realization of this situation caused an extreme reaction in the opposite direction. The most qualified individuals had difficulty obtaining credit and loans as banks/lenders were consumed with efforts to minimize their loss given the unexpected turn. The federal government held serious discussions regarding regulation at a level that had not been seen before (at least as applicable to the banking/mortgage industries). Citizens did everything in their power to maintain employment and avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy. The banking and mortgage industries experienced loss and bankruptcies crippling lending capabilities. The economic system’s inability to regulate itself left the government, industry and individuals with scenarios unseen in a lifetime and the pendulum swung. Even the most qualified borrowers were denied credit. Homes became available at levels unseen, but qualified individuals were denied opportunities to ‘bail out’ unqualified lenders. Drastic measures were taken at economic and governmental levels to regulate and correct the mistakes that led to the housing/lending crisis. The United States began to consider and institute policies previously considered being ‘Anti-capitalist’, by enforcing regulation where the economic system failed to regulate itself. Although this is one example many of us can relate to immediately, it is imperative that the housing crisis not define anti-capitalism, as it is a broad term that embodies many ideologies. The impact of capitalism is wide-spread, and so to, is its opposition. Anti-capitalism is also exhibited through many environmentalist groups. These organizations often focus on the unsustainable nature of capitalism. Capitalism is founded in the concept of growth and in definition, has no limits. The concern here is that we do in fact live in a finite world, with finite resources. How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain. In a world where internet access, SUVs and McMansions have become the goal, where does moderation and recognition of sustainability come into play? Many environmentalist groups believe that capitalism is directly responsible for depletion of natural resources and directly correlates our desires to the inability to sustain them. Other anti-capitalist groups include those who are anti-globalization. These groups often believe that capitalism is in fact, inhuman. The goal of work is not for the survival and comfort of individuals, families, societies, but rather to sustain a lifestyle that is comfortable, but in reality much more than the standard of comfort. People become so accustomed to given goods that without them, life seems tragic, although it may in fact (from some perspectives) be more fulfilling in means outside of commodities and goods. The western world, comprising the “Great Powers”- that often act on behalf of, as diplomatic figures for and economic contributors to smaller nation states – imposes self interested goals on nations that otherwise may not have such goals/expectations. The question, then, becomes blurry – for who is the benefit – the ‘proxy’ great power state or the state for which it purports to act on behalf? Often the proxy states fail to recognize that what is in its own best interest is not necessarily in the best interest of the nurtured state. We often forget, or neglect, to consider specific cultures, histories, relationships, etc in consideration of outcomes for the other party. Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports? The United States, in its short history has been exceptionally successful, by capitalist standards. This often blinds us to the reality that what is beneficial for our own society, may be detrimental to other nations with thousands of years of history and relationships, culture and societal and political structure. We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful. Anti-Globalization supporters may believe this is one of our largest failures. It is because Anti-Capitalism takes so many and such various forms that the impacts have been wide spread. All the major transnational economic and political institutions – the G8, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) – have been targeted by mass protests, intended to negatively impact their legitimacy on the world stage. The efforts have been successful. Media outlets have, at times, focused on anti-capitalist protests to such an extent that the context of the meetings themselves go without coverage. Meetings and summits held by these organizations have been cancelled, held in remote locations and generally reduced the public’s insights into their on-goings. Anti-capitalism, whether it is the United States’ government’s reaction to the recent economic/housing crisis, environmental issues, globalization concerns, etc, has had a tremendous impact on national and international levels in the past several decades.
thanks, well done
Khadija said
Alicia,
Wow! What a great post! You touch on many things that I found quite interesting. I did not really think about capitalism and anti-capitalism in terms of environmental issues. You say “How then, can capitalism remain sustainable as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive to obtain.” You pose a very interesting question. I think Globalization will disrupt this “sustainability” as more resources are being found overseas in terms of outsourcing and job availability. I think outsourcing is a big solution that many large and small companies have turned to in terms of making a profit. You also state that “We often forget to consider these factors and assume that because ‘our way’ has been so beneficial for the US in our short history, that application may be universally successful.” I do believe that many in the US believe that “our way” everything from democracy to our economic system should be adopted and spread universally. We as a nation and as individuals must always have in mind that just because something has been successful in one country does not necessarily mean it will be successful everywhere else globally. There are many factors from social, political and economical issues that apply and affect this idea of spreading ideologies. “Is it any wonder then, why what is considered a natural global progression for some, turns out to be detrimental for those it suggests it supports?” I keep reverting back to Globalization, but I do strongly believe that most of the issues discussed stem from this term. To answer your question, I believe that natural progression for some can affect others in the opposite way. There exists an uneven distribution of power that I think will always exist. According to Karl Marx, class struggles exist throughout our society and the famous example he uses is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The same kind of thinking can be applied to countries globally progressing while small nation-states are not. Anti-capitalism I think is too broad to try and define in one or even two sentences. It has however left an impact some positive and some negative throughout our society as a whole.
chris nikola said
This country was built upon capitalism, where one may come to this country and be free to work where he/she pleases and make as much money as he/she pleases given he/she put in the time and effort. As a result of this many people began spending more than they can afford on an individual basis, while pay had not increased tremendously. This thought of borrowing has steadily increased and can be seen on every level of the US, at the top from the Government down to the individual. There were many individuals not being able to pay off their debt to the big businesses causing the businesses to borrow money from the US Government. This is where one form of anti-capitalism took place, when the Government intervened.
One impact of having this would be that the Government now in turn has authority over a financial institution and can dictate how it can conduct its business. Obviously the government is here to help its citizens and would not conversely use its authority to deceive them. Continuing the trend of anti-capitalist acts could further lead to a point where many of the big financial institutions could be controlled by the government, where now the money that is being borrowed and interest is essentially being paid back to the government. This does not sound anything like capitalism or laissez-faire. One word heard often associated with a destructive form of capitalism is greed, too much of this can conversely cause anti-capitalistic actions. This is the one largest single fault of capitalism.
jsacco said
This country was built upon capitalism, where one may come to this country and be free to work where he/she pleases and make as much money as he/she pleases given he/she put in the time and effort. As a result of this many people began spending more than they can afford on an individual basis, while pay had not increased tremendously. This thought of borrowing has steadily increased and can be seen on every level of the US, at the top from the Government down to the individual. There were many individuals not being able to pay off their debt to the big businesses causing the businesses to borrow money from the US Government. This is where one form of anti-capitalism took place, when the Government intervened. One impact of having this would be that the Government now in turn has authority over a financial institution and can dictate how it can conduct its business. Obviously the government is here to help its citizens and would not conversely use its authority to deceive them. Continuing the trend of anti-capitalist acts could further lead to a point where many of the big financial institutions could be controlled by the government, where now the money that is being borrowed and interest is essentially being paid back to the government. This does not sound anything like capitalism or laissez-faire. One word heard often associated with a destructive form of capitalism is greed, too much of this can conversely cause anti-capitalistic actions. This is the one largest single fault of capitalism.
you need to back your opinons with citations
Ashley Edwards said
Capitalism is known as “a means in which production is privately owned and guided and income is distributed largely through the operation of markets” (Britannica 2011). We often hear capitalism described as a free market; one in which people are the deciding factor in how business is conducted. Adam Smith was one of the first people to implement ideas of capitalism into society. In his book, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations” written in the 18th century, he recommends “leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces” (Britannica 2011). This style of governing leaves room for a laissez faire ruling. Where the government has little to no involvement with their people. Citizens are able to invest in their own private interests. People are solely seeking profit for themselves and not for any higher intentity. Smith promotes the idea of being more productive – doing whatever it takes to increase your own investments.
The negative side to capitalism is that there is no distribution of wealth. Everyone is working for their own gain. In some cases this can be beneificial for the lower class working upward to build there gain. However, the disadvantages of team building within corporations and developing partnerships is completely done away with. It is also of no benefit to not have the government at least a little involved.
I think the impact of anti-capitalism was beneficial. It developed a sense of social reform and made benefits available to all classes of life. Karl Marx’s idea of socialism, which I think anti-capitalists tend to favor more, presents a system where the government controls business and property and wealth is evenly distributed. In some cases this can be detrimental, because such practices can lead to communism, in which case the government starts to have too much control. Through socialism, the society as a whole is able to benefit from the production of goods and services. Not one single person will obtain more than another.
The downfalls to this is that money is taken from those who technically “earn it” to benefit everyone within the society. This promotes more laziness and less motivation for people to invent and try to stay ahead of the game. In the same sense, anti-capitalists motives are fueled by government involvement. The more a government is involved and simply practicing their governing abilities the less likely capitalism will remain in effect.
“Capitalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
jsacco said
Capitalism is known as “a means in which production is privately owned and guided and income is distributed largely through the operation of markets” (Britannica 2011). We often hear capitalism described as a free market; one in which people are the deciding factor in how business is conducted. Adam Smith was one of the first people to implement ideas of capitalism into society. In his book, “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations” written in the 18th century, he recommends “leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces” (Britannica 2011). This style of governing leaves room for a laissez faire ruling. Where the government has little to no involvement with their people. Citizens are able to invest in their own private interests. People are solely seeking profit for themselves and not for any higher intentity. Smith promotes the idea of being more productive – doing whatever it takes to increase your own investments. The negative side to capitalism is that there is no distribution of wealth. Everyone is working for their own gain. In some cases this can be beneificial for the lower class working upward to build there gain. However, the disadvantages of team building within corporations and developing partnerships is completely done away with. It is also of no benefit to not have the government at least a little involved. I think the impact of anti-capitalism was beneficial. It developed a sense of social reform and made benefits available to all classes of life. Karl Marx’s idea of socialism, which I think anti-capitalists tend to favor more, presents a system where the government controls business and property and wealth is evenly distributed. In some cases this can be detrimental, because such practices can lead to communism, in which case the government starts to have too much control. Through socialism, the society as a whole is able to benefit from the production of goods and services. Not one single person will obtain more than another. The downfalls to this is that money is taken from those who technically “earn it” to benefit everyone within the society. This promotes more laziness and less motivation for people to invent and try to stay ahead of the game. In the same sense, anti-capitalists motives are fueled by government involvement. The more a government is involved and simply practicing their governing abilities the less likely capitalism will remain in effect. “Capitalism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
nicely done; glad to see you used a variety of sources but in the future be absolutely sure to use material from the readings