Thus we find that there comes a point, wherein there are no resources free to be used for expansion. As expansion halts, the capitalist economy withers and dies.
We see here that due to no future expansion (there aren't any resources with which to expand), the economy cannot grow. (Even in an information based economy there comes a point when everything is known). Without the expectation of growth, there will be no investment, as there will be no return on investment. Short run Aggregate Supply will fall, as it is no longer profitable to produce. As SAS drops, unemployment will run rampant, and as no one has money to purchase goods and services, the economy collapses under it own dead weight.
Would all downvoters please say baa.
SocialistWolfs thesis is correct. Capitalism is bound to waste all resources, and fade away. And so will the world too.
As I first read the words, it seemed correct to me. Now I've been thinking. It is not that simple.
To blame the problem of limited resources on capitalism is a bit off-target, actually. A socialist economy has not unlimited resources. But the problems I guess SocialistWolf is trying to point out, are these:
As opposed to this would a pure socialist economy have the opportunity to control all these things - and take whatever concerns they want to take. A socialist society (=a society that collectively thinks of everyone as most important) would actively choose the solutions which benefit mankind the most, and most of the time that would be the most environmental option.
A socialist economy does only have to expand according to its population growth - but socialism doesn't either provide some sort of population control (OK we do not count killing people, Stalin is dead).
But resources are finite also in a perfect, socialistic world. We would just not have to use them. And if they ended, we would still not need any. Gee.
My conclusion, added as an update the day after the original writeup, is: Capitalism (in its pure form) is more prone to choose methods which uses the cheapest available source of resources. The cheapest available source is not necessarily the most resource-saving or the most recycleable or the most resource-wasting.
A more controlled system than capitalism can control resource usage better than capitalism. Capitalism can not per definition control its resource usage! Today this is a problem with f.ex. oil. We have the technology to make cars that don't waste all the oil - but the market does not pay for them because they cost more to make.
Furthermore, it is helpful for the argument to show where counter arguments (such as the one that I will make) are flawed. This is often done as evidence because that is one of the two things the counter arguments can attack (the other is the form)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~compose/student/ac_paper/logic.html is an excellent source for reading on logic and arguments and includes a large number of fallacies.
Hasty Generalization: A generalization based on too little evidence, or on evidence that is biased. Example: All men are testosterone-driven idiots. Or: After being in New York for a week, I can tell you: all New Yorkers are rude.
Now that that is defined, the statement that 'a capitalist economy must expand to remain healthy' can be looked at. Unfortunately, I cannot find any papers written about exactly what constitutes a healthy economy - but then I'm not an economist. Still, the question remains "is it possible for a system as described above to be healthy without expanding?" Can a capitalist system maintain a status-quo?
A status quo with respect to what? Here, we look at the second premise, and see that this is referring to resources. Capitalism itself will never hold a status quo for long with respect to ideas - some disruptive idea comes along and throws the economy upside down for awhile until things settle out. This is natural and good in the long run. It is even possible for the long run to reduce the consumption of resources as we see with the emerging ultra-light cars that are either electric or fuel cell powered. These cars take less energy to move around, and do so more efficiently. Why? Because someone can make money selling them. Thats capitalism for you. But yet, there is no evidence that a capitalist economy requires constantly more resources.
First off realize, that everything requires resources of of sort or another. It would be interesting to see what sort of economy exists with the heat death of the universe - if there is anything it will be the hoarding of what little energy can be found.
I've previously attempted to show that expansion of market does not require more physical resources. If anything, in economies where resources are important, there is an increased demand for more efficient use of these resources - higher gas millage, better recycling processes. Look at Japan, a very resource poor nation, and we see extremely efficient use and recycling of these resources. And yet, they continue to expand with better and more effective products.
The resources that are required more of are not the physical type, but rather the human type - ideas. But then, this is not about the resources of the mind. Knowledge is power.
The question of wise use of resources is one of the foresight of the people looking at long term investments. This is not unique to one system over another, but rather the availability of the resources and the forethought of management. I have yet to see research into the infrastructure of energy consumption in communist countries. The wind mill power arrays in the American southwest, the solar power farms. Are there examples of this forethought in Cuba or the old Soviet Union? Still, the lack of forsight cannot tacked on to capitalism - some people have it, some don't.
The incentive for a wise choice comes from looking far enough ahead, not from the economic system a person is in.
I hope that I have shown sufficient reason that all of the premises are flawed and that the claim is moot with regards to the distinction that one economic system is doomed while others are not.
Expansion This is built-in feature of any capitalist company. This is not only a Marxist superstition and the need for expansion can be easily proven by simple Google search (eg. expansion is necessary in market economy..). The capitalists tell it themselves. If a company does not grow, some others will and they do their best to drive others out of the market.
One very important notion, however, was still missing and it's the concept of ratio of profit. I don't know what was the term used by Marx but this was the one of few things he really was right. The ratio of profit decreases as time passes by. Capitalists have to invest more and more on automation and machinery. In the short term, they can get more profit than their less advanced counterparts but in the long run you have to invest more and more capital into a process. As a result some companies will go bankrupt and workers are laid off and finally we have a crisis here. But this does not mean capitalism is doomed. Even we can find the tendency of decreasing ratio of profit from statistics, capitalism is able to resurrect itself. No system itself will collapse. Do you think the Soviet Union collapsed itself? No way, it was people who acted. In parallel, it has to be people who have get enough with capitalism and it's their duty to overcome the system. But back to the resurrection.. As the crisis has been won, some companies will come out of it stronger and the ratio of profit has increased. Again, there's historical evidence that this has happened before and is very likely to happen again.
E2 is the most stratified society imaginable! We're organized by level, or class, which is determined by our wealth (read: XP).
As in other hardcore capitalist societies, the more wealth you have, the easier it is to gain wealth. The products of popular, established users are much more conducive to cools and upvotes, thus earning them even more XP.
Those in the higher classes have much more power than those in the lower classes. And yes, the lower classes are literally faceless masses until they can accumulate enough wealth to earn themselves a face in society (see Crafter).
Hell, we even call Cools "Ching!s". Few symbols of capitalism that are more obvious exist.
E2 is clearly not a socialist society. So unless you totally disagree with the entire concept of E2 capitalist society, then there is no rhyme or reason in creating pro-Socialist w/u's...and if you do disagree with the E2 society, why are you here?
Everything2 is fundamentally communistic and socialistic (with caveats toward editors, see bottom). Although it has an editorial hierarchy tacked onto it, Everything2 is a great example of a working communistic and socialistic effort:
1) You don't have to play the XP game to exist and contribute. ie. You don't have to be a monk to add your writeup to the coveted "Capitalism is doomed" node. You could theoretically just contribute and pay no heed to XP or Ching!s, and even be party to the social goings on.
2) The true, useful product of E2 (information) is available to all, even non-participants. If this were capitalistic, it would run more like early MP3 trading sites (10:1 upload:download ratio), and your access to the writeups would be based on XP.
3) Giving good editors more power (XP and levels) to do their job (review), is not anti-communistic. The voting heirarchy subsystem (yes, subsystem) is a way of giving the people that do their job well more power to do the job better. While it's true that you get experience for using your experience (VERY capitalistic), this is not the main experience-horse of the system.
All the carrots on sticks a Crafter gets for XP are secondary to the real reason noders node, to contribute something meaningful to society (which is anti-capitalistic; capitalism and property is about keeping something from society). Sometimes, people will XP trip to get a picture on their homenode, which betrays the sometimes selfish nature of otherwise well meaning people, but no noder would destroy E2 just to have their picture the only thing on the homepage of www.everything2.com, which in a Laissez Faire website would eventually happen (destruction of a medium for the benefit of an abstract concept; analogous to destroying the environment for a quick "buck").
4) As a direct refutation of AllergicToEverything, if DMan were to post all of his nodes in 133t speak, all the XP in the world wouldn't bail him out (ED: Whoa, DMan is fanny packs. Swish!). On the other hand, Microsoft releases a steady stream of crap, and can still leverage their product on innocent people and even people who hate their tripe.
On editors and gods The editors and gods of Everything2 can be looked at two ways:
Totalitarian despots, tromping you with EDB, killing your writeups, etc.
or
they can be considered the literal gods of everything, biodegrading the crap, keeping the world spinning, etc.
I believe they tend to lean more toward the latter; They keep the whole system running, and leave the content to be dictated by the mortals (noders). Also, Gods are allowed in communism, too ;)(This is true: Atheism is only complimentary to communism ; it is a totally seperate idea with a completely different basis.)
Everything2 is as close to socialism as you can get in a capitalistic society, as is most of the projects in which geeks and college students participate (though colleges often appropriate their student's work for capitalistic endeavors).
For the record, pro-socialist w/us are considered somethings, and a something is intrinsically part of Everything.
I can think of nothing else to say.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
