to marvel at the success of capitalism?

[longfingernails]

Capitalism has spurred innovations innumerate, lifted billions upon billions out of poverty, and made societies entrepreneurial and free - and it continues to do so to this day! Especially when combined with democracy, capitalism is surely the greatest force for social improvement the world has ever known. The most marvellous thing of all is it it goes with the natural instinct of humans to do the best for themselves and their loved ones.

Contrast socialism. It has left a legacy of bankruptcy, inefficient public sector bureaucracy, and welfare scroungers in this country (and countless others).

All hail Adam Smith and the invisible hand.

I stand corrected

I have no issue with people owning and running businesses - but not at the expense of their staff - putting profit before working conditions and decent wages

I believe those who benefit should pay back - that's what socialism is to me - you do well in society - you own that society some pay back

The only question worth asking is; "can/could you run a healthy society using undiluted capitalism?"

Yes the deserving poor - that's the phrase my cold addled brain was looking for

MesTerryPratchett Fear not; I'm only clarifying my intention. I am fairly down-the-middle when it comes to issues of authoritarianism vs libertarianism, slightly tending towards the libertarian (for example, I favour public referendums on many more topics of policy, like in Switzerland).

Nevertheless, as you and others point out, capitalism is an economic construct more than a political one, and it is in that context that the original post was intended. Feel free to go on a tangent!

I am not, of course, claiming that there are no poor people in germany, or inequality. Rather that no one saw the wall coming down as a bad thing. Because the move to a free, capitalist society was a positive end to the situation. Thus capitalism cannot be the total evil that was argued at the top of the thread.

Fideliney another questions is "can/could you run a healthy society". One could argue that all systems have their limitations and that they all have victims. Maybe capitalism is the best but still horrible and flawed.

Anyone see this www.bbc.com/news/business-27863656 about Starbucks sending people to online college?

It depends what you need a society to do.

No Humphry a FREE society was the positive - freedom was what people wanted and what everyone deserves

Capitalism requires people to be poor in order to have a pool of cheap labour and a supply of people willing to work in poor conditions - when society suggests this may be unfair they move to poor countries where, ironically, people have less freedom and less choice due to poverty - thus effectively restricting their freedom

I can agree with you on that gordy, of course a business should be run ethically. But unethically run businesses are the result of greed and bad practice rather than capitalism. My definition of the opposite of capitalism is communism or a truly socialist country - none of which has been good for the populations concerned. Being left wing in this country is not incompatible with capitalism.

I too am arguing for capitalism as an economic construct.

And capitalism requires a proportion of the population to be unemployed (and therefore on benefits, decried above). Full employment can only ever be achieved by socialist societies.

capitalism - as encouraged by Thatcher, was about getting rich, not caring how and destroying industry and communities in the name of profit - these things are capitalist - it may be a more extreme form - but then all us lefties aren't pro Stalin and longing for another cold war

but the freedom you mention is also an economic freedom, which inevitably means capitalism. There isn't a system that manages to be free and not capitalist, is there?

I could be missing something, I am very tired

And capitalism requires a proportion of the population to be unemployed (and therefore on benefits, decried above). Surely in pure capitalism, there could be no benefits. You don't work either someone chooses to support you (whether family, philanthropist or charity) or you starve to death. Great motivation to work hard and stay healthy.

Hunter-gatherer? Humphrey.

I too am tired and off to bed - I'll attempt to answer tomorrow if this cold hasn't killed me !

I would argue that those things are not inherently capitalist. I think we are just arguing over a difference of terms.

yay for hunter gatherers

Oh I'm not biting. longfingernails periodically comes on here spouting right-wing bollocks to try and wind people up.

Froth away lfg I'm watching football.

LastMinute I think this has been a delightful conversation so derailed nicely. Also, Humphrey is now off the 'first against the wall' list

yes if you ignore the goady bits it's an interesting discussion ...but I must sleep x

Sorry, people - got distracted between typing out post and actually posting. I can see it has moved on; just thought it was same old, same old.

The irony of your username!