Anti-Capitalism... what does it mean?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It can't be just me that keeps seeing 'anti-capitalism' referenced but doesn't understand what it means in practice. To me, any system that involves individuals buying and selling goods is capitalism so, short of going back to a system of barter and exchange, I'm not sure that's what's being proposed. Is it the socialist model of placing all businesses and utilities in public ownership perhaps ... a sort of Chinese style state-sponsored capitalism rather than no capitalism? If it's the kind of capitalism of international financiers buying and selling money that's the bete noire is the proposal that, to prevent speculation, we deposit our money (assuming we still have money, that is) in a bank and they keep it in a nice box, never touch it and give it back when we ask? The end of loans? Interest? Investments?

So that's the discussion point. Please... no links to great long internet passages by way of explanation. Laymans terms thanks. :)

I think you're right first time Cogito. Capitalism is merely the exchanging of goods and services for money.

Money, in turn, is just deferred labour. In other words, if my labour is valued at £10 per hour and I buy something worth £5, I am exchanging half an hour of my labour for whatever it is that I'm buying.

In a capitalist world everything has value. The value is the highest price that anyone is prepared to pay for it. If the cost of producing the item is higher than the value that someone will pay for it, you will go bust.

Any attempt to buck these rules requires various stages of madness, delusion and, in extremis, an uncomfortably large pile of dead bodies - see Communism, Maoism, Fascism etc...

There are obviously other economic theories such as communism, marxism, and socialism.

The problem is none of them work as well as capitalism. Is it perfect? No. If there was something better, I'd be all for it.

The problem with the protestors is they're protesting like there's an alternative. They want change but they've no idea what change they want.

They cannot define what's better, they just know they want it and that it must be some conspiracy by the rich as to why they're not rich.

It makes me laugh that the only change the Occupy London movement has been able to do is make St Paul's chancellor resign and cause massive losses to the church. This is what happens when you protest with no clue about what you are protesting about. Ie. the law of unintended consequences.

How can so much wrongheadedness reside in one internet forum?

The swathes of rightwingers on here get to dominate proceedings because the reasonable, left leaning, logical ones get worn down by the sheer bloodymindedness on display.

You can't define anti capitalism without defining capitalism and the definitions here are well off the mark. Capitalism is an economic system that places profit above all else. It's (to paraphrase a great mind) a tiger chasing and then consuming itself tail first. Anti that? Who wouldn't be?

So your definition of 'anti-capitalism' means 'no profits'? Cost-covering only? Try to resist your usual gibberish. I'm genuinely interested in what 'anti-capitalism' is supposed to stand for.

Is this where the 'joke' is wheeled out about 2 cows and milk production??

Capitalism - are we talking about 'Wealth of Nations' and founder of modern economics Adam Smith??

You won't get an answer Cogito because Glasnost doesn't have one.

Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth, in order for the few to get rich the majority must suffer, getting rich off the back of the workers that kind of thing.

Thats what Anti-Capitalists are against, it would be fine if capitalism really meant opportunities for all but we know it doesn't, we know you will die in the class you are born in and the 10% that rule this country (1% in the US) have been in that position for many years and interbreed amongst themselves.

But isn't anti-capitalism rallies just farting against thunder??

Really, if you are wealthy you have the ear of the govt and the means to change things to your advantage - it isn't rocket science - don't call it anti-capitalism because it isn't!

aren't not isn't

So anti-capitalism is 'no profits' and 'stop the accumulation of wealth'... is that any closer? And, if so, how do we abolish wealth?

The real success of the capitalist system is that people have been convinced it is the only system. It is completely normalised.

It's not the only system at all. But history shows, it seems to be the one which works best. Perfect, no. I've said before that i think Capitalism is extremely wasteful.

In all the countries in the world, which have prospered and which have not?

1. USA
2. China
3. Japan

China was an absolute bag of nails when it was running a communist style controlled economy. Look at what's happened in the last 25 years since they adopted capitalism? They've gone from nowhere to the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Name one successful country using any other system. Erm.... Cuba? North Korea?

Yes, some people are very very rich as a result of capitalism. And the concept of trickle down economics is hard for some people to stomach but let's ask a very simple question. Where would you prefer to be poor? In a western capitalist economy, or in Cuba/North Korea?

Normalised because it's been going since ancient times, surely? All those Roman coins that turn up from 2000+ years ago a proof that people bought and sold things then, accumulated wealth, made profits etc. On the few occasions when a non-capitalist system has been introduced into a society it still strikes through in the form of racketeering and black-marketeering. It's obviously a strong urge in the human psyche. Is it less that we're convinced by capitalism, more that we've evolved to accumulate?...

contemporary anticapitalism is anti neoliberalism, afaics. It's against the type of capitalism-on-coke model as espoused by Milton Friedman mid century, and really took off with Thatcher & Reagonomics. Main features privatise everything, deregulate everything, the market rules. If it can be commodified, it should be commodified. Economies grow but very very unevenly, wealth gets concentrated at the top much faster than under classical capitalism. That's my understanding anyway - I guess I'm just an old fashioned Keynsian/social democrat at heart

I don't think the "anti-capitalists" are against money - that would be a bit extreme.

Some would be happy with redistributive socialism. i.e keep the capitalism pretty much as it is, but seriously up the income tax rate for those on higher incomes.

Some would prefer ownership of 'capital' (companies) was given to 'the workers'.

Some that the state should have a much greater role to play in business. (not those of us who vaguely remember the 70's, of course)

Would it be on a global scale?

Because UK is a very, very rich country. So if global capitalism is a bad thing, then the redistribution will logically also need to be between nations.

The cost of the bailout of the Eurozone will be a fraction of the amount UK would need to lay out to (currently) poorer nations.

All neoliberalism seems to be to me (and I'm prepared to be corrected) is a watered-down version of how the Victorians operated. I'd call their version 'classical capitalism' because it relied solely upon the goodwill of charitable foundations to act as safety-net for health, education and welfare. Very like today's US model, in fact, and I can understand why that model breeds resentment. Whereas in countries with a socialist tradition ie. Western Europe, there is a good provision for welfare, health-care, education. As long as anyone with money supports that provision by paying their taxes, does it matter how much money they retain?

Is 'anti-capitalism' in a European context therefore the old 'redistribution of wealth'?

Good point Meditrina. I suspect on a global scale pretty much everyone in the UK would be the in top 1% income wise.

but seriously up the income tax rate for those on higher incomes.

But why? Personally I'm in favour of a flat tax with a high tax free allowance. Those on higher incomes will simply pay more by virtue of the fact they earn more. Those on lower incomes are protected by the tax free allowance.

Having a higher rate for higher earners simply discourages enterprise and unless applied on a global scale, encourages the very best & brightest to leave our shores. The very thing you need for a successful economy.

Isn't it better to ask what a successful economy is, and what is the point of it? I wonder if China's boom has improved the lives of the majority of its people? Our economy seems to be all about 'growth' as far as I can work out. The inevitable endpoint of continuing economic growth is that we will continue to but unnecessary tat that doesn't make us any happier and eventually run out of resources. And our 'successful economy' is at least partly based on very cheap labour overseas, pushing down prices for farmers etc. It's all about how cheap you can get something rather than what it is actually worth. So what's so good about growth and cheap goods?

It's interesting that the 'happiest' countries seem to be the Nordic ones AFAIK you pay high taxes and the state provides excellent services.

'And, if so, how do we abolish wealth?'

Vote for a party that leaves notes saying "sorry, there's no money left"?

'So if global capitalism is a bad thing, then the redistribution will logically also need to be between nations.
The cost of the bailout of the Eurozone will be a fraction of the amount UK would need to lay out to (currently) poorer nations.'

Thye've thought of that. It's called "climate adaptation"

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8248474.stm

'Climate adaptation' is a euphemism for "sorry, there's no money left"

"wonder if China's boom has improved the lives of the majority of its people"

It's not so much the 'capitalism' but the democracy which comes with it. They are free to travel and to aspire to a better life outside their village. They have more access to the internet, TV and other media. They can demand better education for their children, better rights for women and, some cantons are rejecting the 'one child' policy.

It's not all good though. Choice and autonomy brings stress and pressure to work hard. The aspirational young are leaving their villages and this causes community and family breakdown.

Also - are the Nordic people happy because they are socialists or are they socialists coz they are basically happy in nature?

The public have been asked to bail the banks out, because we were told they were "too big to fail".

The public will be asked to bail the planet out, because they will be told it is "too big to fail" and time is running out, "we only have 50 days left to save the planet".

It is all to do with redistribution of the public's wealth.