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. :)

Newsnight is showing what the anticapitalists want us to eat in the future. Environmentally friendly food - ants, bees, beetles, locusts. They are starting to ramp up the green propaganda for it. Do you think the leading green aristocrats will stop eating chicken and beef and start to nosh on ants?

I think you will find that a majority of the "green movement" are vegetarians not all I grant you.

As for what we eat I think you will find that many "foods" we would find strange are common in other societies, for example baked locusts are considered a delicacy in parts of the far east and grubs are eaten by many African tribes and the Australian aborigines.
Try not being so parochial.

Yes, Newsnight tested it in the streets. The people weren't keen on it. But they'll grow to love it. The greens and Newsnight will keep the pressure on.

The greens and Newsnight will keep the pressure on.

And of course the "greens" and Newsnight have the political authority and the influence to "force" people to eat what they decide.

Are you on some elaborate wind up or are you truly this paranoid and deluded. If the truly believe what you post I would urge you to seek medical help.

"you"

I am a doctor.

I suspect that maybe youre not.

Anyway I have spent 12 hours at work today working on a new project/tender for a major client and I sadly suspect I will be doing the same tommorow and Saturday so good night.

In the end most of us are part of the capitalist rat race.

Good night

"Gibberish" OP is your OP. You can't start a complex thread like this getting the definition of capitalism so wrong in such an offhand manner, almost enpassant. If you didn't get my tiger Marx citation you should really study harder before being so rude and dismissive.

This has become a bit narrow, if we are considering only 60-70 million people.

The global population is at about 7 billion. Most of them live on under $10k per year. Many of far less.

This protest is about global capitalisation.

This means global justice and redistribution (or "they" will just shift the problem and shaft some others).

So that would mean punitive taxes on everything over about £10-12k, with the revenue going to a much reinforced DfID, until the inequalities between people, wherever they are living, have been eliminated or at least made tolerable.

Tinkering with the internal systems of one of the richest countries in the world isn't going to make a difference to anything - it's shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.

Any consensus then on what 'anti-capitalism' means? Is it simply 'socialism'?

Newave most of the green movement are NOT vegetarians. They are mainly hypocrites. :(

If all money over 10-12k would be taxed and taken off people, nobody would bother to take on the high stress jobs that require lengthy education, or have the capital to start a new business.

we might not have surgeons and specialists, or teachers, vets, policemen, or even successful businessmen and women. Why set up a business if you can't keep the profit? trouble is, without people setting up businesses end enterprises, there will be a lot fewer jobs.

have any of you ever visited behind the iron curtain? I have twice, in the 80s, and it was a culture of fear, no freedom, suppression.

ideal?!

how quickly people forget...

I never visited Iron Curtain countries, I preferred to visit capitalist Mallorca.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Many people have already forgotten the notorious note which said "sorry, there's no money left".

Chandon surely we could get talented medics to work for £60k pa?
I don't buy that we wouldn't get anyone talented into medicine unless we pay £100k plus pa
Ironically we might even get medics motivated more by doing good than by becoming rich if we paid them less, which would surely be a good thing?

"medics motivated more by doing good"

Most 'medics' are motivated by doing good, saving lives, advancing knowledge etc. But they spend 5 years+ at medical school and should expect some return on that investment. Kind words butter no parsnips and all that. If we're happy to pay a man £200,000/week to kick a football (reading the Tevez fine story today) why is it so wrong to pay someone £200,000 a year to save lives?

I can't believe the poorly thought through gibberish present on some of these posts. Consider this, we are up financial shit creek without a paddle at the moment but in a few years time, things will be back to normal. We, as individuals, may find ourselves less well off compared to where we were in 2007 but we will still be richer, still be freer, and still be miles better off than a North Korean or a Cuban.

Capitalism has delivered us untold wealth. Many houses now have washing machines, tumble driers, flat screen TV's, PC's, dishwashers etc. My parents, who married in the 70's, didn't have basic luxuries that we now take for granted, never had foreign holidays or two cars on their drive. To our generation, this may seem a little ostentatious but, by no means, is it an unrealistic list.

And so what if the likes of Richard Branson make more money than you do? He probably works harder than you do and his businesses support thousands of families who work for his companies as well as those who claim benefit, paid in part by the taxes his businesses pay. He had an idea, got some money together and put his cock on the block. For him it worked out - why shouldn't he be allowed to enjoy his wealth?

What about Tesco's CEO Sir Terry Leahy - he went from shelf stacker to big cheese and in the process turned Tesco's from being just another British supermarket into the 3rd biggest retailer on the planet and becoming one of the UK's biggest employers. Yet, listening to the utter twaddle elsewhere on this topic, his pay should have been capped at the same level as the CEO of Woolworths (200x lowest workers pay = 200x minimum wage).

Funnily enough, we have a couple of real world experiments where we can easily see what happens when a country abandons capitalism.

East Germany vs. West Germany - no contest, WIN for capitalism. For example BMW and Mercedes vs. the Trabant.

North Korea vs. South Korea - no contest WIN for capitalism. Samsung, Hyundai and LG vs. massed starvation and a bullet in the head.

Cuba vs. Spain (Both countries had similar GDP prior to Castro) - no contest, WIN for capitalism. When American refugees start turning up on the shore of Cuba in anything like the numbers going the other way, I'll change my mind.

So sorry for the long post but although capitalism in its current form isn't perfect, I'd take it any day over the alternatives.

The current system is broken. Free Market Capitalism just exports well paid manufacturing jobs to those countries with the lowest pay. Trickle Down doesn't work at all. I read somewhere that a stockbroker earning close to £750k was paying less tax than his cleaner who earned less than £15k. How is that fair? I have no problem with people getting paid megabucks, but at least let's have a system where taxes are fair, and where people actually pay tax on what they earn. Close the tax avoiding loopholes.
Just seen on the news: executive pay has gone up 49% this last year. How many ordinary workers can say the same? So, Condomman and Gideon, explain to me about "fairness" and "we're all in this together".

" read somewhere that a stockbroker earning close to £750k was paying less tax than his cleaner who earned less than £15k. How is that fair?"

It wouldn't be fair if it was true, but it isn't... A stockbroker earning £750k in PAYE (ignoring any performance-related share options or similar) would pay about £364,000 in tax and NI. A cleaner earning £15k PAYE would only pay about £2700 in tax and NI.

Things that make me uncomfortable with the current system are:

• directors pay increasing 50% last year while average salaries rose just 3.2% - ever increasing concentration of wealth in the few. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

• the hybrid model which allows banks to take their profits but doesn't allow them to fail. Either we should let banks fail, with all the short-term pain that causes (but quicker turnaround long term) or we should have a system which more closely regulates the banks and prevents them taking extreme risks. But, of course, until we pay our regulators what the bankers get paid, the bankers will always be one step ahead...

• the assumption that growth is good. Yes, we have more flat screen TVs and freezers per head than ever before but as a nation we measure miserably in the happiness stakes. We need to rethink the definition of success. Greater social mobility, less social inequality, job security, a good health system etc tend to be things that make (more of) the population happier on average.

A more regulated society, with greater emphasis on education, health and reducing poverty might lead to slower growth but if it evens out the 'boom and bust' cycles of capitalism then I'm all for it.

It's very easy to say "allow banks to fail", but it's your money they're working with. Just because it doesn't say Goldman Sachs on your Visa card or UBS on your chequebook, doesn't mean those banks are nothing to do with you.

I agree ninedragons - that's why my vote is for a more regulated society where banks aren't allowed to either fail or take excessive risks.

But I do think those who preach the benefits of capitalism also need to accept the busts too.

Capitalism is a system based on the private owership of the means of producing wealth (factories, machinery , raw materials etc), competition between producers and the exploitation of labour power (workers) to create profits, yes?

Anti-capitalism is not a very precise term, it's quite broad. It could mean socialism or anarchism and some who describe themselves as anti-capitalist are actually reformist (ie think capitalism can gradually be made into a better system. It can't.) End of thread.

We'll decide when the thread ends...

"I do think those who preach the benefits of capitalism also need to accept the busts too". Well indeed; sadly there are those who suffer more in the 'busts' than others. The older you are the more you suffer. I'll still personally take capitalism over the alternatives I think. Have a lot of sympathy with anti-corporatism (and indeed ScroobiousPip's 'more regulated society' re the banks) rather than a pure anti-capitalism.

Re the medic and the footballer, I am not happy to be part of a society that values footballers at £200k per week.

I also don't think that we need to pay consultants £100k plus "to recognise their years at med school" - I think £60k would recognise that. If they're in it for the money and £60k doesn't cut it then let them leave the profession.

Re the stockbroker and his cleaner and who pays the most tax - well clearly the point is that they don't both pay PAYE - the stockbroker has the money to avoid taxation via loopholes in the system

I don't believe that Richard Branson works any harder than many people who will never earn more than £30k pa

A society with a high percentage of flat screen TV ownership as compared to cathode ray tube TV ownership is not by definition either richer or better to live in so the measure of ownership of technology is ludicrously simplistic. We have smaller houses and smaller gardens then the previous generation. Housing and fuel costs are astronomic. We typically need to have both parents earning whether they like it or not, we have increasingly less to offer our young people. Life expectation is expected to fall largely due to obesity. We have sold our school playing fields in the name of technology, kids are not allowed to play out, but its OK because kids now have TVs in their own rooms and xboxes and nintendo DSs and ipods.

There is much wrong with our society and the gap between rich and poor is too wide and getting wider. I for one am glad that there are voices of dissent in our midst.