Occupy London Stock Exchange may be an unrepresentative fringe group, but it entertains a very common myth: ‘There is more poverty today than ever before, and capitalism is making the poor poorer’. But even a cursory glance over the history of the past two centuries would tell you the exact opposite. Since the commercial, agricultural and industrial revolutions of the late Eighteenth to mid-Nineteenth centuries in Europe, the explosion of free exchange has transformed societies across the globe for the better.

The origins of these revolutions are unclear, but they all involved freedom of exchange; of trade, peoples, capital, and perhaps most importantly, of ideas. Because of this freedom, progress and innovation was unleashed on the world. Agricultural advances freed population growth from the wretched cycle of fertility and then famine. Freedom of trade, peoples and capital allowed mutual benefit to be gained from self-interest, with greater specialisation and division of labour creating the wealth and surplus needed to maintain rapidly expanding populations. And freedom of speech allowed ideas to develop and spread, leading to technological advances that would benefit all of humanity.

A culture of capitalism, based on entrepreneurship and investment, allowed this greater wealth to be put to use tearing down the old hierarchies and monopolies of privilege. For the first time, a worker could have time for the leisure and education previously reserved for the aristocracy. Capitalism has made the wonders of the washing machine, the mobile telephone, and the personal computer not only possible, but also affordable and available to entire populations. Through mutual, voluntary exchange as opposed to the predatory rent-seeking of feudal lords, absolute poverty has been eradicated on entire continents.

So why does the myth persist when free market capitalism has allowed the unprecedented situation we have now, when we are the furthest from the ‘99% versus 1%’ slogan than at any time in human history? Perhaps part of the answer lies in an obsession with money rather than happiness.

Free exchange occurs because both parties see a benefit to the trade, thus boosting the overall sum of human happiness; but by focusing on income inequalities alone, we can easily ignore the fact that we now all have the education to read this article, that I can afford a keyboard to type it, or that you can afford an internet connection to read it.

Instead of the prevailing stereotype, it is capitalism’s detractors that seem to be the ones obsessed with money.

But perhaps a simpler explanation is that we take it all for granted.

Being brought up in an already prosperous society means we are rarely, if ever, exposed to anything remotely like the experiences of our ancestors. Even capitalism’s fans would find it hard to imagine the awe that the simple light bulb would have struck in an Eighteenth Century farm labourer, accustomed to self-sufficiency. For the light bulb is anything but simple: it is the combined result of thousands if not millions of mutual exchanges, with no single person possessing the knowledge or ability to create it independently from scratch.

One solution may be to apply the Time-machine test: given the option of being born in any past century, and considering the risks of being born into the least fortunate family in it, which would you choose? If you’re smart, you would choose today, even despite the persistence of war, famine and coercion. It is worth noting that capitalism is no utopian panacea. If anything, its PR problem is how gradually and imperceptibly it works its wealth-creating magic, relying on a cycle of success, failure and adaptation. But it is the most progressive system we have collectively invented, and by its nature improves itself too. It should be defended at all costs from the urges of latter-day rent-seekers, luddites and politicians to restrict it. Here’s to economic freedom!

Why it?s important to defend capitalism today | | Independent Battle of Ideas Blogs

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Given the option of being born in any past century, and considering the risks of being born into the least fortunate family in it, which would you choose? If you’re smart, you would choose today, even despite the persistence of war, famine and coercion.

No - Unless you include China and India as potential. But, in the West, I'd say the 50s or 60s were the best. Our parents' generation. Even if you were female. If you were, say, 10 in 1968, then, you'd have missed most of the aggravated sexism and got most of the benefits of feminism. And that's the problem. Things were actively better in the 60s than now. Given that progress hasn't stop, this is ridiculous.

As to the rest, given that Marx makes one of the most poetic defense of the transformative powers of capitalism, that's not really going to help with the 'anti-capitalist' fringe...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

But even a cursory glance over the history of the past two centuries would tell you the exact opposite.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, that's a very narrow historical range from which to draw the analogy. And any improvements which might be visible in the capitalism of 2011 over the capitalism of 1811 are due to the deliberate restraint of capitalism becuase it was recognised to be impiverishing the majority.

Quote:

The origins of these revolutions are unclear

Lol.

Quote:

, but they all involved freedom of exchange; of trade, peoples, capital, and perhaps most importantly, of ideas.

Except where land was increasingly enclosed, with rural populations dispersed, often at gunpoint, to take up lives of wretched, labour-selling poverty in the cities. Nor is the fate of those on the receiving end of capitalist Imperialism considered, the benighted inhabitants of other lands not really being people at all.

The fact that this coercive reality is ignored in peaens to capitalism like this demonstrates how ideological, historically ignorant, and class biased they are, with the mass of the population literally written out of history.

Quote:

Agricultural advances freed population growth from the wretched cycle of fertility and then famine.

And here, typically, technical progress is costrued as being the exclusive property of capitalism.

Quote:

A culture of capitalism, based on entrepreneurship and investment,

Expropriation and extortion, more accurately.

Quote:

For the first time, a worker could have time for the leisure and education previously reserved for the aristocracy.

Come back, dark satanic mills, all is forgiven.

Quote:

Capitalism has made the wonders of the washing machine, the mobile telephone, and the personal computer not only possible, but also affordable and available to entire populations.

No, SCIENCE did that.

Quote:

So why does the myth persist when free market capitalism has allowed the unprecedented situation we have now, when we are the furthest from the ‘99% versus 1%’ slogan than at any time in human history? Perhaps part of the answer lies in an obsession with money rather than happiness.

No, the answer lies in the fact that you're an ignorant cretin make utterly unsuopportable claims. considering that for the vast bulk of human history, wealth could not be concentrated and therefore transferred, this is manifestly untrue. Even many feudal pesants lived with a much better distribution of wealth than we do, becuase they owned productive apparatus. This is an arghment that can only be advanced by someone with a gross ignorance of reak history.

Quote:

Free exchange occurs because both parties see a benefit to the trade, thus boosting the overall sum of human happiness; but by focusing on income inequalities alone, we can easily ignore the fact that we now all have the education to read this article, that I can afford a keyboard to type it, or that you can afford an internet connection to read it.

But only becuase the cost of production fell, not becuase we control a greater share of the wealthm and keeping that cost down requires paying low wages and keeping people poor. We just don't do that HERE anymore, too much, we have those afore-mentioned benighted foreigners do the dying for us.

Quote:

But perhaps a simpler explanation is that we take it all for granted.

Excellent, an appeal to alleged psychology rather than physical fact. Typical of the romantic idealogue.

This is a shamefully poor argument, really simplisitic and traditional stuff, all the more useless because it is precisely this faulty analysis which anti-capitalist protestors have, by definition, ALREADY REJECTED AS FAULTY. And rightly so.

To be, as Zichao said, ever the reasonable chap...

Originally Posted by contracycle

And any improvements which might be visible in the capitalism of 2011 over the capitalism of 1811 are due to the deliberate restraint of capitalism becuase it was recognised to be impiverishing the majority.

Restraint of capitalism is part of capitalism. I always thought that your ardent interest in defining capitalism only as the capitalist banditry we sometimes suffer from is a bit... suspicious and ideologically driven.

Quote:

And here, typically, technical progress is construed as being the exclusive property of capitalism.

Mostly because it has been? Where was the major technological advances of the USSR and China? Sure, they managed some. But the West was and is beating them hand down, especially as soon as you look at consumer goods.

Quote:

No, SCIENCE did that.

And science tend to work better in various capitalist models. We already saw how the Romans, the medieval Chinese stifled technological progress.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Even if that were true, which it isn't, that's a very narrow historical range from which to draw the analogy. And any improvements which might be visible in the capitalism of 2011 over the capitalism of 1811 are due to the deliberate restraint of capitalism becuase it was recognised to be impiverishing the majority.

No one said anything about having no restraints. A little sugar in your tea is nice. A cup full of nothing but sugar'll make you horribly sick.

Quote:

Except where land was increasingly enclosed, with rural populations dispersed, often at gunpoint, to take up lives of wretched, labour-selling poverty in the cities. Nor is the fate of those on the receiving end of capitalist Imperialism considered, the benighted inhabitants of other lands not really being people at all. The fact that this coercive reality is ignored in peaens to capitalism like this demonstrates how ideological, historically ignorant, and class biased they are, with the mass of the population literally written out of history.

Yeah, sucks for those guys, but I bet they'd be happy that their descendents have hot and cold running water and no rickets.

Quote:

No, SCIENCE did that.

No, scientists who were being paid for patents that were their property did it.

Quote:

No, the answer lies in the fact that you're an ignorant cretin make utterly unsuopportable claims. considering that for the vast bulk of human history, wealth could not be concentrated and therefore transferred, this is manifestly untrue. Even many feudal pesants lived with a much better distribution of wealth than we do, becuase they owned productive apparatus. This is an arghment that can only be advanced by someone with a gross ignorance of reak history.

Well forgive me for being entirely unthrilled by the prospect of owning my own wooden plough, but I'd still rather have a widescreen tv and endure the knowledge that my horrible, downtrodden existence is of bother to you.

Quote:

But only becuase the cost of production fell, not becuase we control a greater share of the wealthm and keeping that cost down requires paying low wages and keeping people poor. We just don't do that HERE anymore, too much, we have those afore-mentioned benighted foreigners do the dying for us.

Oh please, as if the European left gives the tinest little shit about third world workers. All it wants is the possiblity to go on borrowing the money that their governments have made from them to fund our own bloated public services.

Holier-than-thou hypocrites.

Quote:

Excellent, an appeal to alleged psychology rather than physical fact. Typical of the romantic idealogue.

When was the last time you were thankful for the existence of electric lights?

Quote:

This is a shamefully poor argument, really simplisitic and traditional stuff, all the more useless because it is precisely this faulty analysis which anti-capitalist protestors have, by definition, ALREADY REJECTED AS FAULTY. And rightly so.

Well hey, if a bunch of white students with dreadlocks don't like it...

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Restraint of capitalism is part of capitalism. I always thought that your ardent interest in defining capitalism only as the capitalist banditry we sometimes suffer from is a bit... suspicious and ideologically driven.

you;re just prioviliging your own view as if it were truth. If it WERE truth, then it would happen automatically, in the same way that concentrations of capital arise from the system automatically. It does not, and so it is not.

Quote:

Mostly because it has been? Where was the major technological advances of the USSR and China? Sure, they managed some. But the West was and is beating them hand down, especially as soon as you look at consumer goods.

Nonsense. It is far more accurate to say that capitalism required a certain technical platform to operate. We discovered plenty of things in the 200,000 years of human existence, and some tools are even pre-human.

Yes, I do not dispute that capitalism does push technical innovation - but to draw this strong causal relationship is fictitious.

Quote:

And science tend to work better in various capitalist models. We already saw how the Romans, the medieval Chinese stifled technological progress.

Pre-capitalist societies are pre-capitalist SHOCKA. There is plenty of argument to be made that technical invention is cumulative and accelerating on its own account. It is fallacious to claim that this is inherently, automatically and exclusively, or even primarily, due to capitalism as such.

Originally Posted by contracycle

you;re just prioviliging your own view as if it were truth. If it WERE truth, then it would happen automatically, in the same way that concentrations of capital arise from the system automatically.

Nothing happens 'automatically'. It's all down to the institutions. The decision to gut unions and leave workers defenseless in the face of international competition is a decision as conscious as any other institution building - such as the courts enforcing property rights.

Quote:

Nonsense. It is far more accurate to say that capitalism required a certain technical platform to operate. We discovered plenty of things in the 200,000 years of human existence, and some tools are even pre-human.

Sure. But it was pretty slow going before capitalism...

Quote:

Yes, I do not dispute that capitalism does push technical innovation - but to draw this strong causal relationship is fictitious.

If it pushes for it, there is a causal relationship.

Quote:

Pre-capitalist societies are pre-capitalist SHOCKA. There is plenty of argument to be made that technical invention is cumulative and accelerating on its own account.

So that's a contradiction right there. Romans/Chinese chose institutions which stopped innovation. They chose. Technological innovation is certainly cumulative and accelerating - But, like everything human, you can stop that 'natural' process. As it was, time and again. Not so in capitalism.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

No one said anything about having no restraints. A little sugar in your tea is nice. A cup full of nothing but sugar'll make you horribly sick.

That's simply illogical. If unretsrained capitalism produces bad results, which it does, ad you have to limit and restrain to have results that are at least liviable, it's a complete nonsense to cl;aim that capitalism is the source of your success. It's like claiming tyhat imposing speed limits on roads which reduce fataltiies demonstrate the virtues of high speed. Total gibberish.

Quote:

Yeah, sucks for those guys, but I bet they'd be happy that their descendents have hot and cold running water and no rickets.

Except for all those who were worked to death as children and didn't get to have dsescendents.

Quote:

No, scientists who were being paid for patents that were their property did it.

Who owns the patent on the bow, the first machine humans invented? This is post facto apologetics.

Quote:

Well forgive me for being entirely unthrilled by the prospect of owning my own wooden plough, but I'd still rather have a widescreen tv and endure the knowledge that my horrible, downtrodden existence is of bother to you.

No doubt, but this is just another example of your resort to undue literalism in order to avopid having to face the point. If you owned today as large a share of ther social production as a peasant did who owned a plow, you'd have a great deal more physical possesions than just a TV.

Quote:

Oh please, as if the European left gives the tinest little shit about third world workers. All it wants is the possiblity to go on borrowing the money that their governments have made from them to fund our own bloated public services. Holier-than-thou hypocrites.

Self-regarding ignorance and projection.

Quote:

When was the last time you were thankful for the existence of electric lights?

Every time I'm in the dark?

Quote:

Well hey, if a bunch of white students with dreadlocks don't like it...

An excellent case of stereotype rather than reality. Those blinkers are really superglued on, aren't they?

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Nothing happens 'automatically'. It's all down to the institutions. The decision to gut unions and leave workers defenseless in the face of international competition is a decision as conscious as any other institution building - such as the courts enforcing property rights.

Irrelevent. I've always agreed that capitalism can be moderated, but the claim that institutions like unions are in any sense "automatic" as a proeprty of capitalism is clear nonsense.

Quote:

Sure. But it was pretty slow going before capitalism...

Becuase it's an asymptotic curve. As the quantity of inventions increases the rage of potential new inventions rises by the square.

Quote:

If it pushes for it, there is a causal relationship.

There is SOME relationship, but niot an inherent and exclusive one. Capitalism can in no sense claim to be THE driver of new tech.

Quote:

So that's a contradiction right there. Romans/Chinese chose institutions which stopped innovation. They chose. Technological innovation is certainly cumulative and accelerating - But, like everything human, you can stop that 'natural' process. As it was, time and again. Not so in capitalism.

But capitlism chooses to ignore science, as in the case of environmentalism, if it is contrary to the interests of capitalists. So yes, the same does occur, becuase they are all class based systems in which preserving the ruling elite is more important than preserving the society itself.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Irrelevent. I've always agreed that capitalism can be moderated, but the claim that institutions like unions are in any sense "automatic" as a property of capitalism is clear nonsense.

I know you're responding to 2 people at once but my point was that nothing is automatic. Even 'concentration of capital' is not a natural occurrence - it occurs because we organise things in a certain way. Nothing is 'natural' when it comes to societal organisation, as you often points out.

Quote:

Because it's an asymptotic curve. As the quantity of inventions increases the rage of potential new inventions rises by the square.

Yes, I am aware. Moore's Law, basically. But my point is that the Chinese/Romans could have had a lot more progress and they chose not to. And that's the simple truth.

Quote:

There is SOME relationship, but not an inherent and exclusive one. Capitalism can in no sense claim to be THE driver of new tech.

Well, it's a bit like Churchill's claim that democracy is the worst system except for all the others. Capitalism does technology better than any other system ever experienced but maybe there is a not-invented-yet, never-seen-before system that would do it even better...

Quote:

But capitlism chooses to ignore science, as in the case of environmentalism, if it is contrary to the interests of capitalists.

What would you like "Capitalism" to do about the environment? It's a society wide issue.

Originally Posted by contracycle

That's simply illogical. If unrestrained capitalism produces bad results, which it does, ad you have to limit and restrain to have results that are at least liviable, it's a complete nonsense to claim that capitalism is the source of your success.

Again and again - Swedish taxes are as much "capitalism" than the US lack of regulation...

Quote:

It's like claiming tyhat imposing speed limits on roads which reduce fataltiies demonstrate the virtues of high speed. Total gibberish.

But capitalism isn't high speed in your example. It's the road/car combo. What you do with the road/car is still up for you to decide. High speed is one way, with the associated costs and benefits. Speed limits, with the associated costs and benefits, are another.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.