Has Capitalism Met the Marxist Utopia?

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

Is that true of all capitalist countries for instance is South Africa a capitalist country.

Not really. The ANC was always a communist party and there is no way that apartheid was a Capitalist creed.

Capitalism delivers by giving citizens GDP growth (pretty much) year after year after year.

Ticking a Capitalism box isn't going to deliver riches for all in a year. Being a basically capitalist country for decades and centuries will deliver incremental compounded gains that will pay off massively in the end.

ukcarper

Although I agree capitalism has been more successful than communism in improving the conditions of the poor I'm not convinced it would be the case without the restraining influence of non capitalists.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Although I agree capitalism has been more successful than communism in improving the conditions of the poor I'm not convinced it would be the case without the restraining influence of non capitalists.

From a Marxist perspective, communism and capitalism are not alternatives. Capitalism is simply the stage in human history that lies between feudalism and communism; you have to work your way through capitalism in order to get to communism.

There is no state capitalist short cut.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Which is exactly what, in a strict Marxist sense, capitalism is supposed to do. Capitalism is supposed to vastly increase the productive forces of society until it collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Basically, capitalism is supposed to end up producing so much stuff, that they can't actually sell all the stuff.

And then you get socialism.

From where did capitalism actually derive? In any civilisation once someone decides that they own something (a cave? a cow?) they cease to behave in the common good or the collective interest and so impose their will on others? Surely capitalism is simply an evolution of this process based on greed and self interest?

Are you saying that socialism is the natural end state of any civilisation and that capitalism is a transitory process along the way?

Thrugelmir

shortchanged wrote: »

I was watching a party political broadcast by the trade union party and was gobsmacked at a statement they made stating that the 5 richest familes in the UK have more wealth than the bottom 20%. Seriously, what a ridiculous situation.

Given that property is most peoples largest asset. Hardly surprising.
If these families own companies that employ people and therefore enable them to earn an income. Then is it such an issue?

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I was saying to someone the other day, how did it damage the NHS if someone was treated in a private hospital or clinic, as long as it was not based on ability to pay?

This was brought about in a discussion of my husband's recent operation on his hand, and ongoing treatment, at a private hospital to which he was referred by our GP. As long as this option is open to all and you don't have to pay, what is the problem?

It's to me the same as Eton sharing their playing fields with the nearby State School (which they indeed do). More choices for everybody.

I've always thought one of the problems with private hospitals is that they don't train nurses and doctors (at least I don't think they do) At the moment there is supposed to be a terrible shortage of nurses, their training is paid for by the NHS, they get NHS bursaries. I think if private hospitals recruit them they should pay something towards what it has cost the NHS. I assume the same goes for other health care worers, physios etc.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Given that property is most peoples largest asset. Hardly surprising.
If these families own companies that employ people and therefore enable them to earn an income. Then is it such an issue?

The question is if. But I must agree the wealth statement is fairly meaningless, as you say property is most peoples largest asset and with about 40% not owning the lowest 20% must have very little wealth.

CLAPTON

mumps wrote: »

I've always thought one of the problems with private hospitals is that they don't train nurses and doctors (at least I don't think they do) At the moment there is supposed to be a terrible shortage of nurses, their training is paid for by the NHS, they get NHS bursaries. I think if private hospitals recruit them they should pay something towards what it has cost the NHS. I assume the same goes for other health care worers, physios etc.

the tax payer trains and educates most people for most careers (all except the much praised privately educated)

there is no terrible shortage of nurses : where did you hear that from?

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

the tax payer trains and educates most people for most careers (all except the much praised privately educated)

there is no terrible shortage of nurses : where did you hear that from?

Does it, it educates people but it doesn't train most people.

The NHS relies heaverly relies on foreign nurses.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

From where did capitalism actually derive? In any civilisation once someone decides that they own something (a cave? a cow?) they cease to behave in the common good or the collective interest and so impose their will on others? Surely capitalism is simply an evolution of this process based on greed and self interest?

It's the mode of production that drives the evolution of economic relations. Greed and self interest is the result of capitalism, not the cause.

BobQ wrote: »

...Are you saying that socialism is the natural end state of any civilisation and that capitalism is a transitory process along the way?

I'm telling you that is what Marxism says.