Do we have any faith in the Capitalist system anymore?
We have been using it for so long and it has developed us into a consumer based economy. We now put commodities on a pedestal, almost worshiping what is placed in front of us. There is a disconnect between what we see as a finished product and the work that is put into making it. We don't care if our shoes have been made in sweat shops in Thailand or Bangladesh. There seems to be no consideration of this and we just continue on buying all of these things. As a society based solely on making money I feel like we don't really care as much anymore.
Now I am a firm believer in capitalism believe it or not. These ideas were brought up in a sociology class that I was a part of, and I always ended up being the devil's advocate for capitalism. I think that the benefits outweigh the negative aspects, and in addition I don't see any reasonable alternative that is in use in the world at present.
My question now is what are your thoughts on the capitalist system? I know it's not perfect and we thrive on a money culture, but what else can we do? Other systems are rife with corruption and anarchism is just stupid.
Link to Karl Marx's Commodity Fetishism idea: https://umdrive.memphis.edu/basmyth/public/PHIL%208030%20--%...
"and in addition I don't see any reasonable alternative that is in use in the world at present" This. Unless the critics of capitalism propose a viable realistic alternative that does not contain equivalent or even worse problems, I dont think they have much of a point. And I think most problems they talk about can be fixed or at least greatly mitigated by sensible laws and regulations. And if such regulations dont get implemented, its more of a governmental problem than private sector problem.
Well, I think understanding a problem is distinct from solving a problem. You have to do the first before you can begin doing the second. And critics are trying to do the first, first. However, there are many non-market economic systems which have been used in the past, all of which seem to have worked quite well. I think we could learn from them: - Substantivist Economic Theory
- Reciprocitic Economies
- Gift Economies
- The Potlatch
- The Vertical Archipelago
- Syndicalism And that's just from a quick browse though Wikipedia. Cultural anthropologists and historians could probably describe many more non-market systems, any of which could have lessons for us.Unless the critics of capitalism propose a viable realistic alternative that does not contain equivalent or even worse problems, I dont think they have much of a point.
Could you perhaps explain some of those economic systems you posted? I did some research and I'm not sure what I found makes sense. Here's the gist of what I found for each one: --Substantivist Economic Theory--
What I've read seems to suggest that substantivism only provides a new definition for economics. The previous definition of economics could only apply to market economies, and substantivism modifies the definition so it can apply to non-market economies as well. It seems to be less of an economic system and more of a lens that we can view economic systems through. --Reciprocitic Economies--
These economies are characterized by the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value with the expectation that it'll balance out in the end. --Gift Economies--
Where goods and services are given away with no promise of immediate or future rewards or gains. An example of this would be among communities that develop open-source software. --The Polatch--
A gift-giving festival celebrated by the the indigenous people of the Northwest Pacific Coast based on a gift economy (I think?). The idea is to redistribute wealth. --The Vertical Archipelago--
To understand this, it's important to note that the Andean environment varies greatly in altitude within very short distances. So imagine it as being a series of steps or levels with specific resources in each, all of which are rather close to each other. This refers to the process where some people in one step or level will live in another step or level to trade with each other, allowing for everyone to have access to a bit of everything. Essentially, it's a method created to overcome the difficult terrain of the region.
This isn't a non-market economy, but rather the organization of an economy. Furthermore, there is evidence of currency in Andean civilizations. --Syndicalism--
An economic system that emphasizes the use of trade and industrial unions to organize the economy, rather than businesses. So instead of having one business compete against another business, in say, the development of a certain drug delivery mechanism, we'd see a union in which scientists and engineers work together to find the solution. It focuses on cooperation rather than competition.
I think this is also still a market economy. It's sort of a reorganization of how we currently run our economy, but it still contains the principles of supply and demand, currency, etc. I don't know if you know much about the links you posted, since it was just a quick browse through Wikipedia, but if you could elaborate on what you meant about substantivism, the potlatch, and the vertical archipelago being economic systems, I'd appreciate it.
Also, I disagree with your idea that we can learn something from these. Reciprocitic economies and gift economies are the only real non-market economic systems that I think you've provided, and it's quite obvious how such economies can be taken advantage of. These economic systems have been seen working only in very small scales, and would be undoubtedly exploited by a large part of the population in larger economies if implemented.
What I was taught was that there are several, general, types of non-market economies. Sharing economies work though voluntarism. People do whatever they think to be useful and share the proceeds to whatever extent they can. If no one thinks something needs to be done, it isn't done. If a lot of people think something needs to be done, it's done frequently. I was told that this was the most common economic system in the ancient world. The Indus Valley Civilization, which occupied a significant portion of the Indian subcontinent, is believed to have used this system. The modern Free Software Foundation, which is quite large, and involves some very labor intensive projects, works like this. Gift economies work through reciprocity. (Usually) exotic goods are gifted from one community to another with no expectation that the receivers will give anything back immediately (or even that that particular community will ever give anything directly back). While it might sound odd to us, it worked quite well and is believed to be the basis for wide-scale trade though-out the continents. A well-documented example, which I unfortunately can't remember the name of right now, existed in a large archipelago, where each society's unusual goods were gifted in a clockwise direction throughout the islands, resulting in the widespread distribution of goods that were produced only on one particular island. Currently, the Pay it Forward movement is practicing a gift economy. Redistributive economies collect excess or exotic goods and then require a re-distributor to pass them out to members of the community in accordance with some standard or other. The potlatches are one example of this. Progressive taxation which pays for social services and below-cost goods for the impoverished are a modern example of this kind of economy. (I'm sure research has progressed since I attended school, so new categories may have been added, for instance, I wasn't told about the vertical archipelago, but this is what I can remember.) There are many variations and hybrids of each general system, and each system, or hybrid system, can be used for any particular economic domain in a society, resulting in very flexible economics. Despite our fears of exploitation, there's very little evidence that this occurred. Probably the biggest lesson we can learn from this is that, given a system which doesn't require us to take from each other, we probably can play nice and still be quite productive, despite what modern economists assume.
I appreciate the response and clarification. I've never really taken any economics classes, and it's difficult to piece things together with just Wikipedia. Thanks.
I was only suggesting that we learn from these systems. The field of economics is remarkably ahistorical and dogmatic. Economists could benefit from a better historical understanding of economics and a better theoretical understanding of different economic systems.
See but what I see as a major problem of capitalism is what we're now developing. Our lobbying system is making our politicians into cronies of big business. The sensible laws and regulations you talk about will always be in the interest of the highest bidder. This is a corruption of our core values I think.
Something to consider when comparing Capitalism & Marxism: we've had each of these implemented in two great experiments, haven't we? The US and Russia were both ardent proponents of their respective systems after WWII. And the results have been staggeringly favorable for the country that adopted the capitalist system - a few things to consider: Over the past 80 years, US inflation-adjusted GDP per capita has increased steadily. Early Soviet GDP performed well, and in some cases the growth rate even overtook the US, but eventually stagnated due to military overspending, rampant corruption, and a workforce that was ill-motivated and badly trained. How much of the blame one assigns to each of these reasons will provide a sense of why the system failed - personally, I like to think each played a significant role. Which are directly caused by a state-controlled economy? Surely the workforce motivation, maybe the corruption was exacerbated by the quota system, maybe not. Probably not military overspending. A bit of philosophy: doesn't it make sense, that if we assume people are greedy, that a system which exploits this negative quality might outperform than one that suppresses it? And what of Adam Smith's "universal wealth" notion - that even though Capitalism brings stratification, the general level of wealth in a nation still increases enough to bring positive change to all inhabitants?
There were more factors at play than just the system of government in place. The United States is a moderate region where agriculture can go on throughout most of the year; the Soviet Union, by contrast, was much further North, and much colder. You couldn't grow as much food because there wasn't enough sun and heat. Another issue is shipping. Moving things by sea costs about 1/10 of what it does to move things by land, so having a lot of coastal areas improves commerce, and the United States has lots of coastal area, as well as the Mississippi river, so there is lots of land with access to cheap shipping. The climate and access to transportation weren't the only factors, but what I'm trying to point out is that there was a lot more involved that determined the success of the Soviet Union than just the political system.
Well I suppose that would depend on what your standpoint on anarchism is. This question depends on my philosophy on human beings as a whole. I think that humans left to their own devices are inherently selfish. This view on human behavior dictates me to think that left alone in an anarchist system, there would be chaos and generally things would not turn out well. Humans do well in structured societies, it has been like this since as long as anyone can remember. Without some sort of inherent structure we would just all end up killing each other over trivial things. Of course not the more intelligent members of our society, but think of us as a whole. Many many people are not as smart as we think they are, and without structure I'm afraid of what we might become.
Anarchy does not mean that there is no structure, it means there is no hierarchy. I also think structure is necessary, which brings me to the first point you make. Humans, in my opinion, are indeed selfish. However, the way I see it, anarchy is compatible with selfish people. The way I understand it (and practice it to the best of my ability) anarchy implies three basic rights or truths in regards to all people: freedom, equality and soliderity. Where it differs from other systems such as liberal democracy or social democracy is the third element: the idea that cooperation leads to better results then competition. So in that sense, selfish individuals would thrive in anarchy just as much as altruistic ones; the mutual understanding that their cooperation would further them both more effectively then competition will be the force that keeps this system running. Of course, there is also the idea of free association, meaning that you are free to engage whichever individuals you wish, so long as they reciprocate and wish to engage with you. Thus we arrive at communities of like-minded individuals, which will sustain each other through the aforementioned understanding of solidarity, and the usage of technology... But that's already straying into transhumanism and that's a whole other topic.
Even if done out of selfishness, I believe altruism is selfless in nature.
Certain groups such as people who belong to churches or mosques are more likely to commit altruistic acts. The majority of people, anarchists included will not perform these actions that are beneficial to man as a whole on a daily basis. Self interest will triumph in the individual, however I do believe altruism can succeed if developed in a close group, such as a church.
Who is to say that we would work better in cooperation rather than competition? I think we have a larger sense of competition rather than cooperating with people. there will be those that wish to undermine the cooperation for their own personal gain, which creates a whole new sense of anarchy. I do like the thoughts of like minded individuals working in groups, which is sort of how communism got started. Living in "communes".
I feel like it is a good thought, but so was communism. Idealism in its purest form is a great thing, but nothing can be as simple and perfect as systems like this in my opinion.
I think that it could work but it could also just as easily fail. Theres no way to tell until somebody tries it, so I'm all for developing some ideas.
I admit I have no empirical evidence for my stance, but here is my reasoning: in order to compete, competing parties must spend resources on things other then direct progression towards their goal, thus reducing efficiency; while in cooperation, cooperating parties can spend all resources on direct progression towards their goal, thus acheiving maximum efficiency. Therefore, it is more efficient and effective to cooperate rather then compete. Regardless, here is an interesting read, as well as here. Note that neither represent my ideals or wishes, simply here as more food for thought. Also worthy of note: both of these were reactionary, meaning they arose in response to some opressive action or other. I do not think that's how anarchy will come about.
| I think that humans left to their own devices are inherently selfish.| I highly disagree. Check out the documentary "I Am".
You can't convince me otherwise of this. I've read up on both theories by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes who basically had the same argument except in the 1700s haha.
I'll read up more about it and I will watch that documentary you showed me.
I understand that, but in my opinion it still has not changed
That's sad to hear. I too am a firm believer in capitalism. While there are flaws, its the best we have so far. You mention a lot about commodities and link capitalism with the desire of consumer products. I agree that people do "worship" material goods but reject the idea that this defines capitalism. Instead, capitalism has given us choice and freedom. Technology gives us time which we can utilize as we wish. R&D in areas such as medicine and health help save and improve lives. Consumer goods such as automatic shower cleaners and toilet cleaners help us live cleaner/hygienic lives. I believe a class trip will open their eyes to how lucky they are to be living in America (I'm assuming America - and yes, I am just joking about the trip, I know students probably don't want to fork out thousands of dollars to travel)....I always ended up being the devil's advocate for capitalism
I don't think it's that people don't care. There are a lot of angles to consider. When we hear about mass murders we have a little moment of "that is terrible, what is this world coming to" and move on. Why? They are just numbers. 30 people dead. Hundreds of workers working for $1 an hour to make shoes that can be made within seconds which are then sold for $200. A young, white male. All of these statements are generalized. There is no connection that links us to them; it is similar to when someone you don't know has been talking on their phone in the DMV about their child for the longest hour of your life. We don't hear in the news about how Susie Jr.s death affects her family and friends and that it systematically ruined their Thanksgiving. Though, is it even reasonable to ask that the news do such? It can only cover so much and if you added personal, individualized cases to it there would possibly only be one story a day. Now, even if we were to get that pseudo-connection needed to exert any signs of us caring in the slightest, I'm sure a majority of the people who really would do something if they could just don't know how to go about doing it. It is like we are living in a heavily guarded, transparent box. We aren't given the tools and guidance needed to help as efficiently as we are capable of. Don't get me wrong, the tools and guidance ARE there. We are just so distracted with our shiny toys and trying to fend for ourselves in a forever broken economy that we just aren't reasonably capable of gaining the willpower and getting into the mentality necessary to go out of our ways to pursue them. Even if none of the above applied to said person willing to help, there is so much red tape to go through in order to even gain enough power to do so. That one person could fight through all of the troubles that stand in the way of aiding others but their effort can only do so much. It has to be a largely collaborative effort. Those hungry people in other countries (to be honest, I am not sure why we emphasize them so much seeing that our very own country has it's own starving inhabitants living in awful conditions) aren't hungry because there isn't enough food to distribute. There aren't enough people willing and/or able to be distributors. Those that slave away and live in shacks so that we can live seemingly pompous lifestyles only know that way of life. I'm sure there are many who feel that there is no hope or that this is just how life is and are content with their position. They wouldn't know how to function in a free world. That doesn't make it any better but it makes it harder to reach out to those people because they aren't reaching out to us. You can label us the bad guys but in reality we are all products of our environments. Collateral damage, if you will.
"We are just so distracted with our shiny toys and trying to fend for ourselves in a forever broken economy that we just aren't reasonably capable of gaining the willpower and getting into the mentality necessary to go out of our ways to pursue them." Is that the way you want to live? As simple products of our environment? Do you want to be simply "Collateral damage" of the system we live in? Personally I don't think this is a sustainable way of life, not simply for Americans but as the world in general. I'm not saying that we should go out and personally help all of these people, I know that it is impossible to help all of them. But is it impossible to ask us as a people to at least recognize the work that goes into making our commodities? We need to at least disengage ourselves from worshiping the stuff that we buy.
No, it is not the way I want to live it is the way that many are currently living. It's terrible. How would you, personally, go about making it easier for those who have succumbed to that way of living to understand how they are able to buy the things that they buy? How would you make it easier for people to acknowledge the work that goes into making these commodities? I'm sure many already know how their luxuries are being produced. Do you feel that those that are working for close to nothing will appreciate being thanked for enduring those inhumane working conditions? That is like praying for something to happen rather than taking action. I'd feel undermined if I were being thanked for being a slave rather than being fought for to be taken out of those conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 Check out this video on capitalism :)
Marx was wrong about almost everything he ever wrote about economics, not least that capitalism would eventually spiral into destruction and ruin, but his thoughts on commodity fetishism, whatever that means, have to be among his worst work. He was obsessed with the impacts of labor on the economy; so much so that he misattributed all sorts of things to the value of labor. The entirety of the section of Das Kapital that you linked can be summed up thus: resources, when the mysterious ingredient labor is added, become something more ... and then we worship them. What they become, of course, is commodities, and the reason we give commodities more value is that they have been imparted with uses by labor. Marx says that these commodities, in addition to having uses, create a sort of social connection between producer and product. (Think Geppetto and Pinocchio, an imperfect allegory.) The problem is that he then goes on to say that not only do we place value beyond that which physical manifests itself into these commodities, but also that this is a bad thing. I can think of many times in which I might "fetishize" a commodity, with no sinister underlying motive. A stuffed animal that I've had since birth, worth less than nothing on the open market -- but if I lost it I'd pay $20 to get it back? Total fetish there. Capitalism is simply not the religion of greed which Marx seemed to believe it was, and that clouds all his writings.
What was argued is not that singular items are fetishized, but instead the consumer culture that we live in is fetishized. It is not specifically the items that we buy, but more so the way we can buy them and the culture that surrounds purchasing products. We continue to want more and more and with this we become greedy, we are not satisfied with only having a stuffed teddy bear. Eventually we replace that teddy bear with an iPad. We are consumed by each new commodity that hits the market. We cannot get out of the cycle of purchasing, discarding, and repeating. With this we lose the importance that work actually plays in making these.
I (very oddly) always visualize the economy as an octopus. You have body, which is capitalism, and all of the tentacles, regulations, universal healthcare, education, and welfare. Of course the octopus can be okay without a tentacle or two, but it will be at it's best with every single one of them.
Other systems are rife with corruption
And capitalism is immune to corruption?
Of course not, Capitalism has its own unique form of corruption as well. I believe there is less corruption in this system then in others where it is not as transparent. Not saying that we are in a transparent system either however.
Here is what I think, and I'd love to hear some criticism and reactions to it. I'm far from well-read in economics or philosophy. Capitalism is the same as anarchy to me. I think that capitalism is what happens when everyone acts "rationally" selfishly. The purpose of a society/government is to restrict capitalism. If everyone were allowed to act perfectly selfishly, we would have chaos, and life would suck, so we sign the Social Contract and we give up the right to some selfish actions in return for a guarantee that others will do the same. We are protected from each other in some respects, and in the remaining respects we are allowed to act selfishly and exploit each other just as we would otherwise. How "capitalist" or "socialist" a society is considered by most people is dependent on how many capitalist tendencies are regulated or restricted by the government. While the existence of any government at all is therefore socialist, the intrusiveness of that government determines where it lands on the traditional spectrum from capitalism to socialism. Since capitalism is the result of unbridled greed, it results in the unbridled consumption of all available resources toward the production of wealth as efficiently as possible. This inherently leads to exploitation of both other people and natural resources expeditiously and thoughtlessly. In addition to causing most (if not all) social problems, this also causes all environmental problems. The environmental aspect is one many people forget about. Socialism is necessary not only for the good of the people in the short term, but also for the good of the environment and therefore the good of the people in the long term. Unless we move toward a more socialist global society, capitalism will continue to exploit people and the environment as recklessly as it currently does, and this can only lead to disaster for the human race. The key, as my colleagues have mentioned in this thread, is figuring out a good way to scale actual socialist governments.
I have absolutely no faith in the capitalist system. It puts great value on making money and every other selfish pursuit, and relying on individual human decency to check individual human greed will never work. That said, I think that it is the only viable system, when put broadly. I believe in the concept of free trade as a useful tool for enhancing an economy, but it needs heavy regulation. I also think that public services should be nationalized, and I use a broad definition of public service. That is to say, pharmaceuticals, energy, telecommunications, etc. When a society puts a price on such things, good rarely comes of it.
First of all, I think it's important to define capitalism. What is capitalism to you? That word is thrown around so much that I don't think there's any one strict definition. If it is the idea that people are free to make whatever economic transactions they want, then I am not surprised that we find the world in the state that it is in. In such a system, whoever has the money also has the power since it is the only variable that truly counts. Once there's a particularly moneyed segment of the population, they will go to whatever ends to ensure that people will not care that they have the most power--be it through advertisement, policy action on Capitol Hill, or whatever other means necessary. And as a result, we currently have a system that greatly benefits the West but leaves Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia for dead. You are exactly right when you say that people do not care for Thailand or Bangladesh--but has anyone in the West ever truly cared? Did the West have human welfare in mind when it colonized the globe? As painful as it is, we still live in the same neocolonial system where economic benefit is reserved for the people with the money.
I agree with you when you say "Once there's a particularly moneyed segment of the population, they will go to whatever ends to ensure that people will not care that they have the most power" However I think that there are some benefits of capitalism in that aspect. We so far have been the society that has best controlled this impulse from the rich. The rich controlling society has been around forever, but with our capitalist system it has not run rampant, as it has in many other situations. We are getting to that point but it has been a gradual process. Through our democratic processes we have slowed it down, which I think is a good thing. I don't think that any system of government will be able to control the rich portion of its population without some factor of corruption. The main thing that we need to worry about is how we control the flow of money and process it towards funding better things. Which leads to a more communist ideology...which doesn't work well. I don't know what to do );
Would you mind defining capitalism? I am still unclear about what you mean. Are you talking about our current economic system? The world's? Complete economic freedom? But I will respond to your post anyhow. Have we controlled the rich, or have we been controlled by the rich? Let's take a tour of American history. The Founding Fathers whom we worship so much were primarily rich, white, slave-owning planters. In the United States' early days, only those who owned property could vote for fear that the masses would skew the voting system. In the 1800s, the South seceded in favor of the rich through the argument that taking away slavery would "destroy the economy" (or plantation farming for valuable products such as cotton) and be a major loss of investment--and even afterward, the Southern governments found ways to subjugate poor blacks. The United States made some gains during the late 1800s and early 1900s for labor, but only after absolutely horrendous working conditions as a result of industrialization were exposed by muckrakers. Into the 1920s, some of the richest investors and bankers fought for deregulation of the financial market, allowing unhealthy purchases on margin to occur and eventually helping to create the worst financial crisis in the history of the world and leading to the Great Depression. Starting in the 1980s, the rich have fought for similar deregulation and lower tax rates. "Deregulation" and "no tax raises" remain shorthand for "strong economy" among many voters. And whom do both of those policies benefit? Business owners and those with high incomes, both of which are, unsurprisingly, quite moneyed. Yet, we are left with an ever-rising national debt and a sub-par economic situation. And speaking on a global scale, the world's rich continue to exploit labor resources in developing nations. Note that they too are capitalist, but they have had remarkably different results. Your gut reaction may be, "But 12AngryHens, it makes sense that developing nations are poorer--they have had a lower initial endowment!" Correct. Indeed they have. But hasn't the same been true for other nations you call communist? (And that word is very broad to begin with--it fails to encompass all of the variations between Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism, for example) Imagine a state like China. Prior to the 1900s, the Qing dynasty had been hurtling toward collapse, in part at the hands of the West. In the early 1900s, it did. For years, it remained in a state of perpetual civil war, then faced horrifying destruction during the Second World War, and then faced renewed civil war until 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan. It was after more than half a century of human disasters when the Maoist regime took power. Can you imagine the issues they had to resolve? And now, let's take a peek at capitalist nations across the globe. Many third world nations are capitalist, yet where are their riches? The answer is that they're mainly in the hands of the West. I wrote a paper on the neocolonial legacy in Nigeria, a nation which is capitalist by our standards. In fact, the nation is lucky in that it is sitting on some of the best oil in the world. It could very easily be a bastion of wealth in a continent of impoverished states. Yet, it isn't. Why is this? Much of the oil is not drilled by the Nigerian government or Nigerian oil companies (which are generally nonexistent). Instead, the Nigerian government sells contracts to Western oil companies such as Shell which inevitably end up with all of the profits. While Shell and other companies must also pay for such contracts, does the money end up constructing schools, roads, and sanitation systems in the Niger River delta? No, it does not. Instead, it ends up in the hands of the Nigerian wealthy--also the ones holding the highest positions in the Nigerian government. Meanwhile, the rural poor continue to be exploited for their labor value and the people enjoying the oil are not ready to care. So nothing gets done. What do we conclude from this? The economic health of a state is not dependent on the economic system that state has, but what its initial endowment is. In a capitalist nation, this means that those with the greatest amount of capital will continue to be prosperous because they place themselves at the head of the economic system. In a world where every nation is now interconnected in the vast economic system run by a few, the states which possess the greatest amount of resources will continue to be that way at the expense of nations without capital. What does this mean? It means that the world's rich must be more closely regulated. Until that happens, don't expect much change.
First of all, as for your definition of Capitalism. It does not and cannot have a true definition because there are so many aspects to it. It can be considered an economic system, a political system, a social system put in place to help us run our country and is an idea all around the world. On to your next thought; that the rich are controlling us and have been since the start of American existence. Capitalism is built for this to happen. The premise of capitalism is that through free enterprise you have the ability to make your own business, gain money, and then do whatever you want with said money. This has been available to all citizens of the United States since its inception. Now with this money the rich have used it to ensure they would not lose their money, and to make it easier to gain more money and take advantage of the more common people. This is inherent in a Capitalist system, yes. Comparing our system of the rich controlling the poor with others such as the French on the eve on the french revolution or other monarchies in the past, or with parties in communist russia feasting while their peasantry starved is a little bit different. Our rich have taken control of our major industries and have done some things to control the commoners, but there has been no crisis of the rich vs the poor as of yet. Our democratic system, our voting policies have kept us safe so far. Our ability to tell our government what we want them to do has enabled us as a people to prevent things like this happening. There have been such acts as the Sherman Anti-trust act and many many regulations have been put in place over our 200 something year history. We have not yet become so corrupt that our democratic processes have failed us. Capitalism does not always have to deal with money. In many of the situations of different countries you talk about it means freedom. Capitalism runs inherently with democracy, and democratic nations in Africa have a much greater chance of doing well if they are democratic rather than being run by some warlord. Nigeria had the opportunity to make themselves into a rich country, but with poor leadership on their part and corruption in high officials they sold their souls to the United States in order to quickly gain money instead of work for the health of their nation. In China communism may have worked out most of its kinks, but only after a period of complete control from the government, the people were ruled with an iron fist. They formed their system out of chaos and out of necessity they needed a strong government. That does not mean it is perfect, they have millions of people without homes or proper food or water. They still today do not have many freedoms that we think of as normal. Censorship on the Internet is prevalent there, meanwhile we have freedom of speech. Capitalism can be corrupted, and it can be controlled to a degree by the rich, but it is the healthiest system out there. The commoners have the ability to become part of the rich, which is more than other government systems can say. The world's rich will never be regulated fully unless there is a worldwide revolution, which will not happen. We need to make it a more balanced system however, so that people are not restricted when they attempt to acquire more, but we also must not allow unfair advantages to those who are rich. There needs to be a delicate balance.
That is a major problem with it all. There is no such thing as a perfect political ideology. The corruption is inherent to society, for there will always be a segment of corrupt individuals. Even the small scale utopian communities fell to corruption. In my opinion the best solution would be to place power in as many hands as possible to try to mitigate the influence of corrupt individuals. Note that i'm not arguing for communism, because that usually ends up with a small group of government officials holding all the power.
But in that instance would anything ever get done? With power in the hands of the many, there will be so many differing opinions that I'm afraid the bureaucracy of that system would bring its downfall. Perhaps something along the lines of our Supreme Court? A council of sorts, but then that is done in Britain with their Parliament. More so of a Republic is what I'm thinking along the lines of.
How about E-democracy? It's a digital form of direct democracy, simple with today's technology. You could vote on your smart phone. It would increase vote turnout too.
Switzerland does a form of direct democracy if I'm not mistaken. I don't really have much information about how it works, but somehow I feel like we are too lazy and would not want to read all about the laws and things that are talked about every day in Congress.
I wouldn't defend something like the US supreme court. Lifetime appointments can be extremely bad. The problem with a republic is that it generally relies on majority rule. This can lead to subjugation, and possibly eradication, of any resistance. You are right though a system like what i'm describing would be horribly impractical, and more persuasive participants would form the ruling class.