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.