Has capitalism been the greatest force for good in human history?

no, it was trade unions and unions in general.

The "free market" couldn't exist without governments to facilitate it. You yourself have acknowledged this:
>peaceful trade between nations
>between nations
You would say nations are obliged to intervene when one state party violates their "peaceful trade"? If that is the case, the market is founded on the possibility of punitive international violence, and couldn't exist without the state to "declare war."

>Has capitalism been the greatest force for good in human history?

MEANWHILE, ON Veeky Forums
>REEEEE GLOBALISM!!!!

>The "free market" couldn't exist without governments to facilitate it.

In time, national borders will simply cease to exist.

most of this is due to technology, though capitalists fund a lot of R&D and are good at putting it into practice, you can only really get a fuzzball of companies doing all sorts of things under capitalism

Still relying on a world government where the punitive violence is totally inside the state. Try again

Try again? Why? That sounds like a perfectly fine result.

You haven't done away with war by globalizing legal punishment for crime, you've diffused the war into many disparate, largely disconnected, smaller instances. Whether or not it sounds "fine" to you, you should "try [constructing a coherent argument] again."

The outcome you are describing sounds perfectly fine. I see no problem with this.

>that drop in democracies in the 1930s-1940s
why couldn't it have lasted?

>war is bad
>except when it's called "criminal justice"
It was fun while it lasted.

mostly unregulated markets thrived in the XIX century and that's when the middle class even started being a thing.

If you think the middle class "started" in the nineteenth century you need to go read a fucking book

WRONG
europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-07/01/content_12816499.htm

The 19th century was when markets were at their most protectionist

A national socialism is the perfect system. Too bad about the Nazis ruining it.

Yes, and simultaneously the greatest force for evil.

people have been saying that since the 80s. it's not even close to happening

if EU survives the pushback of demagoguery and the nationalism said demagogues cling to it could very well happen

Capitalism wasn't invented by anyone, it's a natural social process.

Socialism on a national scale only works in the most industrialized nations.

Poor countries lack the requisite capital to make life substantially better.

So is socialism

They wouldn't allow that.

>being this spooked

Capitalists didn't do shit, the workers did all of that.

Too soon to tell

To be replaced by corporate borders.

>all the gommies buttblasted ITT
Just admit that your ideology fail everytime and that capitalism, while not perfect, is the best system when coupled with social laws.

> being a fanboy of an imperfect system
> being a fanboy

Democracy is the best form of government

So...socialism in a country....You're a genius.

that would be the french revolution, which follows
>liberté
freedom, not very hard to see why it helps ppl to live a better life
>égalité
the most importat thing, and capitalism is deathly afraid of equality, heck these middle class 4chin browsing kids shit themselfs whenever its mentioned, eventhough it only means equality infront of the law
>fraternité
yea we all know what kinda fraternity capitalism brings

capitalism a shit, A SHIT

The French revolution was a shitty clusterfuck. It only got better because of a strongman dictator.

its basic ideas were the torch of humanity for a better future

user... I....

Yes but please post bigger images in future you faggot

The EU is not a free trade organisation, it's a trumped up cartel.

Britain did not vote to leave the EU because of demagoguery, but because of concerns about immigration and dislike of the establishment which would have been there without Farage et al.

The Fr*nch Revolution was the first stop towards degeneracy and cultural marxism. Fuck it

>first stop towards degeneracy
who cares
>and cultural marxism.
who cares

Capitalism is popular because it caters to our basic sexual desires - to gather wealth to ourselves with the intention of exchanging it for a mate. The convenience of exchanging was fulfilled by money, not by capitalism. Capitalism simply allows us to gather wealth.
And as you can see, we do it with gusto. No holds barred Capitalism is not much different than pure anarchy. All Capitalism requires a strong government to keep it in check else it destroys itself and most of its participants.

That being said, when properly checked, capitalism does offer economic opportunities to many, if not most, of its participants.

This was caused by the industrial revolution, not capitalism. Neither, democracy, freedom, liberalism, nor free trade are necessary in order for industrialism to occur. The case of the Italian fascist industrialisation, and the case of the USSR electrifying and industrialising are two examples of 20th century command industrialisation. "Capitalism" is wrapped up with liberalism, when the two are quite disconnected. The industrialisation of China and the East, and the rise of Singapore are instances to prove the contrary of Fukuyama's utopianism, capitalism =/= liberalism.

As a force of "good"? industrialism increases material prosperity, but this is not the good. Wealthy men still commit suicide because there are more important things in life than money. The belief that the good is "The greatest happiness for the greatest people" is utilitarianism, and the greatest good for all is a mathematical impossibility. Not everyone can have maximised utility.

What's the point in literacy is 40% of people don't read anyway? what's the point in "democracy" if the when the masses are vermin, and vote for corrupt leaders? what is the point in ending African poverty, so that they can consume more and compete with us for natural resources? so that they can send their surplus populations into Western nations, creating some servile mulatto race? If the West allow the 3rd world to "develop" into superpowers, we would need seven, perhaps eight planets to provide them all a middle-class American life. We will either be mining asteroids in the next century, or we will be fighting vicious conflicts over resources, water, food, oil, etc.

This graph shows nothing more than naive liberal utopianism and growth fetishism. Western growth is over. This century will be a century of decay, and you, my astonishing friends, you are certainly getting into a millennium, such as never was before, — hardly even in the dreams of Bedlam.

so much bloodshed would've been prevented had they only ordered these by level of priority.

...

Two good paragraphs followed by two absolutely terrible paragraphs.

>muh Malthusianism
>muh third world shitskin hoards coming to ruin my precious western world

>Has capitalism been the greatest force for good in human history?

>Posts chart in which all the good stuff coincides with the advent of """Communism"'".

You do realize that capitalism was pretty much the only kind of economy there was before the 20th century?

Quite true, Communism and fascism were both invented as a reaction to out of control capitalism.
"Out of control" being a subjective perception.

>You do realize that capitalism was pretty much the only kind of economy there was before the 20th century?

That's not true at all. Capitalism has always existed in some degree, but it wasn't the dominant system until after the industrial revolution. I can only assume you are using some incorrect definition of capitalism.

stay poor if you want

>North Korea turns into a shithole once Russia abandons it
>South Korea becomes a bunch of badasses and a center of commerce with money to burn after they refuse to be a US puppet anymore and we gracefully let them go

Communists btfo

Even Africans don't want foreign aid anymore. It strips them of any say in government, since their politicians don't care about their voters or taxes, only croneying to foreign aid groups. Improving anything causes them to get less money, so infrastructure is forbidden.

yeah except for teh first 20 years south korea was poorer than most of africe, also a dictatorship, and implemented a policy barring 99% of the population from leaving the country just like north korea.

then the cold war ended and obviously the side allied with the winner did super well while the side allied with the loser got fucked. if teh soviets had won we'd all be talking about south korea as a dangerous and unpredictable military dictatorship.

M8, let me tell you, every time I see someone write this sort of shit:
>Capitalism wasn't invented by anyone, it's a natural social process.
A small part of me dies. The same thing happens when somebody says the like about communism, but that happens so much less often. Capitalism is a rampantly reproducing ideological cancer: exactly what you would expect of a "realism" that appeals to the lowest common intellectual denominator

Howling at this delusion

Enlightenment ideas were, not the French Revolution. They didn't have an original idea between them.

>howling at historical facts

you're on the wrong board mate

>It is another OP doesn't understand dialectics episode

What the fuck are you even talking about?

It's just control of commercial interests and industry by private individuals. There's plenty of ancient cultures where this was the norm. We didn't have sophisticated economics back then though, so the state often thought interference was the best solution.

>being a fanboy of an imperfect system
Perfect systems don't exist in reality. Masturbate all you want about your "theory" and how perfect it would be if Implemented "properly," but I care about results.

every episode is an OP doesn't understand dialectics episode. because dialectics is nonsense and there's nothing to understand.

Why is everyone memeing about pure ideology?

>Chang's contribution to heterodox economics started while studying under Robert Rowthorn, a leading British Marxist economist
blogopinion discarded

I suppose trading goods for profit isn't "true capitalism", which of course, has never been tried.

no?

those economies where also extremely unstable and beyond horribly exploitative.

Posts like OP and countless others almost always carries the implied assumption that socialists think capitalism is evil/bad/stupid when is more like they see capitalism as a transitional or temporary stage to socialism.

Shit on dialectics all you want, but don't be like OP and pretend it doesn't exist

>The belief that the good is "The greatest happiness for the greatest people" is utilitarianism, and the greatest good for all is a mathematical impossibility. Not everyone can have maximised utility.
It is not impossible with anarchist communism

>there was prosperity before the war
>war happens and millions die, key industrial regions in major parts of the world get scorched
>"Why is the prosperity gone????"

If anything the relative peace between Vienna and Sarajevo coincided with the largest expansion of world trade and finance the world had thus seen and its ending would coincide with more severe restrictions placed on that trade as time went on, with increasing market volatility as a net result as whole countries started trying to unplug for the sake of the autarky meme.

False, the rise of the bourgeoisie/private ownership wasn't complete until the 18th and 19th century.

Money wasn't very important to earlier societies, who were dominated by hereditary nobles whose wealth was intrinsically connected to their role in politics and warfare.

reminder that all corporations are planned economies

Concerns about immigration are caused by demagoguery. Most of the immigrants Brits bitch about come from the Commonwealth

You;re still being a fanboy of a political system which is disturbing

All those things correlate with women's suffrage though
>really makes you think

The Medici's and the 12th century would like a word with you.

Nevermind the Silk Road, all of Rome's financial problems, and all the empires built by and destroyed by trade.

Sure, there's a stint of feudalism in there where the average peasant never used coin, but even they were still wheeling and dealing with each other, and meanwhile, all the money being made at the top, or the lack there of, could make or break dynasties.

>Haha, being a fanboy of pie in the sky utopianism is better! Just remember communism in twenty years communism in twenty years communism in twenty years...

Yes
your chart proves it, even if butthurt socialist, anarchists and other leeches by nature mock it.

you're thinking about an aspect of mercantilism

>capitalism

Property has always existed. Why do people pretend capitalism is an ideology or that it was "invented" in the past 300 years?

> property = capital and its uses

>Property has always existed
nope.

Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude more beneficial to humanity than any meme ideology

Keep telling yourself that

Monarchies=property
Slaves=Capital

All western societies going back to Greece had the idea of capital and its uses.

-slaves = capital
then why the concept of capital suddenly "changed" if it was "slaves" by default?

>private property =/= capital

>slaves= capital

no.
But capitalism creates slaves tho:

mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/more-slaves-today-ever-before-4435373

that. is. not. property.

i think you mean slaves created capitalism
britain could never have industrialised without the surplus capital generated by sugar plantations

Yes

>tfw to intelligent to not be neoliberal capitalist

sorry i was responding to two people at once so I conflated my answer.

Then what constitutes capital and how is it only recent? Isn't something as simple as a tool or boat capital?

So according to you the works of Newcomen, Watt, Carnot, Joule are worthless to the industrial revolution and hence the advent of capitalism and instead some nogs working on a sugar plantation should be the ones naming the engines and the units of magnitude for power and energy?

thats true too, is some of those circular things.