ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Suggested Deviants
Suggested Collections
You Might Like…
Featured in Groups
Description
Complimentary Song: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsj2wd…
Based on an idea I've had floating around in my head for a few weeks. It was triggered again by seeing the title of an article on the site of a libertarian think tank group, about the merits of having global capitalism.
As you know, it is common for capitalist countries to look at communistic countries in an adversarial way, and it has been said that both systems have their pitfalls.
Now, I've not really studied either model, I'm no economist, and maybe this piece demonstrates that. But I always got the impression - when looking at countries that carried one model or the other - that communism was more focused on provision to needs, whereas capitalism seemed to emphasize growth through consumption. So, based on that assumption, I did this piece.
I was thinking, you know, the communist countries seemed to be showing a degree of global social responsibility by being more consumption conservative, I guess by not having a lot of surplus income that the system was madly trying to grab by throwing a variety of competing products at people in order to leverage that surplus out of their pockets.
Whereas a capitalist system needs continuous resources to feed off beyond what is actually needed. That is why we have so many products that are competing for our attention that are surplus to requirements. This sort of 'don't fix it, buy a new one' mentality (facilitated by planned obsolescence).
Of course, that sort of mentality is likely to burn through the world's resources in a pretty wasteful way, and there are already a number of concerns about resources in comparison to the world's population.
So it seems to me, that if every communist country abandoned that model and moved to capitalism, thus leading to a far higher rate of global burn through of resources, then preexisting capitalist countries would have more competition and basically less access to resources (although, currently, as ex communist countries compete in the market, it seems to have led to an over flooding of products, which get sold for next to nothing, or even below cost just to move them - which just seems wasteful again, and likely to hit a brick wall in short order). So they would lose the ability to over-consume, because there would not be enough resources for that to happen anymore.
Wars over resources would increase, and capitalism would not have sufficient fuel to sustain itself, and thus collapse faster. So yeah, global capitalism would probably fast lead to the collapse of capitalism as a viable system.
Or am I fundamentally missing something here?
Based on an idea I've had floating around in my head for a few weeks. It was triggered again by seeing the title of an article on the site of a libertarian think tank group, about the merits of having global capitalism.
As you know, it is common for capitalist countries to look at communistic countries in an adversarial way, and it has been said that both systems have their pitfalls.
Now, I've not really studied either model, I'm no economist, and maybe this piece demonstrates that. But I always got the impression - when looking at countries that carried one model or the other - that communism was more focused on provision to needs, whereas capitalism seemed to emphasize growth through consumption. So, based on that assumption, I did this piece.
I was thinking, you know, the communist countries seemed to be showing a degree of global social responsibility by being more consumption conservative, I guess by not having a lot of surplus income that the system was madly trying to grab by throwing a variety of competing products at people in order to leverage that surplus out of their pockets.
Whereas a capitalist system needs continuous resources to feed off beyond what is actually needed. That is why we have so many products that are competing for our attention that are surplus to requirements. This sort of 'don't fix it, buy a new one' mentality (facilitated by planned obsolescence).
Of course, that sort of mentality is likely to burn through the world's resources in a pretty wasteful way, and there are already a number of concerns about resources in comparison to the world's population.
So it seems to me, that if every communist country abandoned that model and moved to capitalism, thus leading to a far higher rate of global burn through of resources, then preexisting capitalist countries would have more competition and basically less access to resources (although, currently, as ex communist countries compete in the market, it seems to have led to an over flooding of products, which get sold for next to nothing, or even below cost just to move them - which just seems wasteful again, and likely to hit a brick wall in short order). So they would lose the ability to over-consume, because there would not be enough resources for that to happen anymore.
Wars over resources would increase, and capitalism would not have sufficient fuel to sustain itself, and thus collapse faster. So yeah, global capitalism would probably fast lead to the collapse of capitalism as a viable system.
Or am I fundamentally missing something here?
Image size
2030x4216px 504.09 KB
© 2015 - 2024 jojo22
Comments35
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
The Communist countries by no means had conservative consumption. A lot of their production practices tended to be dated and very wasteful. The average citizens of these countries had to live Spartan lifestyles not because they wanted to, or eve the government told them to, but they lacked effective and efficient production practices that could generate the goods for individual citizens. The so called Communist countries weren't even communist in the real sense of the word. States like the Soviet Union were really ran like one large business instead of a dynamic economy. Real Communism isn't really feasible do to the lack of supply and demand pricing. It doesn't work in practice, or in theory.
A major reason the Capitalist countries thrived was mainly the result of competition and the drive(more important the ability) to maximize profits. Private firms constantly have to improve production and efficiency to meet consumer needs and wants and increase profits. This allowed the Capitalist countries to produce more effectively and efficiently which allowed them to provide the average citizen with a considerably higher standard of living. Supply and Demand pricing of goods is also essential and only possible under a Capitalist system. Prices play an important role in directing the use and consumption of goods and the only proven way to effectively determine prices is through supply and demand and such prices can only be produced under a Capitalist system. Even the Soviet Union was dependent on the price systems of Capitalist countries to clunkyly move their economy along. I recommend you look up the economic Calculation Problem because that is what makes True Communism effectively impossible.
As to resources running out is just a load of malarkey. One of the key advantages of a Capitalist system is Private Investment mechanisms like Stock Markets. They forecast future economic conditions which help direct resources today to meet the those future conditions. The whole point of investment is to make money by investing(essentially betting) on firms and products that you believe will be more valuable and profitable in the future. The profit incentive alone encourages producers to find ways to improve production and efficiency. Even if we start running out of a certain resources Civilization won't likely collapse mainly because investors will know the resource is running out bet on price increases this will make prices rise before the shortages happen. The increase price will reduce the consumption of that resources, encourages people to find ways to produce more of that resources and even shift to alternatives. You won't see wars, or civilization crippling shortages. Producers and Consumers will just change their habits accordingly to meet the changing conditions.
A major reason the Capitalist countries thrived was mainly the result of competition and the drive(more important the ability) to maximize profits. Private firms constantly have to improve production and efficiency to meet consumer needs and wants and increase profits. This allowed the Capitalist countries to produce more effectively and efficiently which allowed them to provide the average citizen with a considerably higher standard of living. Supply and Demand pricing of goods is also essential and only possible under a Capitalist system. Prices play an important role in directing the use and consumption of goods and the only proven way to effectively determine prices is through supply and demand and such prices can only be produced under a Capitalist system. Even the Soviet Union was dependent on the price systems of Capitalist countries to clunkyly move their economy along. I recommend you look up the economic Calculation Problem because that is what makes True Communism effectively impossible.
As to resources running out is just a load of malarkey. One of the key advantages of a Capitalist system is Private Investment mechanisms like Stock Markets. They forecast future economic conditions which help direct resources today to meet the those future conditions. The whole point of investment is to make money by investing(essentially betting) on firms and products that you believe will be more valuable and profitable in the future. The profit incentive alone encourages producers to find ways to improve production and efficiency. Even if we start running out of a certain resources Civilization won't likely collapse mainly because investors will know the resource is running out bet on price increases this will make prices rise before the shortages happen. The increase price will reduce the consumption of that resources, encourages people to find ways to produce more of that resources and even shift to alternatives. You won't see wars, or civilization crippling shortages. Producers and Consumers will just change their habits accordingly to meet the changing conditions.