Should the poor in a capitalistic society be loyal to capitalism?

[Slartibartfast]

Should the poor in a capitalistic society be loyal to capitalism itself? Why or why not?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Personally, I say no and for a simple reason. If a tool is not useful to me, then I will get another one. For example, I would not use a wrench to tighten a screw.

Similarly, if I were poor and capitalism was not meeting my needs for housing, food, health care, etc, then it makes sense to look for a system that will do that for me.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

This is a stupid question.

Let them leave!

Do you think they will become rich somewhere else?

 

[BirdinHand]

I don’t understand loyalty to anything or anyone that isn’t beneficial to me.

And history tells us when a society is not working for a large segment of the population, massive unrest occurs

 

[Fletch]

I don’t understand loyalty to anything or anyone that isn’t beneficial to me.

And history tells us when a society is not working for a large segment of the population, massive unrest occurs

Capitalism IS beneficial to the poor. There is a difference between being poor in the US and being poor in Haiti. Here you have to opportunity to change your condition and still have access to affordable means to sustain your life. Plus, history has proven that the poor are not better off in the absence of capitalism

 

[Slartibartfast]

Capitalism IS beneficial to the poor. There is a difference between being poor in the US and being poor in Haiti. Here you have to opportunity to change your condition and still have access to affordable means to sustain your life. Plus, history has proven that the poor are not better off in the absence of capitalism

One could move their loyalty to a mixed economy and leave their loyalty to capitalism behind by putting their faith in the socialistic aspects of that mixed economy. Doing so may leave them better off as has happened in many first world countries. Whether one has capitalism in a country or not is a matter of degrees and not a binary choice.

 

[Fletch]

One could move their loyalty to a mixed economy and leave their loyalty to capitalism behind by putting their faith in the socialistic aspects of that mixed economy. Doing so may leave them better off as has happened in many first world countries. Whether one has capitalism in a country or not is a matter of degrees and not a binary choice.

Lol. Even your socialist fantasies rely upon the Golden Goose of capitalism. Without capitalism first creating the wealth you covet, you would have nothing to redistribute.

 

[donhughesmusic]

I am loyal to my family, not to an ideology or form of government.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. Even your socialist fantasies rely upon the Golden Goose of capitalism. Without capitalism first creating the wealth you covet, you would have nothing to redistribute.

True and without balance capitalism inherently decays into either revolution or dictatorship.

 

[Fletch]

True and without balance capitalism inherently decays into either revolution or dictatorship.

Examples?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Personally, I say no and for a simple reason. If a tool is not useful to me, then I will get another one. For example, I would not use a wrench to tighten a screw.

Similarly, if I were poor and capitalism was not meeting my needs for housing, food, health care, etc, then it makes sense to look for a system that will do that for me.

Why are you poor in your hypothetical? What kind of system will make you less poor?

 

[Ganondagan]

Capitalism IS beneficial to the poor. There is a difference between being poor in the US and being poor in Haiti. Here you have to opportunity to change your condition and still have access to affordable means to sustain your life. Plus, history has proven that the poor are not better off in the absence of capitalism

No system of government has proven to raise people out of poverty more effectively than capitalism;

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why are you poor in your hypothetical? What kind of system will make you less poor?

1. Because it a useful hypothetical in which to pose the question.
2. That’s a good question that many will have their own answers for.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Examples?

The rise of Nazi germany
The rise of Pinochet
The rise of Suharto
Russia post 1991

 

[Fletch]

The rise of Nazi germany
The rise of Pinochet
The rise of Suharto
Russia post 1991

None of those were capitalist countries.

 

[Slartibartfast]

None of those were capitalist countries.

Feel free to to gatekeep to avoid hard discussion if you so wish. However, if you think a bit you will figure out why I used the phrase “the rise”

 

[Grand Mal]

Should the poor in a capitalistic society be loyal to capitalism itself? Why or why not?

Tommy Douglas was a socialist Canadian politician, founder of the NDP. As an aside, he was father-in-law to Donald Sutherland and grandfather to Kiefer Sutherland. Whatever you think of his politics, he was an honest, moral man.
This is his explanation of the relationship between ordinary people and capitalists, the way he saw it.

 

[Gatsby]

I note that there are lots of people willing to risk their lives traveling on rafts to get from Cuba to Miami, and practically none willing to risk their lives to travel the opposite direction. But by all means, if someone would be happier in a different society I think they are fully justified in pursuing their dream. No one owes any "loyalty" to a system that isn't working for them.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I said no but that is predicated of how much say they have.

@Fletch mentioned Haiti as if that had any meaning outside his own Fox hole.

Western Europe is capitalist but to varying degrees there is minimal poverty on the level of the United States. That is because they harness capitalism as opposed to America where capitalism harnesses us.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I note that there are lots of people willing to risk their lives traveling on rafts to get from Cuba to Miami, and practically none willing to risk their lives to travel the opposite direction. But by all means, if someone would be happier in a different society I think they are fully justified in pursuing their dream. No one owes any "loyalty" to a system that isn't working for them.

You don’t think people risk their lives to get to nations other than America?

 

[phoenix2020]

Should the poor in a capitalistic society be loyal to capitalism itself? Why or why not?

I would say that it depends on the individual “poor” person and their circumstances. If they believe their circumstances would be worse in a feudal system, a monarchy, a fascist regime, a socialist system etc., then they can still support capitalism. Otherwise, they can support some other system that they believe would bring them greater good.

Personally, I suspect that for most poor, capitalism is the second best system (after straight-up communism) most of the time, because capitalism still tries to optimize for monetizing as many people as possible, and can’t be effective if a large percentage of the population cannot afford to participate. Other systems like feudalism, anarchy, fascism are probably much, much worse for most poor people.

 

[Absentglare]

Capitalism IS beneficial to the poor. There is a difference between being poor in the US and being poor in Haiti. Here you have to opportunity to change your condition and still have access to affordable means to sustain your life. Plus, history has proven that the poor are not better off in the absence of capitalism

Pure capitalism is anarchy. Anarchy has basically never been good for the poor.

No informed poor person, then, would support a pure capitalism that would leave them with no protections for workplace safety, unemployment, disability, retirement, healthcare, utilities, education, nor support of any kind.

 

[Ishm]

Capitalism is not an on/off switch. Across the world we have many degrees of capitalism operating in different countries. If you look at success as being a country where the people are happy, content, safe, have good access to most things we want in todays life, and decently growing economies, you probably end up with the 'Scandinavian model' of 'controlled capitalism' as the best version. More extreme versions of capitalism inherently lead to socio/economic divisions in society, with a greater number of poor and disadvantaged people. Normally this also means more crime and a less happy, less safe society. On the other hand, if you look at the communist end of the political scale, we know that it is an even worse failure because ideological communism ignores the important parts of human nature that make communism fail.

Which version of capitalism works best for you is going to be dependent on your political views regarding 'equality', and your existing position in society. That is why poor countries with a small, usually corrupt elite often end up moving towards communist type ideology. Too much of the countries wealth ends up in just a few corrupt pockets in a form of out of control capitalism, and the people turn to communism as a way to better distribute the countries wealth. Unfortunately, that normally just means changing one corrupt leadership for another, and things for the people either don't change, or even get worse due to the failings inherent in communism.

Bottom line is that you can 'test' the success of whatever version of capitalism you live in by looking at how the countries middle class is evolving. If the middle class is widening and the number of poor is decreasing, then chances are that you are living in a successful version of capitalism. If instead of the middle class widening, you have ever more wealth accumulating at the top, while the poor are falling ever further behind, then you are likely living in a failing version of capitalism. Look at the historic (last 50 years say) wealth distribution trends in your society and then extrapolate those trends forwards for another 100 years or more to see where your country is heading. If you don't like what that shows you, then your current version of capitalism probably isn't right for you, and you might really just be the frog who doesn't know to jump out of the warming pot of water.

 

[Cosmo]

The "poor" in modern capitalist societies are more obese than the other classes. Capitalism makes things better for all the classes, not just the rich. That's why the complaining in these countries uses the jealousy/wealth gap approach.

 

[Noodlegawd]

1. Because it a useful hypothetical in which to pose the question.

No, I mean what is the cause of you being poor in your hypothetical. It obviously matters.