the development comes because of Capitalism or Industrialization???
- Thread starter afghan
- Start date
in my view:
the history of capitalism started from 1490's and till 1730 or 1750 there wasn't any big difference but with the invention of machines (primary stage of industrialization) development comes in the west and that's why it was solely due to Industrialization that nations can be developed!!!
the history of capitalism started from 1490's and till 1730 or 1750 there wasn't any big difference but with the invention of machines (primary stage of industrialization) development comes in the west and that's why it was solely due to Industrialization that nations can be developed!!!
I mean that capitalism came into being in middle ages while industrialization in 1750 and due to industrialization the world goes into development but not due to capitalism!!!!
If not"capitalism" what would we do?
They were so 1700s back then. There is always the old if you want it and can take it. Not recommended by most. I must admit I like capitalism. But I am often wrong.If not"capitalism" what would we do?
the question is not with the likeness of Capitalism the question is that the world didn't developed due to capitalism! it is only due to industrialization!!!
Seeing the gains made through industrialization is only seeing half the story. The real issue is how capital can be most effectively distributed and from an agricultural-based economy to industrialization, a lot of the story is about effectively using capital. Industrialization in many places happened because markets were allowed a certain amount of freedom and capital ended up going to industrial growth after agricultural innovations made it possible.
China is freer economically than is often given credit. It is politically that it is not very free.
The USSR was a failure. Sure you can still have some gains through a command economy, but everything is relative and comparatively it was not efficient nor was the USSR's path sustainable.
China become freer in the later part or after Mao tse tung!
while we don't talk about the failure of a system we talked about how much it has contributed with development even now Capitalism's failure has started and the anger can be seen in the shape of Occupy WALL-STREET!
USSR was a developed nation and today too it is one of world powers! but not the USSR but RUSSIA and already challenged USA on the matters of Georgia!!
Russia is still not in the same ballpark as the US.
China became freer and started to grow as it is (along with India) after their respective extreme protectionist/Maoist plans.
Occupy Wall St. has a problem with income inequality- that is not necessarily a problem inherent to capitalism, but a consequence of greater automation, favorable (to the "1%") government policy, amongst other things.
China became freer and started to grow as it is (along with India) after their respective extreme protectionist/Maoist plans.
Occupy Wall St. has a problem with income inequality- that is not necessarily a problem inherent to capitalism, but a consequence of greater automation, favorable (to the "1%") government policy, amongst other things.
Well, if occupy wall street has nothing to do with capitalism then income in equality has relation with Capitalism, where 1% control everything, and those 1% are capitalists!!!
So Occupy wall-street has a relation with capitalism!!
Russian may not be the same ballpark as US but they are one of the top 20!
So Occupy wall-street has a relation with capitalism!!
Russian may not be the same ballpark as US but they are one of the top 20!
Well 1% is not an exact figure and it is not quite true. There has been increasing income inequality, but great income inequality is not inherent to a capitalist system. There are many countries with greater inequality that are not as capitalist and vice-versa. There also should not be an inherent problem with inequality if all the unequals are better off than say a completely equal society in which everyone is worse off.
I think the bigger issue is in income mobility and unfortunately a lot of what the Occupy crowd wants will hurt mobility. But again, the problem itself is partly due to technological advances and certain government policy [that is not actually capitalist since it favors certain parts of the market over others].
What's your point? They are still no where close.
I think you are asking the wrong question. Capitalism and Industrialization are not at the same level of the socioeconomic ladder. One is an economic system and one refers to the means which support a society (actually industrialization is the transformation to relying on industry).
In other words, you are basically asking whether the flower or the tree gives us an apple. The apple grows from the flower, but without the tree there can be no flower. In the same way, Western development grows out of industry. However, without an economic system to support industry no development would occur.
Taking this simile a step further the tree does not grow without a seed; the flower cannot bear fruit without bees and pollination; and the whole system cannot thrive without pruning and help from nature. Capitalism is much like the apple tree; it needs the seed of a good political system in order to grow; industry is like the flower which needs freedom and individual rights to bear fruit; and society cannot reach its maximum potential without natural resources and a government which protects the rights of citizens.
In other words, you are basically asking whether the flower or the tree gives us an apple. The apple grows from the flower, but without the tree there can be no flower. In the same way, Western development grows out of industry. However, without an economic system to support industry no development would occur.
Taking this simile a step further the tree does not grow without a seed; the flower cannot bear fruit without bees and pollination; and the whole system cannot thrive without pruning and help from nature. Capitalism is much like the apple tree; it needs the seed of a good political system in order to grow; industry is like the flower which needs freedom and individual rights to bear fruit; and society cannot reach its maximum potential without natural resources and a government which protects the rights of citizens.
capilalists often demand the industrialisation so they can continue owning their privately owned good and through industrialisation they can continue to be at th etop and own their goods.
Well capitalism can only flourish in an environment that has already experienced the fruits of industrialization.
Similar threads
