EDIT::Well, it would seem I left that window open for too long.
I'm rather enthused over the topic of communism and capitalism as well, so if nobody would object, I'd like to join in and post a few thoughts, questions or queries. I also haven't posted in perhaps, six or seven years, so, a pleasure to meet all of you...
I'm not so much talking about corruption as I am the parties that systems are designed to benefit. A system designed to benefit large corporations, minorities or white males doesn't do so because it is corrupt, but because that is the way it is designed. The less regulation a capitalist system has, the more it will be designed to benefit those who already have money. Not because it is corrupt, but because that will be how the rules that do exist are written.
But the less regulation that exists, the less it is designed to benefit a particular group, surely? The less regulation there is, the easier it is for entrepreneurs to make piles of money.
I wonder if the thrust of this point is to say that; whether or not a 'system' is designed for one particular group or another through regulations and the like, is just a balancing of interests(In a sense, designed for one group over another). At one end, one has less regulation, and at the other, one has greater regulation. Therefore I think we can say without stretching any meanings, that less regulation can certainly be a 'system' designed to aid entrepreneurs, just as a 'system' with greater regulation, over the environment, employment, or advertising etcetera, is designed to aid those adversely affected by perceived negative practices in those areas.
The logical corollary of less regulation is(whether it be environmental legislation, employment practices, or sales practices) that it is certainly easier for an entrepreneur for to make lots of money, but it can still be regarded as a system designed for them, or by them, nonetheless.
In a system that doesn't have state support for true equality of opportunity, class systems tend to solidify as those who are well off raise the barriers to entry for all others.
You might want to clarify "state support for true equality of opportunity". If I've an IQ of 150 and you've one of 75, must I undergo a partial lobotomy to ensure equality of opportunity? Yes I'm being (somewhat) facetious, but still it's an important point, and it's why the
only equality I support is equality before the law.
I hadn't originally intended to comment on this, but I believe a sensible premise is to suppose that; due to the uneven(I'm making no judgement on that) distribution of wealth in all societies, accidents of birth can result in far greater, or lesser opportunities to achieve the same ends. The statement then 'state support for true equality of opportunity', can be said to be a 'system' designed to 'level' out the differences not simply at birth itself, but what those advantages compound to provide, for one individual over another. If not through negative means, that is 'hard' measures of redistribution such as graduated income tax to 80% at 500,000 on earned income, with a flat 40% on unearned income(To mean rented income, such as investments), then 'soft' measures, such as a profusion of scholarships, universal education, free university education with a guaranteed place, and competitive examination for all jobs and roles open in a society which confer privilege of some kind or another. It's safe to tie this concept in with social mobility.
The point of your being facetious is an interesting one to note, because I believe it to be sophistry designed to make a literary impact(though you qualified it). My view on the nature and trajectory of society prompt me at this point to say, that equality before the law is a good start, but by no means the end.
Big corporations will destroy small ones in their infancy if the government doesn't regulate to protect smaller business.
How?
I'm intrigued by this comment as well. I would take it to mean that the 'amortisation'(If I may use, I suppose turn-around is good too) of opening a business can be rather long, in terms of the start-up capital required for capital investment, and covering overheads, filling orders(or otherwise for restaurant and retail) etc., leaves a business vulnerable to the general strength of large corporations. Subsequent to that point, the concentration of capital in large businesses means that they can take operating losses for acute and sustained periods with far greater security than a small business with limited capital. I don't think that this generally means the big corporations will necessarily destroy smaller ones, but the concentration of wealth, power, and the nature of laws(Ie, with regards to corporation tax and other measures of tax evasion) does 'naturally' tend towards a dominating influence by the larger companies. As for how this concentration of capital and power affects an economy, its vitality, originality etc. is a another matter entirely.
Not to say that small businesses shouldn't be protected, as I believe that they should. But the economies of scale from large enterprises shouldn't be scoffed at, either private or public(NHS, GlaxoSmithKline et al.).
Monopolies form, and begin to be enforced, without regulation preventing that from occurring. There are a number of outcomes that are in capitalism's best interest that capitalism will not create in its unfettered form... therefore government regulation to promote those outcomes is necessary for the common good, including that of the capitalist system.
How?
I mean, Standard Oil tried that, but it didn't last long even without the trust-busting stuff going on.
While lwarmonger and I disagree on some points(and once I decided to reply, I had to draw the line somewhere at what post to start. Hence my somewhat supportive stance.
), our view on the nature of capitalism's tendencies seem relatively co-terminus, so I'll briefly comment on this premise; 1) Monopolies can form either as a result of public or private proscription, or competition/conglomeration. 2) Concentration of capital, and, deployment of that capital successfully tends towards greater accumulation. 3) The larger the capital base to deploy, the greater the potential returns in terms of deployment, but, likewise is the capacity for diversification an additional factor. 4) The larger the capital base, the greater propensity towards overcoming competition.
There are exceptions I think, but that seems a sensible trend to speak for.
I believe the latter part of the quote you dispensed with Teleros is a relatively important aspect of the point lwarmonger was making; Monopoly can begin to weaken that crucial aspect of existence, competition. I don't think the notice of monopoly by one company(and its failure) is a particularly useful one to draw myself, but, the comment that the continuous existence of monopoly has these effects as a trend is more appropriate.
I normally try not to wade into these kinds of 'debates', for the reason that; even in demonstrable imprecision, or inaccuracy those individuals who are 'wrong' seem either not to recognise that fact, or if they do, are not prone to concession as they ought to. Debates such as these therefore tend to take on the character of a simple battle of eloquence, in who is capable of enunciating their statements in the most pleasing, rather than the most correct, way. Saying that, this one has been surprisingly civil and unlike that precept I mentioned.
