chicah

American culture is everywhere. You find a McDonald's in the furthest corner of the smallest village in India.
Big American companies make millions each year on making people work for a cent and then sell the clothes for hundreds of dollars.
I say these are the result of capitalism. Is it okay that America and other western countries get richer on behalf of the poorer countries?
Is it okay that we use their life-necessary water to make coca-cola that we sell to make a profit? The real question is: IS IT OKAY TO MAKE MONEY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE?
It could be just me, but I think this question is one of the major ones to answer. I hope people are interested to answer so that we can get a debate going.

UnsilentMajorty

I think one thing you should definitely separate is how American business (corporations) and American Policy in foreign countries doesn't necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of the actual American population a good percentage of the time.

I think a definitive separation will help avoid a lot of negativity and needless flaming that may come with such a debate because I may be an American citizen, but I do not approve of how big corporations like Haliburton and others exploit people in foreign lands. Hell, I don't even like how they exploit the American worker if we are going to be blunt

But in all seriousness, there should be an understanding that how a business or multinational corporation conducts itself isn't necessarily a reflection on how the people of the home country of the corporation view others as well, for the most part.

chicah

Of course I don't walk around believing that all Americans are like "yay, we exploit workers in Asia!" because most people aren't. I just wanted to see a debate on this because I truly believe this is what capitalism leads to and I know there are some capitalists lurking. It would be a really fun discussion to take.

And another thing is that even though people know about it, they don't do anything. They don't stop buying Nike-stuff even though they know it's child labour. My friends think I'm silly from boycotting Nike but I don't support child labour. Lot's of people seem to think that it won't help so why do anything? That's standing idly by, allowing things like that to happen.

cookiely

I am not american but I am from an european country that also has one or another company that wreaks havoc in the world (i.e. our Adidas is the counterpart to your Nike)
So I am just gonna join the discussion


Of course we got some of our wealth partly by exploiting other counties.
They have to work by unhumanly conditions, only so that we don't have to spend more to spend more than 5$ for a pound of coffee.

But in the last years there has been an developement that is nearly ironic.

Just think about how many jobs have been outsourced in the last couple of years.
And its not only the textile and shoe industry anymore, more and more hightech and pharma companies produce in Asia too.


So you have rapidly growing wealth in China, India etc. meanwhile the traditional
industrial countries suffer from unemployment, trade deficit, low economic growth
and increasing poverty.


If this developement continues it us that will be in need of aid.

chicah

Yeah, I agree. Can't people see this is what capitalism leads to? Is this the kind of world we want?

UnsilentMajorty

There are positives and negatives that go along with Capitalism... Which is what I believe is a more appropriate and objective term that should be used in this discussion because...

A) "Imperialism" is an inflammatory term which is often associated with military conquest, oppressive and exploitive regimes and is a biased (subjective) statement which carries preconceived ideas even before there is any in-depth discussion or debate about it.

B) Imperialism can apply to any country, government or society across the planet and is not restricted to the United States alone. While the U.S. may be the current example of imperialism in your opinion, it is definitely not the first, nor the last country to practice and or be accused of imperialism as long as human beings have existed, and will exist.

......

Capitalism has its pros and cons.

The pros are (property) ownership rights for the private sector which means ordinary citizens and businesses can own their own resources and not have them be totally controlled by the government like in an Oligarchy, or other restrictive form of government where only the government (state) itself controls a majority of the businesses and what can be sold, imported and exported for example.

Ownership by private individuals, in theory, increases productivity and the quality of goods produced because (in theory) those who have a vested interest in the ownership and production of goods want to put forth the best product available in order to charge the maximum amount the market will tolerate. This is an over-simplified, broad view of private ownership, but for the sake of this discussion I believe it demonstrates the positives it can have on societies who live under these forms of government versus those who don't.

The negative effects of capitalism are what you, Chica, and Cookiely are wanting to discuss.

The negatives are that with the Laissez Faire ("Hands off") style of non-government intervention and open markets this presents opportunity for those who will abuse these open markets and do some of the things you cited like exploit foreign workers, outsource domestic jobs, etc. so they don't have to spend as much money and resources producing "quality" goods that drive the market itself.

This is exactly why big business (multinational corporations) are the ones you always here about screaming about "No government regulation!" because the government (in the U.S. at least) is trying to make sure these corporations don't exploit workers, don't pollute the environment, etc. Of course, you also here about the shady deals where companies -- which are basically special interest groups -- Will bribe and or fund certain politicians so they can get elected to office , so they (the companies) won't be held accountable to any standards as long as their elected official lobbies for less and less government intervention and regulations.

So, how does this all tie-together?

In the most simple terms, capitalism drives imperialism... But capitalism in itself isn't "bad" for the most part depending on how you view it and your experiences with it. Imperialism is an extreme form of capitalism because even when countries have invaded and exploited people in foreign lands... It wasn't just for the sake of exploitation, it is to expand their business (trade) routes and alliances first and foremost.

elisheva

Well, I'd argue that pure capitalism, just like pure socialism/communism, would lead to a terrible state of affairs. I'm reasonably pleased with Canada's capitalism-with-socialist-elements, with some reservations.

Also I think there are quite obvious cases of non-capitalist imperialism (a good chunk of the USSR, for example) - although I suppose you could argue that has the same expansionist/economic motives that capitalist imperialism has had/would have. I largely think that the term 'imperialism' is ridiculously misused, actually, and thrown about in all sorts of places where it doesn't belong.