Category: Capitalism

Communism Vs. Capitalism: Essay

With loud machines that produce millions of products to profit the rich, capitalism continues to be glorified. Capitalism is constantly portrayed as the ideal economic system, one that promotes freedom and hope. Communism, on the other hand, carries a terrorizing and despairing image. Positive Western ideas of capitalism have matriculated on a global scale, hiding the violence that happens behind the scenes. As rational thinkers, it is imperative to evaluate arguments from both sides and not dismiss a particular worldview due to its popularity. In order to formulate a defensible opinion, I decided to dive into the study of a man named Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism, an ideology of economic equity through the elimination of private property.

To begin with, who is Karl Marx? Karl Marx is a German philosopher and social revolutionist. Although Marx was surrounded by religious influences, he was more influenced by socialist enlightenment ideas. Marx was a rebellious child who would never hesitate to argue with ideas he disagreed with. Marx participated in social rallies to promote radical ideas and went on to study law at the University of Berlin. There, Marx introduced himself to Hegelian thought, which emphasized material experiences instead of spiritual beliefs with no tangible proof. Then, Marx went on to study ‘radical’ beliefs that were geared towards improving the material conditions of all, which contradicted the actions and thoughts of church leaders. His radical beliefs prevented him from securing a teaching position and ultimately led him to become an editor for a liberal newspaper, where he started pursuing his theory.

Before discussing the theory of Marxism, Marx believes that capitalism is not a sustainable framework. Marx is not referring to the housing crisis of 2007 or the Great Depression, but something significantly worse. Marxism believes that capitalism makes human extinction inevitable—escalating ecological catastrophes and violence across racial and gendered lines. Rising ocean levels, extreme weather patterns, species extinction, and rampant pollution around the world all stem from a capitalist mindset of maximizing profit and private ownership. Private corporations prioritize individual profit over environmental disasters, resulting in the absolute destruction of the Earth’s resources. Furthermore, capitalism makes basic necessities inaccessible. When hospitals become privately owned (or controlled by capitalist partners), they aim for maximizing profit instead of aiding the sick. A capitalist structure not only allows for this type of behavior but promotes it. Capitalism also creates racist desires in the media. In order for beauty corporations to profit, the industry persuades the public that darker skin equates to inferiority while lighter skin resembles elegance and intelligence. This tactic brainwashes the media to desire to be whiter, generating astronomical amounts of money. The one percent essentially controls the information that is distributed to the public, advertising an ‘anyone can do it’ or ‘the American dream’ slogan that encourages the poor to continually work for private entities when their social-economic position will remain as static as ever. Capitalism cherry-picks the success of individuals who were not expected to succeed to justify their innocence in perpetuating violence. The model minority myth is a phenomenal example that illustrates this malicious deception. Highly educated Asians were selectively selected to enter the United States as ‘minorities’ who successfully lived the ‘American dream’, The United States Government then used this phenomenon to characterize black people as lazy and unintelligent, despite the massive racial barriers that prevented them from being ‘successful’ in America. This myth then justifies the ethicality of the United States (which was under pressure from other countries for inhuman enslavement and settler colonialism), promoting capitalism as the ideal structure for resolving racism.

Now the thesis question: how is communism (or Marxism) going to prevent all of the issues capitalism perpetuates? To begin answering this question, one must understand that a world of communism is not a world of dictatorship, but a world of economic equity. Communism solves ecological problems because corporations don’t act on private impulses, but instead on the greatest good for humanity. Economic production will be controlled instead of profit-driven, allowing humanity to dictate the ideal production course that will meet humanity’s needs and support the Earth’s limited resources. Moreover, communism allows for access to equal resources. Hospitals will not be built to save those who can afford health care but to save all those who are sick. Resourceful schools will not be built for the rich, but for all who are eager to learn. Communism also takes away tools that perpetuate racism. Private cosmetic corporations no longer advertise colonial and Western images of humans because cosmetics as an industry is no longer tied to beauty but to proper skincare. Marxists believe that communism provides a more sustainable, equal framework for humans to live in.

However, communism may sound utopian and unrealistic. Many critics of communism say that humans’ selfish nature makes a completely communist society impossible. Critiques say people will always value their own well-being over others in any economic structure. Another problem with communism is creativity. Marxists would respond to this argument by claiming that humanity should strive to abolish its inherent nature as much as possible. Marxists believe there are still realistic steps that can take society into a more communist form, even if people are selfish by nature. Capitalists also claim that communism kills creativity as people don’t have the incentive to work due to their limited rewards. Marxists would respond to this argument by claiming that people are tricked into working for private corporations in the status quo in the first place and that communism allows people to truly pursue their passion since people don’t have to worry about jobs that can or cannot be financially sustainable.

Karl Marx’s thoughts on economic structure drastically influenced humanity. His writings influenced European nations, leading to the creation of the Soviet Union and the spreading of communism after world war two. Although Marx wouldn’t say that the spread of communism was what he had envisioned, they are still impacted by his works. Marx’s thoughts also inspired the Russian Revolution and countless protests during the Industrial Revolution.

Marxism agrees with parts of Christianity and disagrees with other parts. Marxism tries to fight against humanity’s selfish nature, which may be referred to as ‘sinful nature’ in Christian thought. A lot of selfish, harmful behaviors originating from capitalism run parallel with what the Bible deems as sinful or evil. Both studies seek a fundamental problem within us and try to remedy that problem. Marxism disagrees with Christianity by identifying different problems. Marxists believe that evil is rooted in capitalism, whereas Christianity believes that evil is rooted in sin or Satan.

Throughout the process of researching Marx’s ideologies, I’ve come to grips with many fundamental problems of our current capitalist society. Whether it is the terrifying thought of ecological disasters or people left without adequate living necessities, I believe the government should heavily regulate private institutions. However, I don’t think I am truly convinced by communism either. Even though Marxists would not call current ‘communist’ countries true forms of communism, it demonstrates what countries would look like after they seek to pursue a true form of communism. I generally believe that a communist society is vulnerable to unethical leaders whose decisions can have much more weight than a capitalist society.

Which Economic System Is the Best and Why: Argumentative Essay

Theoretically, economic systems are imperative for the efficient allocation of scarce resources across society and the protection of its citizens on a national and globular scale. One of the most renowned of these systems is capitalism, in which autonomy is granted to its members, allowing them to trade in a free market, less encumbered by regulation to achieve greater efficiency. Recognising that capitalism may go against the utilitarian views on morality doesn’t mean it’s an immoral way to organise an economy, resulting in a crucial question to be deliberated on: ‘Are moral values and market values correlative?’. A social system such as capitalism cannot be moral or immoral in the sense of an individual, only people can be moral agents. However, a social system can be moral through its effects if it induces the likelihood of moral behaviour by individuals who adhere to it. This dictates that there’s a moral necessity to create a political and economic sound economy that allows the greatest utility, self-determination and moral agency. Hence, I agree with the above statement that capitalism is the morally best economic system through its efficiency and its protection of human freedom, in this I will use moral arguments to further justify my stance.

An important fact to deliberate on is that capitalism is consistent in adhering to fundamental moral principles acquainted with life itself. The libertarian argument of capitalism states that people have a right to personal liberty, which allows an individual to act in their interest, provided it does not prevent others from doing as they please. Having a right to personal liberty implies that one has the right to be private property, in which “it is immoral for society or the economy to violate through means of fraud, theft or expropriation” (Winfield, J., 2014). Morality in itself cannot exist without responsibility, and no responsibility exists without self-determination. By having self-determination, it implies that you exercise rationality, perseverance and self-control. These moral principles honour the right to self-determination and individuality in society without objectifying individuals but rather recognising their own rights and responsibilities. They aim to induce persuasion and voluntary exchange in comparison to using coercion or force. The allowance of transactions being voluntary in nature of the private property market guarantees that the moral and physical autonomy of an individual is protected from manipulation or violent attack by others. Through a regime of capitalism, force can be prevented in human relationships. We can coin personal freedom about economic and political freedom as being ‘ethically indifferent’ as they are a mandatory condition of morality. Any such form of violation in the denial of human freedom, the safety of people and their property is inconsistent with moral order. An example would be the interference of the state through its collection of taxation. The taxpayer’s earnings are effectively their private property, and this forceful removal of private property in the sense of revenue by the government goes against the right of personal liberty and morality, making it theft of a person’s income and immoral. Morality has to meet consistent standards that permit individuals to make choices free of intimidation and coercion. According to Friedrich Hayek, “It is only where the individual has a choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has to affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and to earn moral merit”. His words further reiterate that moral choice requires freedom for one to exercise moral behaviour and responsibility. Under the rule of law, competitive capitalism can positively nurture moral behaviour and be moral in its effects. When justly acquired property rights are defended, contracts are enforced, and the rule of law prevails, then “the voluntary nature of capitalist transactions can propel us into respect for others”.

Through its organisational structure, capitalism allows the most efficient coordination of an economic system, subsequently creating incentives to allow innovation and economic growth. This is achieved by not having a centralised economy in which all power is concentrated in the hands of the government or one individual, but rather decentralised markets with privately owned enterprises (August, N., 2009). The most renowned argument for capitalism was systematically elaborated by Adam Smith in his ‘Wealth of the Nations’ known as the invisible hand argument, which states that through acting in our own self-interest we adversely promote society more effectually than when we actually intend to promote it, thus allowing a system which is both productively and allocatively efficient to be created (Winfield, J., 2014). The key idea in the theory of the invisible hand of market coordination is the notion of ‘prices’ as a mechanism for supplying both information and incentives to people in such a way that their activities can be coordinated. Consumers will want to pay the lowest prices for goods and producers will want to set a price that maximises their profit, however, due to competition amongst suppliers and the threat of new entrants in a free market, prices will be bid down to a bare minimum known as an equilibrium price in which consumers are willing to pay and producers are willing to accept. Producers unable to compete drop out, leaving only efficient market producers who, as a result, achieve production efficiency. Since prices are low enough, it leads to greater affordability and consumption amongst consumers, who in return achieve maximum utility or satisfaction. As preferences in demand change amongst consumers, it can result in a shortage or a surplus in the supply of a market, putting pressure on prices and producers to produce at their maximum capacity to meet the level of demand. This interplay of supply and demand through the mechanism of price is what leads to what economists call allocative efficiency. An economic system that achieves productive and allocative efficiency satisfies the condition of Pareto optimality, in which its resources are being allocated to the maximum efficiency and no change can be made without making someone worse off. Unfettered markets do not only achieve Pareto efficiency but promote innovation which contributes to economic growth by improving human productivity and hence the quality of life. Competition amongst firms puts pressure on firms to innovate to sustain themselves in the wake of competition. Over time, this allows firms to successfully adopt existing innovations or seek new ones and expand, and those who do not decline. The result is that innovations tend to diffuse throughout a capitalist economy, raising productivity and underwriting significant economic growth (August, N., 2009).

The most critical stance made by critics is that many oppose the libertarian claim to capitalism. The question arises as to what exactly can be defined as private property. According to the philosopher John Locke and his labour-mixing argument, once an individual mixes their labour with a common resource, they inherently have given something they own being their labour to a resource, hence making it their private property. The argument lies as to why can’t we embrace a communal view of collected resources. I would argue that privatising an object or resource is sometimes necessary, it does not go against the liberty of others to use that right, as it works on a first come first serve basis. Should you be the first to acquire it and invest labour in it, it rightfully is yours. As we know, sometimes having shared resources sometimes leaves an individual optimally worse off with less utility than satisfaction, this can be seen in Garett Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, where self-interested behaviour leads to a common resource being depleted. So how exactly does capitalism contend with greed and self-interested behaviour, which seemly provides a contentious issue? What many critics fail to realise is that the notion of greed long predates capitalism. In 1904, Max Weber wrote: “Greed exists and has existed among waiters, physicians, soldiers, nobles, crusaders, gamblers, and beggars. One may say that it has been common to all sorts and conditions of men at all times and in all countries of the earth, wherever the objective possibility of it is or has been given”. All political and economic systems must contend with greed, however in comparison to them capitalism can constrain greed and ambition. The most basic principle of capitalism is that any form of exchange is voluntary, allowing formidable measures to be in place to prevent the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. In a capitalist society, to attain wealth, status and respect, it requires the individual to appeal to the self-interest of others, by creating a desire for a service that others are willing to buy. Attempting to live at other’s people’s expense through coercion or enslavement, violates the law of property, exchange and voluntary contracts. Should the government assert its proper role, those who don’t abide by the law should be punished accordingly.

The second argument expressed is that from a social standpoint, unfettered markets can result in plutocracies and market failures, hence nullifying the invisible hand theory”. Market failures exist because individuals make decisions where much of the cost or benefit goes to another person. A situation of market failures can sometimes exist in a private market, however, it’s an exception, not a rule. Most products are private goods, so the producer determines how much of the benefit to the buyer he can covert into a benefit for himself through the price he charges. Many inputs that go into production, such as raw materials, capital and labour, determine the cost measure of goods produced. In a model of perfect competition, what a producer sells goods at is of the same worth to the consumer, hence the private benefit equals the social benefit, so the total effect of the net worth of transactions is equal for everyone. Individuals usually receive most of the benefit and pay the cost of their actions, making market failure the exception, not the rule. On the political market, bureaucrats aim to accumulate power for personal gain or career interests, as many hardly bear the cost of their actions or receive much of the benefit. Corruption presents itself as a chronic problem not only the essence of politicians and bureaucrats consorting to bribery but in the sense of government officials resorting to egregious activities to protect powerful economic entities from market competition through the form of subsidies, tax breaks and regulations that serve self-interest in exchange for their political support. Hence market failure, being an exception in the private market, is the rule on the political market.

Lastly, the final claim according to utilitarian philosophy is that capitalism results in inequality and unfair income distribution. The utilitarian claim can be empirically tested, in such that if the marginal benefits of working are less to the wealthy, then indeed they should work less than the poor. After all, there’s a trade-off that needs to be met, more leisure time is what you trade for more income. Through economic experiments conducted, we discover that, for one reason or another, men in our society at all levels of the income scale seem to work roughly the same amount, indicating that the minor increase in income inequality can be attributed to the rich working longer hours in comparison to the poor who were working fewer hours. This contradicts a central tenet held by the advocates of income redistribution, forcing utilitarians to realise that economic liberties and competition are essential to increasing state wealth.

In conclusion, we can conclude that capitalism is an efficient economy consistent in meeting moral standards, and hence is the best economic system. It provides a plausible solution to the challenge of coordinating the production and distribution of goods in a free society by inducing economic productivity and innovation that meets modern moral views. Although socialists would challenge this claim, greed and self-interest are inherent in human nature and pose a predicament to every social order. Capitalism has proven to be superior in the way it directs these energies to provide an outcome that’s mutually beneficial to society in a peaceful way. Criticism of capitalism based on moral grounds is often misguided as being responsible for what is the role of other institutions, such as government and religious societies. Capitalism is not perfect and cannot solve every social problem – no economic system could – however, has proven to be superior in its deliverance of economic efficiency that is consistent with moral codes, human freedom, and personal liberty.

Argumentative Essay on Capitalism and Nature

Jake Sully, a paralyzed marine, fights against his own army to later become the leader of an entire planet. After his arrival on Pandora, he was given an objective to learn the Na’Vi people and in return, he will get his legs. By the end of the movie, Jake does not agree with the plan and fights against his own people despite his own personal gain. Just like James Cameron’s last big hit ‘Titanic’, he uses Jake’s mental, emotional, and physical challenges to capture his audience. Cameron puts his main characters through these challenges to take his viewers on a journey worth talking about.

The Journey that James Cameron takes his audience on is reflected throughout the films Avatar and Titanic. For example, Jake Sully is Cameron’s main character just like the main character in Titanic. James Cameron has them begin the story at the bottom of the totem pole. The main characters in Cameron’s films must overcome the mental challenge of being accepted. In Avatar this is used by introducing Jake Sully as a paralyzed formal marine amongst other healthy war heroes. James Cameron says, ‘You have to take them (the audience) on a journey. And then you have to make it excruciating somehow.’ When Jake is told he’ll get his legs back if he completes his mission, Jake is then motivated to walk again. This gives the audience a reason to root for Jake and the ‘journey’ begins. Viewers are more likely to want to see the underdog win so if Cameron can get the viewer to follow Jake: he can get the viewer to watch the entire movie. James Cameron has Jake go through this mental challenge to get his viewers attached to him.

Cameron is developing a round character in Jake because the viewers are attached and excited to see Jake infiltrate the Na’vi people’s tribe. However, it wouldn’t be a James Cameron film without a relationship between two characters; in this film, it happens to be a relationship between a man and an avatar. Jake falls in love with Natiri, and the audience now falls in love with the emotional attraction between Neytiri and Jake. The love affair between these two characters is the formula used by James Cameron to pull the strings of the audience’s heart as in his film Titanic. In the scenes where Jake must tell Natiri his true intentions of becoming a part of the Na’Vi people. While at the same time trying to save the Na’Vi people from being killed by Jake’s commander and the firing squad. James Cameron is taking the audience on an emotional rollercoaster because the viewer does not know what side to believe in.

The mental and emotional journey of the roller coaster that James Cameron takes his viewers on would be useless if the characters did not relate physically. James Cameron develops Jake from being just a ‘jarhead’ marine to sacrificing his own life for the Na’vi people regardless of his own personal gain. Jake first is presented as just a regular marine ‘disrespecting’ the forest, nearly getting killed. Only to infiltrate the Na’Vi people’s tribe. But, at the end of the film, he is nurturing the forest and now protecting it from the very people who sent him out to destroy it. This is a classic technique used by Cameron with his main characters because by the end of the film. The audience has completely bought into Jake Sully. Just like in The Titanic, Jack was clearly the main character that the whole world bought into. James Cameron must end his films with a final fight for survival which is in both Titanic and Avatar. Interestingly enough both main characters die yet their ‘energy’ is transferred from one character to the next. This transformation of energy must happen so that the main character fulfills the role intended by James Cameron.

James Cameron uses challenges that are strategic to the development of his main character Jake: like the way he develops Jack in the film Titanic. In Titanic Jack is a nobody at the beginning of the film who meets a woman and later sacrifices his life to save her. The same sequence of events is being used in Avatar; these chronological events are also what has grabbed the attention of the world. Also, the unpredictable suspense between challenges and the connection between characters like Jake and Jack. The same method is reflected in the movie Avatar; Jake comes from being just a paralyzed marine to Jake, the savior of the people which is purposely structured to engage the audience. Jake challenges mentally, emotionally, and physically equipping him with all the right qualities of the perfect protagonist.

In particular, it is a parable of the conquest of the Americas’ indigenous peoples by white Europeans, except that this time the indigenes come out on top and it is the white Europeans and their lackeys who are led away in chains at the end of the story. The allusion here is not to history itself, however, but to the Hollywood version of history that was popularized by the Westerns of the first half of the last century. This version of history is what Avatar is at pains to repudiate and, as others have noticed, this is hardly an idea original to Cameron. Almost exactly the same plot and themes were used by Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves in 1992, though a lingering attachment to mimetic principles on Costner’s part made that Oscar-winning triumph turn out not so well for the Indians. At least his Lakota Sioux were something like what we might imagine real Indians of the late nineteenth century to be. In Avatar, by contrast, the gentle blue simian-yet-high-tech Pandorans are unashamedly utopian, as obvious in their fantastical and manufactured quality as the 3D glasses that allow you to pretend that you are present in their world, rather than entertaining them as guests in yours.

The name “Pandora,” by the way, is almost as lame as that (“unobtainium”) which Cameron gives to the Pandoran version of gold or diamonds — the lure that attracts the film’s greedy Earthlings thither. But why should he bother trying to disguise these hokey elements any more than he does the other examples of the film’s artifice? Its artifice is its raison d’être and what allows Cameron himself to claim, preposterously, that he was making a movie about the Earth. Not the Earth Earth, that is, but his improved version of it. “And if you have to go four and a half light-years to another made-up planet to appreciate the miracle of a world we have right here,” he says, “well, ya know what, that’s the wonder of cinema right there. That’s the magic.” Pandora, that is, equals Earth, but with the addition of magic — Earth re-imagined by a superior creator as a habitation much to be preferred to the tired old original by the vast throngs who have bought tickets in order to experience it.

The conflict of “By any means necessary” civilization was born from the human need to evolve from savages. Throughout history humans have deemed our great civilization as what separated us from savages, but as Mark Twain once said, “The only very marked difference between the average civilized man, and the average savage is that one is gilded and the other is painted”. Humans’ evolution from savage three has been taught and argued throughout history and even within the pages of history books as a race humans develop into superior beings because of two human brains with opposable thumbs. Our brains give us the ability to think and think least to create advantageous advancements leading us to be stronger healthier and smarter. When examining avatars the same can be said about the native humanoid creatures of an alien Bone called Pandora. So what is the criticism I believe Cameron makes and its relation to the remark made by Twain? It’s simple the civilized man is driven by capitalism. Avatar is about itself the experience of wanting to feel red avatar is a critique of capitalism in morality. How are you the avatar is about capitalism and James Cameron‘s critique of human morality in relation to capitalism. A critical synopsis of the fields is dry and evidence from the film supplies characters and events making a case that the field is simply about the movie-watching experience. Behind the brilliant special effects and sub-par backstory, there’s a theme that can be taken away by viewers. Dinar VR race of blue giant humanoid creatures that inhabit Pandora. Vision Cameron and his team of developers do a remarkable job making the navvy as realistic as the human act is. The race lives in harmony with its majestic natural surroundings. Culturally their beliefs values in customs resemble those of Native Americans. Their value for life and the gifts provided by nature through their ritual processes are stunningly demonstrated visually throughout the field. Cameron employs intertextuality by drawing from the stories of Pocahontas in colonialism rather than redeveloping the background story for Avatar. The reason why the humans travel like used to Pandora is because a “corporation discovers a valuable element on Pandora that is sought out Harley on earth. This element of obtaining you plays too significant role as the commodity fairies in the good or resources trade it in the market for profit. the commodity fetishism behind obtaining him is its effect on the interactions between the three divisions of characters within the film the Navy the human corporation members and the humans defending the Navy. The corporation is obsessed with the input ducks in the pond of time and not how they gather up at 10 AM to fix the knob. Cameron uses obtaining you as a resource that creates capital. Throughout the film, the camera conveys the amount of money spent by the corporation. In the capitalistic prices, the corporation is a privately owned entity. They find it technology needed by the research team in order to create Navi bodies from the combination of humans in Navvy DNA. Due to the expenses behind developing and creating these bodies, Jake’s girl is brought into the film as a replacement for his deceased brother. The Corporation also funds military-grade protection. Lastly, the corporation finds it to school for both Navia and humans in order to promote acculturation. Capitalism is well-written throughout the film. Cameron’s exam is human morality and his relationship with capitalism. Capitalism has many criticisms due to human interpretation. The film doesn’t promote anti-capitalism ideals due to the fact it doesn’t offer other alternatives outside of nature.

The film critiques the concept of capitalism using the interactions between the three divisions of characters. The camera critiques the negative aspects of capitalism using the corporation in the field. The modern-day world is dominated by the need to gain will create profits and increase margins. No pros in stores of venture not hoping to excel in each of these areas. Since the start of goods and services for currency exchange capitalism has ruled in itself in the heart of this process but at what cost? The interpretation can be made of the human desire for wealth also bruises ruthlessness and creates the mindset of by any means necessary. Cameron shows that the negative cost of capitalism has been limited by Miranda. Cameron articulates this dilemma by creating advantages and disadvantages between the three divisions. Did Naby physically or far more superior to the humans? Humans are also on their planet which is poisonous for humans naturally. Did you say banners for the Navy is that they are from the Palmatier civilization of humans always relying on the natural resources found within the forest in their natural connection with all elements found with nature? Having limited technological advancements in comparison to corporations. The corporation’s advantage is the weapons of technological advancements. As for humans helping the Navy their advantage is the access to this technology but their access is limited. Morality prevents capitalistic pressures from reaching the vomit by any means necessary room but avatar reflects what happens when a man does reach that realm.

Throughout the film, the corporation devises plans for obtaining them from under the knobby tree at first it is by peaceful means to Jake Scully. Is Jake breaking down due to tomorrow’s conflict here miss that Naby will not move from their land and the corporation moves in state to be by any means necessary mindset. In the visually impressive yet tragic display of brutality, the corporation decides they’re forecasting profits are worth more than the lives of the night. By any means necessary they launch a strike against the defense is Naby destroying their home causing them to evacuate and achieving the corporation’s primary goal. Is the film about itself? In a sense, its visual effects do increase as The movie progresses but an underlying theme is never love. Cameron doesn’t spoonfeed the film stains or his argument instead he gives the viewers the gift of interpreting their own message from the film. This process makes the film a visual artwork as well as an entertaining film to watch. Cameron‘s ability to convey the right amount of flight allows the viewer to have free will to interpret concepts. In the end, this might have led to the success and criticism of the film not only in America but also across the world. By using narrative analysis viewers are able to read between the lines of the film by using stimuli throughout the film to create their own experience and gain a deeper understanding of the field. This is done remarkably well, especially in demonstrating critiques of capitalism. As of you previously through Avatar, viewers can use narrative analysis to understand Cameron’s criticism.

The surface of Avatar is borrowed from other takes films. This allows Cameron to convey his critique of capitalism in morality during the rest of the field. On a deeper level, Avatar does a tasteful job articulating the dilemma behind capitalism. As the film draws to a close in the crate his role with the times is taken away first is that capitalism is evil and the cause of injustice. I would argue that this is incorrect when capitalism is used negatively it’s a villain. Cameron‘s critique of creative capitalism leads to the reality that whoever is practicing it controls whether it’s negative or positive. Civilized man practicing positive capitalism allows forward to stand for noble causes. We lead better lives now than royalty in the past because of capitalism. When civilized man believes that they are above savages allowing them to capitalistically do as they wish then it becomes an evil represented by the corporation. Capitalism should never be late by any means necessary.

Essay on Capitalism Definition Cold War

The Cold War had a magnificent impact on the team spirit of countries in Europe. As mentioned by numerous experts, countries started to flip on each other as alliances were cast quickly. However, the result of the Cold War although it ended quite quickly, wasn’t constrained to the duration alone, it also extended farther to the point when the world was on the brink of a Third World War, one that many specialists now claim avoided by way of the moves of one man, known as Stanislav Petrov. It is possible that this title doesn’t ring a bell, but in all honesty, this man ranks as more than simply a public hero, however is a global treasure who used to be awarded endless times for what he did. So what precisely did Petrov do and who exactly used to be he?

According to sources, Stanislav Petrov was once born on the 7th of September in 1939, like most Russians born into a technology of fighting and unrest, grew up to end up pretty fascinated in becoming more, perhaps notably invested in ensuring the safety of their people. As the son of a soldier, whose father participated actively in World War Two, Petrov understood what it was to be involved in servitude for one’s nation, a thought which grew on him till he subsequently found himself employed with the aid of the Soviet Air Defense Forces. At the time, he had but one job, which was to ensure he detects possible missiles and attacks from NATO Countries, aimed at Russia. Petrov’s position at some point in the Cold War was once definitely him being stationed at the factor where he should keep the humans of Russia from missiles, however, he somehow discovered a way to do more. To correctly understand how huge he used to be to stop world hostilities three, one wants to take a look at the effects of the Cold War.

Now, the Cold War was essentially a bunch of world powers and their allies struggling with a conflict but without in reality going via the manner of fighting. What this potential is that throughout the Cold War, international locations such as The United States and its allies, have been armed against countries such as Russia and its allies. Though peace reigned, relatively, these countries were not at ease with each other and it used to be such a volatile moment in the world, as the smallest misfire, argument misinterpretation, may want to shortly start fighting that just might have been worse than any different warfare the world has ever fought. As cited above, on one stop of the Cold War was once the United States of America and its capitalist allies, and on the other was once the Soviet Union (Russia) and its allies, frequently China. It would seem as though the world used to be divided, however now not quite, as they have been international locations that surely weren’t fascinated in being involved. These countries referred to themselves as ‘non-aligned’ international locations or you may want to name them the observers.

Of course, the Capitalists have been also every so often referred to as First World nations, the Communists as Second World countries, and the non-aligned as Third World countries. These terms further reinforced the thinking that there was an energetic division in the world, one that probably still exists even now. However, at some stage in the Cold War, it wasn’t just active, it was significantly destructive.

So how did Petrov come into the picture? Well, it was once an incident that many accept as true which should have ended world peace and destroyed lives and endless properties. Apparently, on the twenty-sixth of September, 1983, what first appeared like armed peace, with international locations prepared each in protection and offense, quickly began to become unstable and Petrov was once on duty at some stage in one of such days. According to sources, Petrov used to be going about his enterprise or the business of the state, when he was once ordered to make certain he watches and quite closely, any endeavor that may want to be going on around the Soviet Union’s airspace, which meant that he was once tasked with continuously checking to see if any missiles used to be being fired from the Capitalist or First world nations to Russia.

While going about the above-referred pursuits he found something interesting; he noticed that the buzzers were going off and on the screens, he spotted 5 red dots which meant that at least 5 one-of-a-kind missiles or nuclear weapons had been fired and were headed toward them. Of course, 5 nuclear weapons at as soon were too many missiles that may want to be fired at once, so he initially doubted what he saw and held off on informing his superiors. After a while, he ultimately determined not to inform his superiors and in reality told them that the buzzers and alarm systems were truly going off on a false alarm. Thankfully, it used to be a false alarm, as five missiles couldn’t have been fired from America besides provocation.

In a well-known quote, he noted ‘I refuse to be responsible for starting World War III’. But here is how he prevented starting World Conflict Three. The alarm structures of the Russians were faulty at the time and if Petrov had run straight to his superiors, they would have retaliated at once with missiles fired at America, which would at once ignite a nuclear war. Fortunately, his on-the-spot choice to not inform his superiors and as an alternative treat the incident as a false alarm, he no longer solely saved Russia but also saved the world. Sources have claimed that the Russians have, in many activities attempted to cover up the story in an attempt to keep away from being viewed as having operated at some stage in such a fragile time with a misguided alarm machine but a hero would always get his cape. In 2014, Petrov acquired the Dresden Award for stopping a Third World War earlier than he died in 2017.

Essay on Nationalism Vs Capitalism

The nation defined by Benedict Anderson as an “imagined community” is excellent with regards to the individual creation of the nation as an idea, but it does not examine the effects of acceptance of the idea of the nation on the individual self-identity (Anderson, B., 1983, Page 6). In addition, as being part of a group, we could conversely easily, read the same books, same newspapers, abide by the same law, answer to the same court, and eventually serve in the same army against people whose language we cannot understand or other nations across the globe. This is to say, individuals through imaginatively creating connections with one another develop the nation but these same individuals also develop new concepts of self which alters the worldview of people to come later. Nationalism and national identity are vital aspects as Anderson claims, to understand nationalism we must look at how national identity has formed over time which can account for why we are so meaningful today. He goes out to locate the origin of national consciousness, and he traces the origins in practices from the Americans, both Spanish and Anglo then their adaptations in linguistic nationalism. During that time Creoles were crucial in the process as they lived and were educated in two different world views as well as Rizal linked to his family lineage and education as he acquired European-based ideas shown in another language. Also educational differences and political status contribute to some individuals becoming unaware of what lies or exists beyond the world across the globe because of the language barrier they may not understand the language used as it is not their native or mother tongue, so as a result they would believe or accepted the values or ideas presented without even knowing or examining all of the others whom they identify with.

Rizal’s identity as a part of the Filipino nation is somehow connected to the outside world, yet there is still the question of why Rizal chose to accept a worldview that supported nationalism, which was decidedly based on European ideas. To understand this process, it is important to examine the ideologies available to Filipinos. The life and writings of Rizal develop a sense of national identity and exploitation that may occur in his nation depicted almost in his works, he made use of print capitalism as leaned outside to gain national consciousness. When a group of people is discriminated against, especially since the creation of liberal ideology, they often find commonalities and begin to consider themselves a group, and in the case of the Filipinos, a nation, which helps them to begin to change the way the Filipinos value themselves. No doubt Rizal wanted a total reconstruction of society ranging and through transformation.

I agree with their idea of Anderson about a nation, which I found persuasive it provides us with mind-provoking ideas that make you think and feel a sense of belonging to a group of people who are on the same wavelength and have similar interests and motivations, the idea of the community as an equal comradeship. Creole class contributed to the emergence of the Filipino nation as print capitalism arose as the prime mover for the development of distinctly national consciousness. Nationalism seems to simply emerge as a result of print capitalism which contributes to a new field of study and has been influential in many interdisciplinary studies.

Since Rizal identifies as part of the Filipino nation is somehow connected to the outside world, and yet through his works Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo depicted how Rizal examined inequality and exploitations in our nation. Even though Rizal has physical inadequacies (short height, frail body) as Radaic states, (Joaquin, N.,1977, Page 57) produced an inferiority complex that drove him to compensate by cultivating his intellectual resources and sharpening his skills in artistic endeavors (writing, musical, theatrical performances, etc.). Rizal physical appearance defects, in other words, the diminutive size of Rizal’s body explains both positive and negative aspects of life. His omnivorous capacity in learning language is his pro-life writing.

Print capitalism was a form of business enterprise that not only shaped and circulated culture but was a part of capitalist production. It helps produce the national units that throughout the history of capitalism have been basic to the organization and protection of capitalist business exploitation, and defense of property advantages novels and newspapers were prime exemplars of the “infrastructure” of national imaginaries in Anderson’s original book, and both grew based on print capitalism.

As Anderson claims nationalism is caused by the increase in literacy and the decline of specific languages, creating a unified mode of communication. (Anderson, B., 1983, Chapter 4)

“The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier”, for Anderson, tombs of the Unknown soldier are the quintessential symbol of modern nationalism, embodying the quasi-mystical significance attached to the idea of nationhood (Imagined Community, Chapter 2 Page 9). The cultural meaning of such monuments lies in their association with personal anonymity, national destiny, mortality, and the human aspiration toward eternity. Anderson observes that the reverence they evoke requires that the tombs are empty, or the remains they contain unidentifiable. Yet void as these tombs are identifiable mortal remains or immortal souls, they are nonetheless saturated with ghostly national imaginings. Without the specificity of personal identity monuments. Anderson talks of an unknown soldier as an example of nationalism. We have different identity, we have different nations but still, it’s the same imagined community.

For me the idea of Joaquin and Anderson is good, the Creoles are valuable because they fight for their rights. Between the Creole Revolution and Revolt of the Mass, the Creole Revolution is the one I want because it seems to know that it’s better to fight with intelligence that fighting with power. While in the imagined community, I think that not only imagined but it happened to our nation.

Essay on ‘Capitalism a Love Story’ Summary

The movie Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore examines the effect of corporate dominance on the regular day-to-day existence of Americans. In this movie, I specifically chose Walmart because it is the world’s largest retail store and most people tend to buy food from Walmart; Walmart’s main focus is on the customers and they do anything for customer satisfaction. However, Michael Moore exposes the past practices of Walmart and shows how Walmart values its customers in the past through this documentary film. In this movie, Moore exposes that when a full-time employee of Walmart dies, the Walmart company is supposed to pay the dead peasant insurance money to the family, which should be used to pay the bills, funeral fees, etc for the person who has died. But in the past Walmart used to claim those dead peasants insurance money for their profit instead of handing the money to the family, this is illustrated through this movie.

In the movie Capitalism: A Love Story, the Walmart insurance issue can stand in relationship to the wisdom of catholic social teaching. The Catholic social teaching is a rich fortune of wisdom about building society and leading lives of holiness amid the difficulties of present-day society. This issue of Walmart connects to the key principle of catholic social teaching which is the rights and responsibilities. Firstly, rights and responsibilities can stand by this issue. When an employee of Walmart is dead, Walmart has the responsibility to give the insurance money to the family member to protect human rights. According to Catholic social teaching rights and responsibilities human dignity can be secured only if human rights are protected and met responsibilities. Walmart failed to protect human rights and did not meet its responsibilities because it made a profit from that insurance.  Secondly, the dignity of work and the rights of workers can stand by this issue. According to Catholic social teaching, the Dignity of work and the rights of the workers teaches that if the dignity of work is to be secured, at that point the fundamental rights of laborers must be respected. Walmart fails to protect and respect the rights of laborers. The employee’s family has the right to claim the insurance money when they die, but Walmart did not give the money.

Essay on Climate Change and Capitalism

Introduction

Since the 1990’s there has been an environmental debate increasingly focused on the issues around ‘climate change’ brought about by global warming. Global warming, established as an increase in the earth’s temperature, is believed to be due to heat trapped by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (Wainwright, 2010). Some would argue climate change is the most urgent challenge currently confronting the international community. In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was inaugurated, also known as Earth Summit, the international environmental treaty’s purpose was to address climate change. On the other hand, climate change is caused by human activity, which is rooted in a social and economic system that has a parasitoid relationship with Earth, otherwise known as capitalism (Park, 2015). Capitalism has been theorized in many different concepts, Weber (2003) views capitalism as ‘the most fateful force in modern life’ further adding, ‘it is driven by spirit, that has come to shape the modern world in ways that go beyond the economic foundations of capitalism as an economic system’. Whereas Marcuse (1964) states capitalism has become an ideology of a one-dimensional society that can no longer conceive an alternative.

In this essay, I am going to critically evaluate the problems capitalism has caused for climate change. Through evidence and research has capitalism been found to be the root cause of climate change, in contrast to it being a solution.

Main Body

Capitalism is a highly exploitative system of both the planet and people, driven by profit and accumulation (Hannah, 2019). Designed as a mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources, encouraging human ingenuity and improving the quality of life for those willing and able to participate within the system. This economic model has been effective in converting natural resources into fungible commodities and monetary wealth (Park, 2015). By transmitting vast amounts of natural resources into marketable products, capitalism has generated an unparalleled degree of wealth and prosperity. Capitalism has produced a plethora of socioeconomic benefits; it has also produced unforeseen and undesirable consequences. Every product is a by-product, with the ability to extract and consume an immense amount of natural resources has a monstrous amount of waste been made from physical garbage, atmospheric pollution and other forms of environmental degradation (Park, 2015). James Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis, whereby the earth is understood as a living entity that acts to maintain its existence (Lovelock, 2016). The ecological ideology conveys the powerful message that human beings must respect the health of the planet. Lovelock believed that any species which imposes a threat to the delicate balance of Gaia such as humans, the earth is likely to extinguish (Lovelock, 2016). It can be suggested a capitalist system uses extensive amounts of natural resources causing immense pollution and pressure on Earth, as stated by Lovelock this could one day cause the end of planet Earth.

Climate change has been the most severe consequence of society’s demand for natural resources. Park (2015) stated pollution is the direct consequence of consumption therefore a limit is needed on the burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC (2013) found humans are 95% responsible for the cause of global warming. The current capitalist system is neither designed for nor capable of consciously inhibiting its propensity for unsustainable growth (Park, 2015). However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devised a ‘global carbon budget’. This budget is a measurement of how many tons of carbon humans can collectively emit before reaching the 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold, however, this doesn’t include other effects of greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane. Furthermore, Kirtman (2013) predicts we could potentially over exceed the budget by early 2045 with current pollution rates. It is important to note, that efforts made on an international level have been constructed however their success rates aren’t high.

Park (2015) identifies capitalism as incompetent in accurately assessing and conveying the true value of natural resources. Within the capitalist paradigm it is seen as aberrant and inadmissible to not extract and consume the total global supply of fossil fuels because they are considered a commodity rather than as a benign, unemployable resource. Yet the environmental reality is that just burning a quarter of the available supply of fossil fuels would severely endanger the survival of life on Earth as we know it, therefore striving for a more developed, clean, reliable, and renewable energy source is required as soon as possible (Hannah, 2019). Within recent years, climate change activism has been increasingly dominant with millennials such as Greta Thunberg, who is the representative of the ‘school strike for climate movement’. This has included children walking out of school to demand their parents’ generation take responsibility for leaving them on the planet on which they live (McDuff, 2019). Unfortunately, future generations will become much more radical with their political views regarding climate change as there is little choice for them.

Currently, the world population is 7.8 billion (UN, 2019). The world’s population is growing vastly, outpacing the ability of our planet to support it, further space, food, water, and energy supplies are required to meet the demand. Movahed (2016) states overpopulation compounded with unbridled industrial activity leads to environmental disasters such as global warming, climate change, acid deposition, soil degradation, and air and water pollution. Movahed (2016) identified overpopulation and massive industrial outputs of both developing and developed countries as having irrevocably deleterious impacts on the climate. Fischer (1993) states overpopulation is associated with negative environmental and economic outcomes ranging from the impacts of food insecurity to deforestation and water pollution. Green (2012) points out the world produces enough food to feed the entire human population adequately; however, people starve because capitalism treats people who aren’t currently producing profits for it as surplus. Furthermore, Thomas Malthus a political economist and clergyman created a book called Essay on Population 1798, a key argument identified was population growth will always exceed the growth of the means of subsistence because population growth is exponential or geometric. Therefore, population growth would always result in famine, disease, and war (Malthus, 1798).

The price of non-renewable natural resources within a capitalist system shows the future value of these finite resources will not be accounted for. The rate of greenhouse gas emissions has increased sharply since the 1990s, driven by strong economic growth in developing countries that often consume massive natural resources. China and India have rapidly grown within the past 20 years, the core of their development is their access to and extraction of natural non-renewable resources that generate one of the highest carbon gas emissions (Movahed, 2016). Due to the uncertainty of future natural resources, this means they are generally under-priced and undervalued as future value is not accounted for in the dynamics of supply and demand within a capitalist economy. A study by Margaret Slade for the World Bank shows the great negative ‘externality’ impact that is inflicted upon the environment as a result of extraction and production, whilst the use of minerals is due to the under-pricing of non-renewable natural resources (Movahed, 2016). Furthermore, the vast mineral consumption is liable for a large part of world pollution which is not considered in the prices available on the market. An example would be the fluctuating price of oil which is produced by the Persian Gulf States (Movahed, 2016).

Within a capitalist system comes competitors seeking the same resources, in this case it would be non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels. Not only has such resources caused huge environmental impacts on the earth’s environment it has also caused additional issues within international states (Ahuja, Tatsutani and Schaffer, 2009). The link between resources and global power can be seen in the emergence of a new international energy order. Now not only can a state’s international ranking be measured by economic and military capabilities but also by the amount of oil and gas reserves and its ability to mobilise other sources of wealth to purchase the resources of energy-rich countries. (Klare, 2008). This divides the world’s states into energy surplus and energy deficit. As seen above in Graph 1, China, the US, and India are the World’s leading emitters but are energy-deficit countries, whilst Russia is an energy-surplus country. Many have stated the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were motivated by resource power and reserves over oil (Ahmed, 2014).

Other conflicts have risen too, due to international capitalist growth. Food insecurity has affected the grazing of land and therefore reduced crops, as drought has increased throughout the world (Borger, 2007). An example of a conflict driven by climate change and environmental degradation would be the Darfur climate war in 2003. Rainfall fell by 30% over the last 40 years whilst the Sahara has advanced by 60 miles over the last 40 years, leaving tensions with farmers and herders over the disappearing pasture and evaporating water holes (Borger, 2007). Causing north and south-Sudan, to once again reignite their half-century war. The IPCC estimates the growing rate of wealth-to-poverty ratios will grow greater and climate change could lead to deepening ethnic and social tensions (IPCC, 2015). Due to climate change external problems arose within the capitalist system.

Capitalism has played a primary role in climate change, in a system where moral and ethical values aren’t considered but profit and money are, greed takes over. Although capitalism will remain the primary system for the inevitable future, methods of improving the earth’s health and environment have become a focal point in the 21st century. A capitalist system will not be able to reverse the damage caused, however, it can implement changes to make a positive impact. For instance, electric cars have been capitalized under the narrative of being sustainable and eco-friendly, as the power supply is electricity instead of coal or oil. Many solutions have been put forward to help ease the pollution that is being emitted into the atmosphere.

As well as this, many international cooperation agreements have been made within the last 25 years. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC) marked the first agreement on state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coming into fruition in 2005, with 192 parties included within the protocol. Whilst the protocol was never going to act as a solution to climate change, it provided a first international step on the long road to recovery. Mitigation was the focal point, by reducing the impact of greenhouse gases, whilst adaptation (changing in the light of new circumstances) meant learning to live with climate change. Another agreement made in the UNFCCC was the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 parties in 2015. To limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, not all parties met the goals in reducing greenhouse gases, however, the Paris Agreement did make an overall impact on the progress toward preventing global temperatures from increasing. It can be identified there have been many attempts of mending climate change however, they haven’t always been successful.

For a long time, moral priority has been given to human needs, wants and interests, also known as anthropocentrism. In the words of John Locke human beings are ‘the masters and possessors of nature’. Kopnina, Washington, Taylor, and J Piccolo (2018) argued from a deep ecology point of view, that anthropocentrism (the belief that human needs and interests override moral and philosophical importance) should be rejected in all forms and ecocentrism should be embraced instead. Ecocentrism is a theoretical orientation that gives priority to the maintenance of ecological balance rather than the achievement of human ends. James Lovelock arguably holds pre-Christian spiritual beliefs about Mother Earth as seen in his Gaia hypothesis. Many theorists believe in an ecocentrism approach whereby the earth is more of a priority than human wants and desires. Although this approach and theory are very insightful and offer new ways of looking at climate change within a capitalist system, it won’t be achievable without the support of the masses.

Conclusion

Capitalism represents mankind’s ability to adapt and overcome problems. With that being said, many elements have been subdued such as the earth, as we bend it to our will. It has been found many problems have come from capitalism and resulted in environmental issues, such as overpopulation, excessive extraction of fossil fuels which has in hand caused conflict with various states, droughts lack of food supplies, and severe pollution. However, some attempts at solutions have been highlighted, such as taking an ecocentric approach, establishing international cooperation agreements and treaties, and the creating of alternative power supplies for goods such as cars. Although it can be argued a capitalist system cannot reverse the damage it has inflicted, it can implement different methods and ideas to make more sustainable choices for the earth’s long-term health. In conclusion, capitalism has operated as a problem in climate change. If humankind continues to utilize this powerful economic utensil, the comfortable world we have shaped for ourselves may snap under the strain.

Failure of Capitalism Essay

 Although capitalism has been the dominant form of economic system globally in the past 50 years, its success in allowing individuals to self-thrive has been constantly criticized (Meltzer, 2012). Karl Marx’s Volumes I, II, and III of Das Kapital, published in 1867, 1885, and 1894, respectively, famously theorizes the collapse and self-destruction of capitalism. Capital, known as being “a bible of Communism”, gave rise to what is considered modern economics, and underlines issues regarding the absence of equality and productivity within capitalism, with Marx blaming the system for creating the division between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Marx and Levitsky, 2012, pp. 5). Even though inequality is still an issue in modern society, modern economists argue that Marx’s lack of understanding of basic economic concepts and cherry-picked arguments led to a false impression and misanalysis of capitalism. Furthermore, the development of capitalism since Capital’s publication has allowed for an increase in people’s quality of life, showcasing the positive aspects of capitalism Capital fails to explore. Therefore, this essay will argue that while some of the elements of capitalism still hold in modern society, they contain misleading interpretations of capitalist concepts and logically flawed arguments, rendering the criticism valid.

To discern the criticism’s validity, we must first understand the basics of the economic analysis Marx brought up in Capital. Due to length limitations, this essay will critique and base the criticism’s validity on three of Capital’s acclaimed theories. Capital showcases Marxian economics, a new methodology of political economy with “epistemological apparatuses of Hegel”, including Marx’s labor theory of value (Levine, 2008). Marx suggests that while within capitalism labor is viewed as a factor of production and value is unjustifiably determined through supply and demand, the value of commodities should instead be measured according to the amount of labor put into producing it (Econlib, 2019). This, in Marx’s perspective, not only demonstrates the dehumanization of workers but also interlinks with the theory of surplus value which Marx considers his “most important…economic analysis” (Ernestmandel.org, 2019). Marx analyzes this theory as a result of unpaid surplus labor and blames the ruling class, or those with the means of production, for enjoying the monetary profits which otherwise should fall to the workers. This injustice interlinks with Marx’s theory of exploitation, in which Capital explains how the ratio of labor power to surplus value determines the rate of exploitation in capitalism (Elster, 1986). Marx explains in Capital how this rate is proportionate to the rate of wealth accumulation for the ruling class and thus the inherent inequality (Marx and Levitsky, 2012). To determine the criticism’s validity, each of the mentioned theories must be looked at in greater depth to identify any logical flaws and/or lack of understanding of economic concepts.

Starting, Capital’s labor theory of value presents a foundation for Marx’s criticisms of the free market; thus critiquing this theory should provide a clear indication of the criticism’s validity. Despite how Marx’s analysis is valid from a proletariat’s perspective in identifying that capitalists’ profit is the outcome of labor and thus should be rewarded for their skills, Marx’s labor theory of value has been subject to criticisms rendering the theory flawed and full of fallacies. To begin, Marx’s theory assumes that labor is the sole determinant of value, and disregards consumer desires or the contextual nature of value. In Volume I of Capital, he writes that commodities “which contain equal quantities of labor…[have] the same magnitude of value” (Marx, Paul and Paul, 1930, pp. 11). Then, if Marx’s theory holds if the same amount of labor was put into producing a crate of wine 50 years ago, a bottle sold then and a bottle sold now should be valued at the same price. However, this is not the case, as Marx fails to incorporate the basic economic concept of elasticity. Given there is now a presumably lower supply of that specific wine, this causes an inelastic supply, thus leading to a higher exchange value, or what Marx considers the monetary expression of value (Sperber, 2013). Taking this example even further, Don Ernsberger, a modern economist, argues that Capital ignores the disparities of value in different contexts – in a society with much leisure time, wine could be considered to have more value, compared to a society with strict religious beliefs (Ernsberger and Wollstein, 1988). Essentially, Marx focuses solely on the supply side, ignoring the demand side of the economy, which is logically incorrect, as a successful, growing economy must balance the needs of both supply and demand (Rooney et al., 2012). Furthermore, the labor theory of value presents a value-effort fallacy, as it assumes all effort produces value. Even though Marx disputes that only “necessary, simple, social, and abstract labor” creates value, this flawed argument mainly theorizes about the concepts of rewarding productive labor but fails to explain justified, quantifiable ways of rewarding workers, or distinguishing differences in skill (Foley, 2009, pp. 106). Accordingly, Marx’s economic analysis of deriving value from labor is flawed, making the criticism valid for this theory.

As Capital insists that profit stemming from the worker’s labor is contemplated as stealing from the workers, it is suitable that we investigate Marx’s theory of exploitation next. Marx explains that exploitation arises when a worker is called upon to produce additional, unpaid, unnecessary labor and that the labor generated does not create value for the laborer himself (Marx, Paul, and Paul, 1930, page 212). Marx terms this as surplus labor, and by contextualizing the poverty existing in the Victorian era Marx was living in, there was undoubtedly exploitation, from low worker safety to child labor. Even though Marx’s theory still holds in modern society as exploitation is still evident, the analysis behind the theory is the main focus of this essay. Nowadays, there are well-established internationalized institutions and regulatory systems to support workers. Although the legal institution, especially employment and contract law, would help refute Marx’s theory as it would not allow for unpaid labor, that is beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, what modern economists establish as the basic economic concept of the role of the government can be considered, given that current economies are mixed economies, between a free market and a government-controlled one (Saunders and Gilliard, 1995). This concept helps emphasize how Marx’s outdated theory within Capital fails to recognize the government’s prominent role in managing the economy. A well-known example of government regulation is the national minimum wage, which was first introduced in 1938 to prevent exploitation and reduce poverty (Draca, Machin, and Van Reenen, 2011). Even though such regulations were implemented after Marx’s time and may be deemed unjustified to base the validity of the criticism on this argument, additional arguments help highlight flaws within capitalism.

For instance, Marx’s logical flaw in his argument consists of how it does not capture the cause for the disparities in income level, such as the capitalist’s importance in the production process. Capital fails to evaluate that worker’s wages are advanced payments for the products of their labor – house workers build would not be sold in one day, yet the workers never invest in land, equipment, risks, or other factors involved in the production – the capitalists do (Salerno, 2011). This undermines Marx’s argument, as capitalists are not exploiting the workers, they are merely receiving returns on their investments, with any additional profit utilized as an incentive to continue the business. Additionally, this example helps pinpoint the fatal flaw in Marx’s argument, of his inability to grasp that a social actor may play more than one role – a worker is also a consumer, and in this case – how the capitalist is also a worker. Analysis from this perspective helps exemplify how profit may not serve as just incentives or a return on investments, but instead, could be the capitalist’s labor-value (Asatryan, 2013). Connecting this back to the basic concept of incentives which Capital degrades, surplus labor done by the workers can be viewed as an incentive for ensuring future employment opportunities. As incentives act as a foundation for economics, Marx misanalyzed that workers would have only wrath towards the capitalists, as they may also want the capitalist’s business to expand, as this ensures job security – a determinant in motivation and satisfaction (McCaffrey, 2014). Marx’s omission of analysis from the capitalist’s perspective is the basis of flawed arguments and overlooked economic concepts, supporting the validity of the criticism.

Connecting the previous two theories, the theory of capital accumulation is what Marx believed is capitalism’s demise, and thus is the final theory this essay will critique. Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital explain that by reinvesting profits derived from surplus labor back into production, the reconversion into capital is what constitutes capital accumulation. Marx blames the capitalist system itself and concludes that the endless cycle of reinvestment for the sake of profit leads to concentrated wealth in a few capitalist’s hands, resulting in the collapse of capitalism. (Booth, 2019). While economists agree that capital accumulation is present in modern society, most disagree that the collapse of capitalism is imminent. It is suggested that Marx’s analysis is underlined by materialistic bias, as he is focused on the fact that capital, in the form of money, stems solely from the production process (Sweezy, 1974). Within Capital, Marx fails to acknowledge other institutions or factors that cause accumulation, such as the dynamic of power existing between different groups of social actors. Nitzan and Bichler argue that Marx built his argument from the bottom-up, revolving his entire argument around individual labor inputs, while realistically, this logically flawed theory is impossible (Nitzan and Bichler, 2000). In modern society, labor values have become useless in studying accumulation, as intangible and non-quantifiable factors such as social relations – connections with authoritative figures or state institutions can dictate the rate of profit, and thus the rate of accumulation. Additionally, Marx seems to misinterpret investment in his analysis, as he does not mention the positive relationship between investment and economic growth. Despite Marx’s prediction that accumulation of capital will lead to the downfall of capitalism, Capital does not acknowledge how accumulation contributes vastly to GDP, thus affecting both the level of output per worker and the long-run growth rate of the economy (Bond, Leblebicioǧlu and Schiantarelli, 2010). As a growing economy is commonly associated with increased living standards, reinvesting not only redistributes wealth to other capitalists and workers but also fundamentally stimulates jobs and lowers unemployment – characteristics that ultimately enable the capitalist system to thrive. Given the identified logical bias within Marx’s analysis, it is apparent that Capital has bypassed economic aspects of the theory, procuring the validity of the criticism.

Capital still serves as a prominent economic analysis of capitalism, helping to identify weaknesses within the current economic system. Despite Marx’s merit in understanding the disadvantages of capitalism through a cynical perspective, modern economists are right in criticizing that his theories are logically flawed and lack the understanding of basic economics. Starting from his flawed labor theory of value, the relevance of other factors contributing to the exchange value of products, including the price elasticities, is completely ignored. Furthermore, Marx conjugated an additional concept – the theory of exploitation, which failed to appraise the role of the state institution in regulating labor hours or the capitalist’s role in the production process. Marx seems to misevaluate how incentives affect social actors and how they can have more than one societal role. Finally, although Capital’s analysis of the theory of capital accumulation contains merit, Marx’s prediction of the collapse of capitalism is incorrect – instead, the process of reinvestment leads to sustained economic growth and job security. By inadequately basing his theory mainly on labor inputs, Marx misses out on the importance of social factors, thus highlighting flaws in his argument. While Marx’s economic analysis contains merit, the misinterpretation of multiple economic concepts along with flawed, biased arguments renders the criticism valid.             

Karl Marx on Capitalism Essay

My essay will be addressing essay question number three which states “Discuss the significance of the ideas of Karl Marx to an understanding of capitalism. Discuss Marx’s core ideas of alienation and exploitation. Are these key ideas in our attempt to grasp modern capitalism?”. To understand the concept of ‘capitalism’ it is important to know the definition of the term ‘capital’. According to the encyclopedia, the term “capital” refers to the very first or initial place where the accumulation of money occurred and there is no trace into the history of such events until the requirements of commodities gave birth to the finance or money-based relations. Karl Heinrich Marx, a well-recognized economist defines ‘capital’ as “value appropriated without an equivalent” (Smith, 2017). In common words according to Marx due to the circulation of money, the distinction arises leading to the concept of capitalism. In 1611, the very first evidence regarding the use of the word “capital” in its existence was reported in England. It originated from “capital grant” which refers to a grant letter written to the king to establish a new state that indicated the shift of power sources or the origin and emergence of a new power which later resulted in the rise of England through revolution.

Marxism is the economic, social, and political philosophy proposed by Karl Marx which works to investigate the impact of capitalism on productivity, labor, development, and economics as a whole. Marx argues in favor of the worker revolution to overturn capitalism by bringing forth communism. The theories of Marx hold specific significance as they introduce the notion of economic relationships by describing the struggle to achieve status between social classes significantly between the proletariat (workers), capitalists (the wealthy), and the bourgeoisie (middle class). In general, the theories of Marx, especially Marxism are important as they mainly criticize the concept of ‘capitalism’ (Economakis, 2005).

The two best-known critiques based on Marx’s theories of all times against capitalism are alienation and exploitation. Marx’s theory of alienation relies on his claims about human nature and economics. Marx describes the nature of humans living in society (social alienation) from the perspective of their initial human nature and discusses the consequences of living in a stratified society with different social classes is called the theory of alienation (Yuill, 2005). Marx used the concept of the capitalist mode of production which explains the system of organized production money-making privately through various forms including banking, renting, etc. and the distribution of money within capitalist societies promotes the development of capitalism. The mode of production is further elaborated by Marx as the combination of two things first the productive forces that include individual labor-power along with the means of production which includes tools, buildings, machinery to produce and extract, infrastructure, materials, technical information knowledge, exploitable land, and animals. The second part of the productive forces is the social and technical relation of production which involves the power, property, and control relation of driving and owning the assets of society that can be utilized to produce a living for the individuals, such governing forces are often defined by the law. The social relations Marx indicates are the ones that exist in the form of association between the people and the object which they are using to work with. Similarly, he also considers the relation between the social classes within society. Therefore, Marx (Sited by Yuil) implies that involvement in social relations and productive ability are vital elements of social reproduction and he then criticized that the concept of capitalism negatively affects the quality of these two essentials leading to conflict with increasing and improving the capacities of human productivity by restricting the developments.

The theory of “exploitation” by Mark suggests the idea of taking unfair advantage of another person’s vulnerability in an immoral way. However, not all forms of seeking advantage from others are morally questionable. Karl Marx has set forth the most influential theory of exploitation. According to his theory, capitalist societies are structured in such a way that they exploit laborers workers by taking unnecessary advantage of their force, and in return, they receive way less wage compared to the commodities produced by their labor force (Wolf, 1999). Marx defined the idea of ‘surplus value’ which is the sustainability difference between the value of consumption and the value of good production by a worker (Marx, 1867). Capitalist exploitation, therefore, compels laborers to sell their labor power to capitalists for less than even close to half of the price of the valued goods with no claim of ownership to anything produced.

Karl Marx’s views on capitalism are outlined by his proposed theory of Capitalism in which he described that the mode of production is based on the division and managing output within the capitalistic societies. Marx (cited by Smith, 2017) further elaborates on the concept of capitalism in his work entitled “Conversion of Surplus Value to the Capital” implying that to be entitled as a capitalist it is vital to acquire some money and make an investment in another enterprise yet not equal to capitalism. The only way to become a capitalists is through proper seeking. The capital will be recognized as capital only after the first cycle of investment by the end comparing the original sum of investment before and after the period referred to as the reproduction period. After a certain (reproduction period) if the returned value is in surplus compared to the original investment the investor does not owe any value to the initial investment and can survive in the production or returned value only in this case the title of capital can be upgraded to capitalism. Keeping in mind that Marx (Smith, 2017) refers to the surplus value as profit upon which an organization can survive and remain entitled to capitalism for quite a while. However, most modern economists do not agree with the term “capital” being defined by Marx that I’ve outlined. This conflict of agreement is what distinguishes the followers of Marx as Marxists. As a result, capitalism is considered the ‘production of exchanges’. The markets themselves are continued by the needs and requirements of consumers and society as a whole in the context of a capitalist state. These needs and requirements are the ones that will motivate, and be the ‘product to be used’. The modern (capitalist) economies, especially those associated with the right, hold that the ‘invisible hand’, with greater market freedom, can match public production with these needs and aspirations.

What is clear about the ‘capitalist production system’ is that most of the inputs and outputs of the product are marketed (i.e. goods) and all products in this way. For example, in the aftermath of violence most or all aspects of production, including labor, belong directly to the ruling class and products can also be consumed outside the market of any kind, a product that can be used within the social sector and limited trade (Marx, 1857). This has the important effect that the entire production process is restructured and restructured to suit the economic order as it is bound by capitalism (Marx, 1867) That is, the whole process is structured and redesigned to suit the ‘business concept’. One way to say this is that fundraising means the economic order in capitalist production. In the modern era of capitalism, this does not work for different purposes and therefore capitalism acts as a sustaining force (e.g. against violence). In the last stages, capitalism as a means of production attains complete control of the planet and has nothing to gain but itself, finally (hence, capitalism, viewed as a Hegelian system, not by the development of individual history) contradicts the opposition expressed by Marxism.

In this context, Marx refers to the transition from the ‘official subsidy’ of production under the capital to the ‘real subsumption’ of production under the capital. In what he called the ‘capitalist production system’, both its allied technology and the trade union movement were redesigned and reorganized commercially (profit and market) – the ‘old production methods.

As mentioned, he did not explicitly summarize his definition of capitalism, in addition to some suggestions on manuscripts that he did not publish himself. This has led to controversy among Marxists over how the “capitalist” nature of society can be viewed in certain countries. Proponents of state capitalist ideologies such as International Socialists reject the definition of capitalism as given above. In their view, they are said to be a radical change (in that true freedom from capitalism must be the liberation of the working class— ‘socialism from below’), which best describes the process of capitalism as Production methods that control specific producers as a national power, general asset production Existence of a weak or powerful working class, and the existence of a high or ruling class, which exploits working people in the Marxist technical sense.

This idea is based on passages from Marx, in which Marx stressed that money cannot exist without power relations between the social spheres that control the issuance of additional jobs.

Alienation

There is much to Marxism; however, there is the workers’ view of value and Marxism’s criticism of profit. Marx combined economics and philosophy to form a comprehensive vision of human history and social change. His concept of segregation, for example, first expressed in his economic and philosophical writings of 1844, played a major role in his critique of capitalism (Prychitko, 2002).

Marx believed that humans were, in effect, free to pursue a wayward course. But be aware that today’s world, with its technological advances, is clearly beyond our reach. Marx criticized the free market, for example, as “chaotic,” or uncontrolled. He argued that the way the market economy is connected – through the automatic purchase and sale of private goods provided by the rules of supply and demand – restricts our ability to control our individual and collective goals (Prychitko,2002).

Marx criticized capitalism as a system dividing the masses. His thinking was as follows: although workers produce market goods, market forces, not workers, control things. People need to work for the capitalists who are fully in control of production methods and maintain power in the workplace. He said work was degrading, tedious, and mechanical rather than free and professional (Prychitko, 2002). Eventually, humans themselves become objects – ways like robots that have lost touch with human personality, making decisions based on profit and cold losses, without regard for human importance and need. Marx concludes that capitalism limits our ability to build our human society.

Marx’s view of segregation is based on an important but fragile concept. It assumes that people can successfully eliminate a high-quality, market-oriented society and take for granted, a fully organized society. Marx said that we are not divided simply because most of us work hard, perhaps undermining our reputation, and our jobs, or because in competitive markets we often put profits above people’s needs (Prychitko, 2002). The controversy is not to be compared to happiness. He concluded because we have not yet created a fully organized and fully managed society, a society without competition, profit and loss, money, private property, and so on – a society, predicted by Marx, must emerge as the world progresses. Here is the big problem with Marx’s view of segregation: even with the latest advances in computer technology, it cannot create a fully structured system that eliminates hunger and insecurity. But for the Marxists to talk about segregation under capitalism, they must think that a successful planned world is possible. That is to say, Marx believed that under capitalism we were “divided” or “divided” with our ability to plan and control our future collectively. But if a complete socialist plan fails to work by making it – if, indeed, it is impossible, as we have learned in Hayek – then we will not be ‘separated’ from the use of the term by Marx. We cannot be separated from our “power” to plan for the economy if full planning does not take place.

Capitalism Vs Environment Essay

Green capitalism is a form of green politics/conservationism that highlights the economic value of ecosystems and biological diversity and attempts to reduce environmental impacts on the human population. Green capitalism is also referred to as “natural capitalism” (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999), “free-market environmentalism”(Anderson and Leal 1991), “blue-green environmentalism,” or “eco-capitalism.”This guarantees that the importance of environmental services is mirrored in the operation of markets. It starts from the appreciation that ecosystems perform a wide range of services called ecosystem services that societies depend on. Ecosystem services include provisioning services like the supply of water, food, and energy, regulating services like carbon sequestration and water purification, and also cultural services which include recreational services such as ecotourism and outdoor sports. Green capitalism encompasses the economic concept of capital -assets used to produce goods and services- to include “natural capital (the stock of ecosystems that yields a renewable flow of goods and services that support the economy and provide inputs and direct and indirect benefits to businesses and society). Advocates of green capitalism perceive pollution, loss of biodiversity, and the unsustainable use of natural resources as a form of “market failure.” In other words, environmental degradation is the result of the failure of capitalist systems to account for the financial value of environmental services. (Scales .,2017)

Capitalism, as practiced now is a financially profitable, nonsustainable aberration in human development. What might be called “industrial capitalism” does not fully match to its accounting principles. It liquidates its capital and calls it income. It neglects to assign any value to natural resources, living systems, and social and cultural systems which are the basis of human capital (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999, 5). The profit motive at the heart of capitalist societies, as a result of the failure to value natural capital, tends to drive environmental degradation, since it is cheaper to pollute than to control emissions and more profitable to use resources now than to save them for the future(Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999, 5).

Green capitalists argue that the value of nature is to be considered in market operations to encourage producers to become more efficient and innovative in the way they use natural resources. Rather than relying on “command and control” strategies or demanding radical cultural, political, and economic changes, the premise is that private property, entrepreneurial business, and economic growth can be good for the environment (Beckerman 1974).

Belief in the power of markets to solve socio-environmental issues is grounded in the ideas of classical and neoclassical economics where, in a world of finite resources and infinite human wants, markets are seen as the most efficient way of allocating scarce resources. According to free-market thinking, individuals and firms will sensibly pursue their wealth. Competition in a free market will therefore stimulate an entrepreneurial spirit of hard work, innovation, and efficiency. This produces more and better goods and services for everyone. Furthermore, resources are allocated to those who need them most (measured by the willingness to pay). Green capitalism takes the idea of the “invisible hand” (i.e., the idea that markets are inherently self-regulating systems that should not be interfered with, especially by governments) and extends it to the environment.

Green capitalism is a relatively recent form of environmentalism and emphasizes the rational use of natural resources. This concept is reminiscent of early twentieth-century “wise use” environmental philosophies in the United States of America which emerged as a result of the development of scientific forestry and the principle that forests could be managed and optimized to satisfy human needs. That means, rather than following romantic and preservationist views on nature, the wise use movement argued for efficiency, waste reduction, and the management of forest resources for multiple activities like logging, recreation, wildlife conservation, and sources of firewood, charcoal, and forest produce.

The concept is that nature provides financial benefits to societies and that any damage to ecosystem function has an economic cost fundamental to green economics. The problem is that these costs are not factored into market exchanges. In other words, the price of goods and services does not reflect their environmental impacts. Environmental economists describe these as negative externalities. In The Economics of Welfare (1920) Arthur Pigou defined an externality as an economic activity whose cost or benefit affects someone who did not choose to incur it. For example, a factory produces consumer goods that are mostly consumed by people far away from the factory and the company owning the factory gets the financial benefit of selling the goods, while consumers get the benefit of purchasing and using the goods. However, the factory also emits pollution that has numerous economic costs. Industrial wastewater released into a river affects people who use the river as a source of drinking water and those like recreational fishers. Atmospheric pollution can affect the health of nearby residents. These third parties gain none of the benefits of production – unless they buy the goods produced or are employed by the factory- and suffer all the costs of pollution.

A solution to the problem of negative externalities is to impose a tax on polluting activities to “internalize” the cost of pollution. These Pigovian taxes make polluting a costly activity. There is thus a strong incentive for companies to reduce pollution to reduce costs and stay competitive. This in turn changes consumer behavior, since they rationally seek to purchase the cheapest and therefore less environmentally damaging products.

As well as Pigovian taxes there are also Pigovian subsidies to stimulate positive externalities. which include government subsidies for installing solar panels and feed-in tariffs for energy generated from renewable sources and battery-operated cars. Such measures are designed to encourage investment in green technologies that might not otherwise happen due to the high start-up costs.

The imposition of Pigovian taxes and subsidies faces several encounters. The biggest challenge is calculating the correct level of taxation necessary to counterbalance negative externalities. For example, carbon taxes have often been too low to stimulate changes in production and consumption. In addition, sectors that generate sizable externalities like the fossil fuel energy sector have often lobbied governments to keep environmental taxes low or block proposals for new taxes. Environmental taxes are also reverting, since poorer households spend a large proportion of their income on acquiring basic resources such as water and energy, and are thus disproportionately affected. Free-market environmentalists also argue that subsidies do not necessarily support the best or cheapest environmental solutions and are thus economically inefficient.

Based on the belief that market-based solutions are more efficient ways to reduce externalities than regulation or taxes (Anderson and Leal 1991)alternative solutions were proposed. The economist Ronald Coase (1960) argued that as long as there were clear property rights over natural resources and transaction costs were sufficiently low, negative externalities could be dealt with through negotiations between those creating the externalities and those affected by them. Citing the previous example of a factory releasing pollutants into a river that affect a fish farm, the Coasian solution would be to assign property rights to the river. If the fish farm owns the rights to the river, the factory will have to compensate it for any impacts, thereby creating a strong incentive to reduce pollution.

Conversely, if it is the factory that owns the property rights, it may accept payments from the fish farm in return for a pollution reduction. These payments would compensate it for the opportunity costs of reduced production or the costs of developing solutions to deal with the pollution. From a Coasian perspective, this delivers the most economically efficient solution without the need for expensive regulation or monitoring. Coase’s basic idea has since been expanded on and interpreted in various ways, including mathematical models of the most efficient and therefore “socially optimum” level of pollution and its correct price.

Examples of free-market environmental policies inclined by Coasian theory include pollution permits and emissions trading. In a “cap and trade” system, a central authority sets an overall limit on the amount of emissions of a particular pollutant. The total cap is then divided into individual units and either allocated or sold to polluters. This gives the polluter the right to emit a given quantity of pollutants. Surplus pollution permits can be sold. The advantage of this system is that polluters who can find quick, easy, and cheap ways to reduce pollution are rewarded by being able to sell surplus permits to those sectors and industries that find it more difficult. The ability to sell surplus permits creates a continual incentive to reduce emissions. Coasian policies move away from traditional “command and control” models where states and international organizations simply set regulatory limits on pollution at the point of emission for example, vehicle exhaust emission standards for pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. While “command and control” solutions have the advantage of simplicity, once minimum pollution standards are met there are no incentives to go any further.

It can be noted that green capitalism became the mainstream since the emergence of the concept of sustainable development in the 1980s. This represents a significant shift away from the “limits to growth” and “zero growth” environmentalism, which argued for radical political, economic, and cultural changes to drastically cut production and consumption. Green capitalism also fits well with neoliberal economic thinking, which emphasizes individual liberty, minimal involvement of the state, and free markets as the most efficient way to coordinate the diverse needs of people.

Evolving of green capitalism

Accounting for nature and paying for ecosystem services

There have been growing efforts to include the value of natural capital in business activities and government policy. These depend on (i) being able to calculate the value of various ecosystem services and (ii) creating mechanisms whereby those who benefit from ecosystem services pay those who maintain those services. Calculating the economic value of ecosystem services remains technically challenging. Regarding creating financial flows to pay for natural capital, the most advanced attempts to establish such schemes have been under the banner of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). These are defined as voluntary transactions that involve the purchase of a well-defined ecosystem service from a service provider, who is paid if (and only if) the provision of that ecosystem service is secured (Wunder 2005). From a green capitalist perspective, the advantage of PES is that they conform to Coase’s view that environmental issues are best left to negotiations between individuals or groups with clear ownership rights over natural resources.

Industrial green evolution

This can be achieved by improving the manufacturing process and using competitive and innovative aspects of market forces. The first step toward green capitalism is internalizing the value of natural capital into the operation of markets. Once pollution has a cost and natural capital has financial value it is expected that the logic of capitalism will drive innovation and efficiency to reduce costs and maximize income. It can be noted that while the first industrial revolution harnessed machinery and new forms of fossil fuel energy to dramatically increase productivity, a green industrial revolution would exploit technology to bring drastic efficiency improvements. Major improvements in productivity and efficiency could allow societies to produce more from fewer resources. It can be seen that in automobiles like ultra-light “hypercars” with fuel-efficient engines could dramatically reduce fuel consumption. To generate far-reaching leaps in productivity, a design principle “biomimicry”( Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins (1999)) that imitates biological processes and structures to improve manufacturing and create new materials can be very well used. For example, the physical properties of spider silk could be mimicked to make ultra-strong and ultra-light materials. The concept of biomimicry can be industrialized using “cradle to cradle” manufacturing, which follows nutrient flows and metabolic pathways seen in the ecosystem. This process includes two types of materials: (i) synthetic technical materials (Should be non-toxic and able to be used continuously in production cycles) and (ii) biological materials, which can be put back into ecosystems and nutrient cycles. There is also the closely related concept of closed-loop manufacturing, which involves planning manufacturing processes around the life cycle of materials so that they are reused with minimum waste.

Green consumerism

It is part of a widespread and generalized trend of “ethical consumption.”Green consumerism emphasizes the ability of “consumer power” to deliver more sustainable patterns of resource use. This is based on the belief that consumer choices are driven by more than just price and are often based on the moral attributes of goods and services. “Eco” labeling works on the assumption that consumers can be provided with information about the conditions of production through the use of labels. This enables them to make informed decisions to reduce the environmental impacts of their consumptive patterns. The expectation is that producers will then react to changing demands in the marketplace by changing production to reduce environmental impact. Green consumerism also emphasizes changes in the amount of goods purchased, owned, and consumed. Green capitalists envisage a distance from economies based on the ownership of goods to “service and flow” economies where resource goods are primarily on loan (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999).

Green capitalism is based on the premise that market forces and profit motives can drive more sustainable resource use patterns. While green capitalist thinking has had considerable influence on environmental policy-making, it has given rise to a large body of critical work. The strongest critiques of green capitalism have emerged from a broadly Marxian perspective. The critiques argue that any attempts to reduce environmental impacts will need radical economic and cultural changes that are not possible within a capitalist framework

According to Green Marxist theory, the underlying drivers of environmental degradation in capitalist systems are (i) capitalism’s logic of competition, economic growth, and a relentless increase in the productive and consumptive capacities of society; combined with (ii) capitalism’s social relations, which are based on an unequal distribution of wealth, property, and power. Capitalism thereby allows the resources that everyone depends on to be owned and exploited for profit by the wealthy elite. This results in a “metabolic rift” whereby people are increasingly separated – both spatially and socially – from the ecosystems that support them. For example, in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain, wealthy elites claimed that peasant agricultural practices were backward and unproductive and argued that land could be put to more profitable use. As a result, parliamentary land enclosures moved large areas of land from communal management into the private sphere. Peasants lost their rights to carry out subsistence activities such as grazing animals and collecting firewood. So farmers were forced to seek employment in factories in industrialized towns.

Industrialization resulted in air and water pollution from factories and made profound changes in human-environment relations through disruptions in the exchanges of nutrients between society and the environment. (Foster.,2000) The nineteenth-century chemist Justus von Liebig pointed out that urbanization led to a physical separation of food production and consumption. In agrarian societies, food production and consumption are carried out nearby and nutrient cycles can easily be maintained by returning organic waste (and therefore nutrients) to the land. However, with urbanization, food is produced in rural areas and moved to cities to be consumed. Waste, rather than being returned to the soil as fertilizer, is disposed of as sewage, and the nutrient cycle is broken. Marx drew on this idea to argue that capitalism not only robbed people of control over their livelihoods but also robbed the soil of its nutrients. So for Marx, the exploitation of natural resources and the exploitation of people were two sides of the same coin.