Mariusz Gulczyski

Determinants of improvement of the capitalist system

Capitalism differs from all previous formations, that could be reformative 1. Much speaks for the fact that the ongoing since 2008 Third Great Depression, enter in a phase of exacerbating social conflicts. Initially - in Greece, Spain and Portugal, now also in some states in USA - the protests against cuts social programs. In winter 2011 - a dramatic demonstrations and revolts in Arab countries. Spontaneous at first, but ever more clearly definable as a revolt of the younger generation. Not only against the patriarchal gerontocratic autocrats, but also against a system of exorbitant wealth the few in oceans of poverty of the majority. The poverty more severe, because not only experienced, but and realized through the availability of electronic information. This makes the question of whether capitalism is able to improve - to overcome this, what generate economic crisis and social conflicts in this system? Will be capitalism able to - once again in its history - to overcome the dysfunction disclosed by the Third Depression and social conflicts? Does this system proves to be capable of self-improvement? Or if will be replaced by another system? What will be "life after capitalism" - ask professor Lord Robert Skidelsky [Project Syndicate, 2011]? It is "the time for the twentieth century communism" - writes in Virtual Poland Lech Walesa [25.02.2011]. This are the key contemporary questions.

2. About capitalism can be said adapting perverse opinion Winston Churchill's about democracy - that is the worst formation, except all the others that have been tried from time to time. Superiority of capitalism is from this, that could be reformed - could overcoming its frailties and limitations. Ability to reform of capitalism is determined by three factors: 2.1. the right of both the market economy and capitalist democracy, freedom of activity and economic and political rivalry. This is conducive to winning the competition by better products and producers and better programs and more efficient political teams. Better - it does not mean perfect, because capitalism - as all human things - is flawed in many ways. But, in contrast to other formations, particularly socialism - until recently his main rival - the freedom of speech allows to define disability, and democratic-market rules conducive to overcoming them.

2.2. ability to broaden the social base of the pro-capitalist by absorbing the core of anti-capitalist ideas and movements - both socialist and anticolonialist. This allowed to overcome the two most threatening limitations of capitalist formation in the past - that this was a system efficient [1] not for entire nations, and [2] not for all nations. This allowed to overcome the main threat - an attempt to create socialism as an alternative to capitalism, and the spread of market economies throughout the globe. 2.3. ability to move the pattern-creating center of capitalism in ever new regions of the world. Originally the center was located in the cities of northern Italy, France and the Netherlands, producing by manufacure luxury items for the "leisured class." Then center had moved to England thanks of production widely available textile. Next the center became USA offering pattern of conveyer-belt system mass-production automobile, jeans, Coca Cola, westerns and others democratic patterns of "american way of life". This substantiates the presumption that center of global capitalism will move to another country or region . It's more visible

in degenerating "american way of life" - substitution commonly available democratic model "welfare society", by stimulating adhesion and borrowing "society of abundance." Less - for now - in creating a more rational patterns of production and consumption patterns. There is no such ideas and theories - they are concrete manifestations of changes, promising to create a model of progress of capitalistic system [I wrote down them from the real patterns in the text published on the Internet "Premisses a civilization of rational sufficiency"] 3. History provides plenty of both positive and negative evidence of the effectiveness of the above-defined determinants of capitalist progress. This positive evolution was originally to overcome shortcomings of capitalism foreground, threatening its development, and even the existence of: the absolute exploitation of workers, economic growth is not of advantage for the whole of capitalist societies, but only for the dominant holders of the capital, monopolization contrary to the requirements of competitiveness and blocking technological progress. Negatives - the inevitability of social revolutions and revolts, forcing changes, where lack of democracy and freedom of peaceful transformation was impossible. These processes are known not only in the past, but still ongoing. Determined both by the tendency to recidivism negatives of capitalism - in particular the concentration of capital and the relative impoverishment of the masses. And by the fact that the dissemination of market economy in the era of globalization is not accompanied by an equivalent promotion of democracy. The most dangerous manifestation of recidivism is the intensification of negative social stratification - the enrichment of a narrow few of capitalists and politicians and the impoverishment of the majority. It is significant that these processes are leads repetitively to Great Depressions. And from overcoming these imbalances can and must begin the repairs of capitalism. 4. Capitalism has changed for the better only if you must. This system represents a different configuration of forces, including the mutually

conflicting interests. His limitations and deficiencies shall be primarily not for lack of better ideas, but the fact that they are suitable for a sufficiently powerful groups. Hence they must overcome to be forced upon them - by peaceful means in democracies, revolts and revolutions in autokracjach. These changes tend to have a twofold character: 4. Capitalism has changing for the better only if must. This system is a configuration of groups of the mutually contradicting interests. His limitations and deficiencies shall be primarily not for lack of better ideas, but the fact that they are suitable for a sufficiently powerful groups. Hence they must overcome to be forced upon them - by peaceful means in democracies; by revolts and revolutions in autocratic systems. These changes tend to have a twofold character: 4.1. Changes "cosmetic" - an ad hoc adjustments by removing what is dysfunctional. In this category was changing in nineteenth-century in English and German laws restricting the time and working conditions - not constrained by the law of labor exploitation by individual capitalists proved to be contrary to the interests of the bourgeoisie perspective, because "the laborer not born a laborers" and revolutionize workers against capitalism. 4.2. Deeper changes - as e.g. the antitrust laws and "social state", made under the influence of potentiating the negative effects of frailty of the system - are often generated by the great crises, revolts, revolutions and wars. Much speaks for the fact that the contemporary Third Great Depression will be forced a second - deeper - the type improvment of capitalism . Not limited to adjustment in the distribution of wealth and influence. This time, it is necessary not only agreement on interpersonal relations, but also between society and nature. Because capitalism has come to similar ecological barrier, like that which led to the collapse of previous civilizations.

5. Socialism - a statist autocracy - is no longer following the collapse of the Soviet system a viable alternative to capitalism. But he left a legacy of ideas of progress - defined by Marx as peaceful reconciliation of relations between man and man and between society and nature. Ideas consistently implemented in states with strong social-democratic influences formation . Ideas which need to "dusting" and implement in order to overcome what troublesome in contemporary capitalism. That is in fact the sense of this, which suggests in their texts Lech Walesa and Professor Lord Skidelsky. Whether emerging from such a correction system will was called communism - as suggested by Walesa, or socialism - which is supposition of Lord Skidelsky - irrelevant. I would recall that in early of spring Polish Democratic Transformation, I argued that is not important name - the system can by called democratic socialism or capitalism or "ficum-pacum" - important, whether it will bring of bettering living for people.