Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
-
Franc Morales wrote:
Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
According to Merriam-Webster online[^] anarchy is the extreme version of "small government": 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
I'm afraid "absence" and "small" are not synonyms.
-
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is a political system. They are not mutually exclusive...in the short run. In the long run, not so much. Communism is the ultimate end-point of socialism, if people decide they want to keep the Socialist system going. It embodies both the economic and political. (Countries are too large to effectively leave the "means of production" in the hands of the workers. On a small scale, it should work just fine.) Yeah, this is a simplistic explanation. Lounge post, not Masters thesis.
Actually Capitalism is a political system. Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property. It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals. The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
The problem with capitalism is that it is dependent upon consumption. We've gone from just producing what we need to marketing which actually produces need. It is ultimately unsustainable and creates a slave labor class. For the developed world the slave labor is off shore and the slave owners are the governments that enslave their own people. It is a sick system but no less so than socialism, communism or whatever else we've tried.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous!
I think that I agree with you. Capitalism is so dynamic. That is why it is so successful. It will adapt and then re-adapt as required. It just needs some social and moral rules to control the greed ( and greed is good) and keep a fair go for all as attainable and at the same time look after us all. I enjoyed the CP sub heading on the link to your post: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." There must be a midpoint where we can both share a bit more and profit hugely as well.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
A lot of people confuse Libertarism[^] with capitalism. A lot of people confuse communism with socialism. When one is sooooo entrenched in his own definition of his way of life that he loose all sense of reality and more importantly judgement and rationality.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Capitalism promotes innovation moreso than any other system, I don't think we would live in the world we live in today without it. It's a strong driving force.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Capitalism is a term some douche politician came up with. You are talking about Free Market Economics. Every economy is partially free market and partially socialism. You sited a progressive website. Progressive means they want to progress past the Constitution. The Constitution is in place to keep the people in power instead of someone like a king or a absolute ruler. The only people that is talking about anarchy is the big government people as an argument to the small government people. It's not true. They want to keep their power and control. If you think of this as a number line with Free Market on one side and Socialism on the other side. The small government people only want to slide it to the right to give the people back the power. No one wants a complete Free Market and no one wants anarchy.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
When government revenues subsidize business and when most industries are dominated by oligopolies and when some businesses (e.g. NFL are considered non-profit/not-for-profit) is there really capitalism? Or something else? That is the more important question. :suss:
David
-
Actually Capitalism is a political system. Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property. It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals. The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
-
May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system" Let say I kind of agree with that statement. Then they go on saying we should abolish tax, promote small government, blah blah, .. here I loose the plot.. This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy. Yet anarchy has never happened and it has never been validated by past success (guess what? tax in the US were higher in the 50s). In a word I think there is a very big fallacy running around people where people attribute past success of A (what I think is capitalism) to B (which is Anarchy, and has obviously no links with past success except for the renaming) and go on promote B (Anarchy) because it is supposedly successful like A (free enterprise, rule of law) this article made everything clear! :) http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^] Further this one elaborate nicely on common confusions.. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246-socialism-and-capitalism.html[^] Anyhow while I wanted to rename my political affiliation as "socialist capitalist" I think I would have to change (to avoid confusion) into "free entrepreneur rules of law socialist" less ambiguous! Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law (as opposed to the will of despot) and private property and free enterprise (as government ownership)???
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Super Lloyd wrote:
Yet anarchy has never happened
I question the truth of that statement.
Super Lloyd wrote:
and it has never been validated by past success
I also question that. Certainly without a specific definition of "success". For example one might hypothesize that say 60,000 years ago that either anarchy existed or it was far closer to that than to any other system. And one might further suggest that since humans are still around that at that time it was a 'success'.
Super Lloyd wrote:
this article made everything clear! :)
http://progressiveliving.org/economics/capitalism_socialism_communism.htm[^]Of course some of it is nonsensical such as the following_..."Beginning with Reagan, and accelerating under the Bush administrations, the US has been lapsing back into the worst of its excesses."_
-
A rather spurious justification. There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other than Hell on Earth. A'driving force' is not a good thing in itself. Ask those in the path of a hurricane!
Member 9082365 wrote:
There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other than Hell on Earth.
However as a percentage of total population there are far more people now than at any point in history enjoying a better life. Starvation is just one data point in that with actual starvation (percentage of population) on a steady decline and not to mention that since about 1900 starvation has been driven solely by monetary economics and not just lack of food.
-
Capitalism promotes innovation moreso than any other system, I don't think we would live in the world we live in today without it. It's a strong driving force.
-
Actually Capitalism is a political system. Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property. It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals. The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
-
Its a kind of psuedo-capitalism, with private enterprise exitisting, but with the government playing a heavy hand into who is sucessful and who is not. A sort of central planning economy, but with a touch of privatism. Also, their free-trade zones are totally capitalist, and they are experimenting with more and more of them. Also, my own comment about pros and cons about capitalism/communism One of the best things about the central planning systems of communism is that the governmnet has the political will to make radical changes for the greater good when necessary. The downside is that the economies are not flexible. As there is no incentive to innovate, economies will stagnate until they are forced to innovate (wars?) This is why I think that the Soviet Union rebounded after WWII. The war forced them to innovate and got them (relatively) modern technology.