My problem with liberal capitalism.

[white_wolf]

This thread isn't meant to attack liberals, indeed I think the ideas of political equality are very good goals. Instead this thread is to discuss the relationship between Liberalism and Capitalism. Liberalism and Capitalism have been united since the ideas were conceived, and though the details of liberalism has changed over the years, the basic concept of liberalism has remained intact. The idea behind liberalism is based on the idea of political equality for all, universal suffrage, rule of law, etc. Granted these ideas were not always enacted, but those were the goals. However, despite the fact that Liberalism and Capitalism have been natural partners, the goals of each system are incompatible. Liberalism seeks to grant equal political rights to everyone, however capitalism naturally hoards power and wealth into a small number of Oligarchs. Inevitably the goals of liberalism and capitalism will clash, and as we see today, capitalism wins. If we truly want everyone to have equal political rights and power, than we must abolish capitalism. Political democracy is impossible with economic democracy.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[white_wolf]

6. Fascism is a form of capitalism. It maintains private property and the capitalist mode of production

Granted, it claims to be a third way, but in reality it not.

[Exilednight]

62. Fascism is a form of capitalism. The biggest difference is that fascism is rooted in

authoritarianism and nationalism.

If you want see what fascism really looks like in practice, just look at modern day China. China claims to be socialist, but in practice they're a fascist country.

[tblue]

2. You think there's room for a modified form, tempered with

appropriate regulation and oversight? Or is it just never going to work to have a capitalist/liberal social system? Just asking for your thoughts. I'm very intrigued by your well-written post.

[white_wolf]

7. I don't think you can successfully regulate capitalism.

Simply because regulation never lasts. Eventually in pursuit of greater profits, the capitalists will fight to remove the regulations placed on them. Also even if you have a strong social-democracy in Europe and America, the third world is still exploited terribly. Capitalism doesn't remove misery, it just shifts it around the world. That misery is now coming back home to Europe and the U.S.

[tblue]

18. It's a rude awakening for Americans

who were pretty much cool with ghastly exploitation of people in Latin America and Asia. Didn't bother us much because it was so far away and, gee, 'what are you gonna do?'

I always thought—after some of the books & articles I have read—it's just a matter of time before the 'them' is us.

[Taverner]

45. Agreed. The regulators will always be for sale.

Social Democracy seems to me, a great starting point into Socialism

But not an end in itself

[white_wolf]

54. Sadly even the Social-Democracies are facing calls for austerity.

[Taverner]

59. Yes - victims of capitalism

If we eliminate the stock market, at least we stop tying our economic health to a gambling den

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Unfortunately

Unfortunately there has never been a nation that has been democratic and didn't have a market baseed economic system.

[Modern_Matthew]

4. +1. We are beyond reformation. And even if we manage to reform a little...

The power will shift again and they will come undone.

We need a new political and economic system. There's no other way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. "We need a new political and economic system."

Which would be what?

[Taverner]

8. I'm surprised that I have to keep saying this but: Socialism

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Define Socialism And Please Give Me A Nation To Which The Socialism You Envision Is Practiced

Socialism means a lot of things to different people. I like John Lennon's definition. " If socialism means that the government should see that granny gets her teeth fixed then I'm a socialist."

Other definitions. I don't like so much.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. Define capitalism!

That's another challenge in itself. Marxists would use the term "State Monopoly Capitalism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly_capitalism
To describe the emerging status quo, but many advocates of free market capitalism would actually describe the same as a kind of weird emerging socialism, because the companies who profit do so because of their fusion with the state. (Military industrial apparatus, etc.)

I'm with Lennon's version of socialism, which is to say that the moral cause of a civilization should include taking care of those who can't (not won't - can't) take care of themselves... Children, disabled, elderly. I define a successful person as somebody who accomplishes more than their fair share not just in taking care of themselves, but also in providing for the helpless in society. (e.g. if you've gotten rich through back channels without ever paying taxes or giving to charity or helping anybody but yourself I think you are a failure) So the individual exist in relation to society, has social obligations and achieves greatness through fulfilling them.

Peace

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Lenin Sounds A Lot Like Hubert Humphrey

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "


I like this companion quote by Humphrey:

"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. I think you meant to write "Lennon"

We're talking about the Beatles, not Vladimir Lenin the Soviet leader.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I Read It Fast

I like his definitiion and also like HHH's description of a just society.

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. I like that too. I'll never forget visiting the Anasazi ruins as a child.

The tour guide said. "We know they were were a pretty advanced civilization. Archaeologists found bodies that that would have been disabled from childhood, but that were raised to adulthood, so they must have been cared for." It struck me then and now. Presumably nomadic tribes couldn't afford that, so you have this idea that getting out of the woods and building that amazing city that survives to this day went hand and hand with a set of moral values that called people to look beyond their own survival to something bigger.

[hyphenate]

81. There are many ancient civilzations which thrived

on a more communal scale as well. It wasn't until "might equal right" became the world's motto, that we saw the rise of a class level system as downright maddening. It's always been a weakness of humanity that they prefer to blame someone else for their own ills, which is why even today there is a huge resurgence of religion in the world.

A decent society once took care of their children, their elderly and their infirm, but it wasn't until there was a complete profit motive that killed a lot of services. The only solution, I feel, is not to quash enterprise, but to simply establish a firmer safety net for those who need one, and keep the original commitment that allows people to "go for the gold" when they can.

[white_wolf]

82. Also the Iroquois Confederacy is an example of a society not based on private property or profit

[napoleon_in_rags]

83. It makes me wonder what the future looks like.

When I take it all in, the 7 billion population, the fossil fuel and environmental issues, I see we are really at this remarkable point in human history, and absolutely nothing about it is going to last... We're plummeting forward toward major changes for sure, but the question is what is the equilibrium people will settle into AFTER it all goes down. Will it resemble those first peoples? Or will be something new and utterly strange to us?

[prairierose]

11. Choose any of the northern European Social democracies....

Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark....

Socialism means that the government controls some aspects of society for the common good. Do not confuse socialism with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They used the word socialism for propaganda purposes and it worked great in this country. Millions bought the bs that they were a socialist country and that socialism is bad.

Social Security is socialist. Medicare is socialist. Your fire department is socialist. Your police department is socialist. Your library is socialist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. They Are Advanced Welfare States

They are advanced welfare states with elemements of socialism but they are still nominally capitalist.

I favor a system that takes care of people who can't take care of themselves and if possible gives them the tools to take care of themselves.

[Taverner]

26. The Term is Social Democracy

But there should always be the threat to businesses that the government will take them over if they commit crimes. Much more effective than fining them.

[hack89]

21. Every one has a capitalistic economy as its core

Sweden, for example, has very little government ownership and has actually privatized many companies recently. They have an excellent balance between government, unions and companies but it is private companies that drive the economy.

[Taverner]

27. Sweden's Government MAKES money

They buy or build a company, make it profitable and then sell it, taking the proceeds and putting them in the public coffer.

[hack89]

87. Care to provide some examples?

you will find that the government's involvement in creating companies is minimal.

[Taverner]

32. +10000

[FrodosPet]

88. So socialism is about providing services?

I always thought it was about either state or worker ownership of the means of production, like farms and factories. I think one of the biggest problem people have with socialism is that it has such wide ranging, and sometimes contradictory definitions. I've been trying to understand it for years - specifically how it would work day to day, and it leaves my head swimming.

[Fool Count]

96. Stop dumping on USSR already. It was destroyed 20 years ago,

you can stop the propaganda now. In truth, even with all its shortcomings, it was a great country to live in. When it started out tt was a very
poor country with GDP per capita less than 1/10th of USA's. It was violently attacked by its numerous enemies throughout its history. Though
it was still relatively poor (about 1/3 of USA's GDP per capita) at the time of its demise, it did manage to achieve a superpower status and become
competitive with USA in many fields, while providing decent and dignified living for its citizens, free of hunger, deceases, illiteracy, homeless and
unemployment. Without socialism they would have remained a backwards peasant country at the level of Mexico or Turkey. Name one decent-sized
country which started at the same or lower level with Russia in 1917 and overtook USSR. After 20 years of capitalist restoration Russia still can't get
back to the standard of living USSR had in 1990.

[ParkieDem]

101. You're not serious, are you?

Really? Did you live in some sort of vaccum-oriented USSR, where Stalin's purges and the literal rape and pillaging of Eastern Europe post-WWII were used to fund the world's largest military-industrial complex?

Ask those in the gulag, or most people in Poland, Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria (not to mention the Baltic States) if the USSR was a "great country." I bet you'll get a different answer.

Hell, Hitler's Germany oversaw a great increase in standards of living compared to Weimar Germany.

[Fool Count]

103. I am serious. And I lived in USSR 40 years in time removed

from what you are talking about. And no need to teach me what to think either. I lived in that country myself. Your source of information
is a crappy anti-soviet propaganda on american TV. Geez, I wonder how truthful that was? About as truthful as the crap about Saddam's
WMDs and Libyan "popular revolution", that's how. So spare me the righteous indignation and go lecture someone who might buy that crap.
And, also unlike you, I actually met and talked with many people from most East European countries (not to mention the Baltic Republics).
They were creative happy people who enjoyed life as much as I did. That was fun, try it some time.

[Taverner]

24. Socialism is a very big tent. It can be anything from employee owned companies...

To outright complete government control of everything

Right now, I think a Social Democracy, like has happened in Northern Europe, would be best. There is no perfect state to point to, only ideas that have worked. Like Single-Payer Health Care, Nationalizing the Oil Companies, Big Pharma, and other key industries.

Essentially, we have to reverse the 30 years of Privatization we've had since Reagan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. What You Are Refeering To Is A Really Advanced Welfare State Supported By Capitalist Profits

I embrace that. But I don't think that's what the OP envisions. All these terms are nebulous.

[Taverner]

31. Not necesarrily. Socialism simply means, the workers control the means of production

I do think the Stock Market should be abolished. So should the Commodities Trading Index.

They do no good, they only do harm.

[Chan790]

25. Some of us are unilaterally antithetical to socialism...

I'm a Keynesian & I support Scandinavian-styled Social Democracy. My economic liberalism is as a bulwark against socialism.

Forced to choose between oligarchy and socialism...I'm choosing the oligarchy because I believe socialism and communism to be far more evil than capitalism is capable of being.

The socialist is my enemy. I will yield them no quarter, I expect none from them. I will possess no pity in striking them down and fomenting against them. I will bear none but malice against them. I will shatter my will upon them or I will prevail...but I will never acquiesce to the cessation of the fight for their destruction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Alas you have no clue what socialism is

In fact, I am willing to bet a dime on dollar, you have no idea what capitalism is either....shee it involves getting rid of monopolies and...living wages. That Smith was a Marxist before Marx was conceived.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Don't Like Labels

And Adam Smith wrote "that when ever businessmen get together you can be certain the public good is not in mind."

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Yup, he did.

[Taverner]

37. He also said they fix prices and monopolize.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Alas he was talking of the ill of his day

Mercantilism. In some ways we've come full circle.

I like to use him when those who pray at the shrine bring the word, but my experience have rarely read the holy writ.

[Chan790]

48. Actually you're wrong on both counts but I'll let you persist in such beliefs. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. So I did not read such in the wealth of nations?

Or was such written by another Adam Smith? I must live in a parallel world.

[Chan790]

68. I care piss-all about Adam Smith.

So please kindly stop trying to crucify me on a cross of Adam Smith. The theories of 400 year dead economic philosophers that largely fail to hold water are of little consequence.

I'd suggest you spend less time reading Smith and more time on The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and other writings by John Maynard Keynes. Such a witty bastard to have penned such gems as:

For my part I think that capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that in itself it is in many ways extremely objectionable.

If farming were to be organized like the stock market, a farmer would sell his farm in the morning when it was raining, only to buy it back in the afternoon when the sun came out.

If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem. But if you owe a million, it has.

It is generally agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of Stock Exchanges.

Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Four hundred years?

When did we celebrate the four hundred anniversary of the US?

Since you have no clue who the founder of classical economics is, or chiefly WHEN he published the foundational book of capitalism I suspect then that what I said was correct. You truly have no clue what capitalism is. Thank you for making my point better than I ever could. Hell, that famous hand you probably pray to comes with a few caveats.

I recommend, not that you will, that you start with a basic timeline of what you think you know.

Oh and free clue...where exactly do you think Maynard Keynes drew on that principle of labor you speak off? Oh yes, he drew from both Smith and Ricardo, with yes some Marx. You need a timeline for starters, but Keynes built on Classical Economists. Keines is a NEO-CLASSICAL economists who expanded on the ideas and economic views of CLASSICAL economists.

I got a few good timeline apps...need a recommendation?

[Synicus Maximus]

98. He misspoke Adam Smith has only been dead for 300 years.

But still his theories are over 3 centuries old and the world and economies have changed a bit since he died.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Three hundred years? When did the us celebrate our 300 anniversary.

And this is why 'isms mean little.

Free dang clue the Wealth is as old as the united staes and is the basis for Keynes...

[Taverner]

30. Am I your enemy? I am a Socialist.

I don't think a complete, government control of everything, Socialist state would work now. But Single Payer Health Care, Government nationalizing some key industries - and threatening to do so to other companies if they break the law, would work well.

IN addition, employee owned companies, an element of both Anarchism and Socialism, would be best to steer our country into greener pastures.

I am a Socialist. Not a Communist, nor a Statist - but one who believes the people, not private interests, should control the means of production.

[Chan790]

47. I'd debate your socialist cred if you're advocating any Socialism that looks like Social Democracy.

The Social Democracies are built upon highly-regulated capitalism, but nevertheless capitalism. To say that you're a socialist and advocate a capitalist system is...silly? :shrug:

The Socialists I'm railing against are the Bolivarians like Chavez, the ones whose socialism is a winking nod back towards free markets while slouching consistently towards communism. The ones whose goals are the eventual uniform nationalization of industry, resources and labor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Confessions of an Economic Hitman

You might benefit from reading that...context is like everything.

[Taverner]

61. Great book

And I agree with him, especially when he says there is no conspiracy, only greed

[Taverner]

60. Chavez has done a lot of good for Venezuela

No it isn't communism. Not even close. Free Enterprise is legal in Venezuela.

Now, unlike others, I will agree that Chavez is human, and trying to consolidate power for life will destroy the Bolivarian Revolution.

But Chavezism has worked, where capitalism has failed.

Infant Mortality has gone down. Starvation has gone down. Literacy has gone up. How can these be bad things?

Yes, the rich can't make obscene amounts of money. So what?

[themadstork]

91. Care to explain what is so evil about the collective ownership of modes of production?

Or are you one of the many who conflate socialism/communism with authoritarianism?

[CJCRANE]

14. I see capital (money) as a unit of motivation, energy and organization.

Countries that want high levels of motivation, dynamism and organization need to keep a lot of money circulating in the real economy (with most of the population having access to disposable income).

That traditionally was provided by the mixed economy model with a strong government sector, social safety nets but also the opportunity for entrepreneurship and businesses to provide extra products and services.

On the other hand, where capital accumulates in a few hands you get stagnation, deterioration of infrastructure and lack of overall dynamism - the standard third world model.

[AntiFascist]

89. Excellent post...

and the last paragraph is where we find ourselves headed today. The MIC siphons off more than it will ever need through taxes, wealthy oil companies and farmers are subsidized, the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes because they are the "job creators" - taxes are only to be paid by the little people, and financial institutions that should be left to fail in a real capitalist system are otherwise bailed out... meanwhile, our society becomes stratified and stagnant: the educational system is among the lowest ranked preventing those with potential talent from rising up, the infrastructure is left in disrepair, social safety nets become tattered and those who need them die off, the captains of industy become so lost in their own egos and power that they no longer offer any real benefit to society, and the only hope for our economy now becomes the next world war?!

[bluestate10]

19. Just come out and say it. You hate capitalism in any form.

You hate it even when it is practiced in a way that actually makes people's lives better. The question that I have for you is what will replace that works? I know, I know, you will spew drivel about true marxism and how perfect it is, the issue with your dreamy spew is that no manifestation of marxism has EVER worked.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. In The Early Days Of Israel

In the early days of Israel ( most of Israel's founders were socialists) there were voluntary collectives. Most folks left them after awhile.

There is even much talk of communes in the New Testament, "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had"

For whatever reason it has been impossible to get masses of people to enter. voluntarily, into such a system, and every system that has forced the masses into such a system has ended in heartache.

[Taverner]

41. Problem is you don't start it that way

Socialism has to be achieved from the ground up, not the top down

You need to empower the syndicates, unionize EVERYTHING, and work up from there

Communes are nice in theory, but hardly practical in today's global village

Also, you can't do Socialism overnight

Start with a Social Democracy. Go with some ideas that have worked in the past: Single Payer Health Care, Nationalize the oil companies, big pharma, etc.

And something that I've been saying for a while, abolish the stock market. It does no good, and brings only harm.

[white_wolf]

22. Capitalism does not make people's lives better. Not for the majoirty.

As I said above even when things are going good in first world countries, there are millions being exploited in the third world. So yes, I do hate the fact that some child in China is working in terrible conditions for no pay in order to make cheap junk for us over here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Am Sympathetic To Small C Communism But I See No Evidence It Has Worked

.

[Taverner]

42. Communism =/= Socialism

Just sayin'

They aren't synonyms

[Taverner]

36. Socialism does not equal Marxism

Two completely different schools of thought. Don't believe what our teachers told us about Ivan.

Socialism is an extremely big tent. You're talking everything from employee owned companies, to outright state control of everything.

As was mentioned earlier, The Police Department is Socialist. The Fire Department is Socialist. The Public Library system is Socialist. Social Security is Socialist.

One area I would probably butt heads with you is on the Stock Market. I think it should be abolished.

[elleng]

34. REGULATED capitalism can succeed, imo,

and is surely compatible w liberalism. What's happened 'lately' is that 'regulation' has been coopted by those in no way concerned about or aware of need for a successful system, that is, the 'takers,' sociopaths all, imo.

[Taverner]

38. Problem is regulation has failed, and will fail

Simply because in a capitalist system, everything is for sale, including the lawmakers, the law enforcers and the judicial system.

[elleng]

72. Capitalism is for sale in this country because 'law' has enabled it to become so.

Would take strong counter-actions to change things, OWS part of such, others must follow (like Constitutional Amendment against Citizens United,) not at all easy, but possible, imo, because I think, essentially, Americans want such.

Huge forces against us, but many new instruments/techniques available now, which can help.

[Taverner]

76. Well, a few years of wealth redistribution would do wonders

Seriously!

By tax or by take

[banned from Kos]

40. Good premise but faulty conclusion. Liberals love MARKETS (as I do).

there is nothing more liberal than selling your work! Or buying the work of another!

Its that simple. Capitalism is the profit from selling your work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Hmm not quite

Read the word, just don't preach it.

[Taverner]

44. Markets, yes. The Stock Market, no.

I've been to several Communist States. All of them had markets. Every last one of them.

You could always find a place to buy goods.

[banned from Kos]

49. Why don't you just ignore the stock market then?

I hate Southern Baptists (my parents were in the church).

I don't begrudge their right to exist. They have that right.

The NASDAQ has the right to exist too.

[white_wolf]

51. The difference is the Southern Baptists have not ruined the economy or bought the government.

The stock market has caused far too much damage.

[Taverner]

57. So you think its good that all of our destiny is tied to a roulette wheel?

"The Market" can do whatever it wants. It can kill thousands by putting them out of work.

If I ignore it, I am still a slave to it.

Also realize that the "Grow or Die" mandate of Capitalism is not scalable. Eventually we will run out of resources. We can't go on like this anymore.

[Exilednight]

65. Ignoring problems doesn't solve them. n/t

[white_wolf]

46. So tell me how much of their work do hedge fund managers sell?

How about CEOs? They don't seem to do much work, but they make most of the profits.

[banned from Kos]

53. Good question. Hedge fund managers get paid to be right.

Yes, they produce nothing on their own.

But many others get paid to be right too! Auditors, tax preparers, doctors, pollsters, you get the point.

[white_wolf]

56. What good to they do for society?

Auditors are necessary to collect taxes as are tax prepares, doctors are necessary to save lives. Hedge fund managers do not serve a a valid function in society.

[banned from Kos]

63. They do NO GOOD for society. But that is not a condition to live in the USA.

We form our own worth here in the USA. That is a LIBERAL core value.

I praise my gay liberal friends (I am a boring straight). But do gays "add" to society? No. Do us straights? No.

We just are who we want to be!

[white_wolf]

64. You can't really be comparing being gay to being a hedge fund manager.

Being gay harms no one, but hedgefund managers have helped ruin the global economy and destroyed the livehoods of millions of people.

[Taverner]

67. +1000

[Taverner]

66. Gays don't add to society? Tell that to Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Harvey Milk, Tom Amiano...

Joan Baez, Alan Ball, Leonard Bernstein, Tracy Chapman...really, do I need to go on?

[banned from Kos]

69. "some" gays and hedge fund managers add to society! Of course!

look at Soros! A great man!

Carl Icahn --

"Icahn made a substantial donation to his alma mater, Princeton University, to fund a genomics laboratory which bears his name, the Carl C. Icahn Laboratory at the University's Institute for Integrated Genomics. He also made a large donations to Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, of which he is a trustee, which in return named a building the Icahn Medical Institute designed by Davis Brody Bond.

His foundation, the Children's Rescue Fund, built Icahn House in The Bronx, a 65-unit complex for homeless families consisting of single pregnant women and single women with children, and operates Icahn House East and Icahn House West, both of which are homeless shelters located in New York City.

Icahn has received numerous awards, including the Starlight Foundation's Founders Award and its 1990 Man of the Year Award. He was also named Guardian Angel 2001 Man of the Year. In 2004, he was honored by the Center for Educational Innovation - Public Education Association for his work with charter schools. In 2006, he was honored with the 100 Women in Hedge Funds Effecting Change Award for his outstanding contributions to improving education."

(Wiki)

Stop painting with such a broad brush!

[Taverner]

70. You cite Carl Ichan??? The man who destroyed TWA????

I have a dog in this race

My mother was a flight attendant for TWA

Gave years of service for the company

And when they struck the message was that "they weren't breadwinners"

As if that is the only measure of an employee

As if that is the only measure of a human

FUCK CARL ICHAN

He is the 1%, and I would love to see him rotting in a jail cell

[banned from Kos]

73. Yes. Ichan has contributed much to society. He might have been a complete dick

about TWA (I will take your word on that) but you cannot deny his other contributions to society.

[Taverner]

75. I don't care if he fed starving babies, he helped destroy labor in the US

The effects of this are still being felt, 20+ years later

[white_wolf]

71. Here is the problem. By it's nature the profession hedgefund manager is going to cause trouble.

I am not allowed to steal from you simply because it makes me happy, nor should hedgfund managers be allowed to steal, but they do.

[banned from Kos]

74. The great Soros is a hedgie! And he donates millions to democratic causes!

you can't just group them as a singular entity.

[Taverner]

78. Yes. You. Can.

And my bet is if you banned Soros from hedge fund trading, he'd agree with you

[Taverner]

58. +100000

[just us]

55. liberal capitalism

I believe you have confused a rule that allows for the uniting
of them both. For 4000 years civilized men have lived by the
rule of usuries. A capitalist has every right to make a
profit, but he does not have the rite  past a usury amount and
 an even smaller amount for money changing or loans.Just
because you can con or bamboozle another person into believing
that a product is worth 10 times its price does not give you
the rite to sell it for that price. Capitalism must be married
with ethics to be a benefit to man.

[hyphenate]

77. I think that some capitalism is a good thing

We wouldn't have invented or patented very many things if we could no longer find profit in them. Enterprise is a direct result of capitalism, and not something which someone has done to please the system.

Capitalism results in a social win for everyone. An Oppressive government regime can kill all profit if there is stagnation of creativity and ideas. We would be true plebes, living in a society that can never progress. That's what happened to a large degree in Russia/USSR and in East Germany. Once the wall was lifted, both in reality and metaphorically, it was plain to see that a completely socialist country could not survive.

There are measures which need to be taken to insure growth and yet preserve some sense of prosperity, but surprisingly, the US is not one of the countries that can succeed right now--the truth is, some elements in a country need to be regulated, such as a health system, and the banking system, as there is a great chance of these being used to fuel a class level struggle.

People don't need to be "equal" in every sense in order to create an egalitarian status--there just has to be a system where basic rights are met, and where there is a chance for everyone to be better educated and has the opportunity to gain. I don't like this system where my money makes profits for someone else, like the bankers, who profit on my interest, and charge ME for trying to spend my own money.

[Taverner]

79. But as the dominant economic theology

And yes, it can be a theology as much as any religion

But as the dominant economic theology it has problems

If you don't think it is a holy war, look at some of the excuses for it on this thread

[themadstork]

92. Enterprise is not exclusive to capitailsm

This thread is bearing out pretty well the idea that most capitalist ideologues don't really know what it is and isn't.

[fascisthunter]

80. this is fascism, not liberal capitalism

[unkachuck]

84. the unbridled economic and political power....

....that we're witnessing around the world today with demands from capitalists to our governments that citizens must be forced to make whole damages capitalists have caused to us and themselves is proving capitalism is the most powerful, destructive and dangerous force on the planet....

....any political or economic view that doesn't recognize or account for this fact IMO, is ignoring and contributing to capitalisms' destructive power....any capitulation by our governments to capitalist demands, demonstrates capitalisms' destructive and evil nature....

"If we truly want everyone to have equal political rights and power, than we must abolish capitalism."

....yes, if capitalism were a new ideology now being introduced for the first time, we would have no choice but to respond to its overwhelmingly destructive nature the way we responded to Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party and ideology....

[applegrove]

86. Liberalism won the cold war. That is why all countries in the world are mixed market economies.

[themadstork]

90. I don't understand the natural-rights justification for the existence of capitalists,

except insofar as there isn't any, and it's just this thing that we do.

ugh - premature submit, hold on

frex. There Will Be Blood is on the tube right now, and early on the capitalist character is pressuring the Sunday family into selling their land to him at "quail prices." They get into a spat while negotiating and he challenges the Sundays with something like "Do you know anyone else that can drill? That can get the oil out of the land?"

And more and more I don't see how that kind of situation is acceptable, either morally or practically. Oil comes from the earth and as such no one person has a special claim to or dominion over it. Special dominion over the modes of extraction just seems like a technical way of upending any natural-rights claim to resources held in common.

Basically I don't see why wage-pay or capital-concentration is a thing that can be justified on any basis other than "because the law says so." Owning the tools of extraction would naturally seem to allow for an extractor's fee, and that's fine. What is it about the holding of capital that says it must be held by a very few people, and why can't the fruits of commonly held resources be shared in ways more direct than wage pay?

[white_wolf]

94. The natural rights argument is something I just can't take seriously.

It seems so arbitrary. I might as well say I have natural right to own slaves or the air. Who gave us these "natural rights"? Did, God? If so which God, and why do none of the various religious texts proclaim these "natural rights"?

[themadstork]

95. It's a form of reasoning.

It should be pretty obvious why the right to own slaves can't be a natural right.

Don't really understand the point of your response.

[white_wolf]

97. The point is it is a faulty form of reasoning.

There is no natural basis for any rights. Rights are a creation of society, they are not found in nature.

[Scruffy1]

93. I'm with you. Liberalism is dead.

Being voting for over forty years ad watched things get worse. What we need is a new visoin for the world economy based on the needs of the inhabitants not the landlords.

[Spider Jerusalem]

99. "Liberalism" in the classical sense has very little to do with American "liberalism"

American liberalism being what would be called social democracy or even democratic socialism anywhere else in the world. Classical liberalism of the John Stuart Mill variety on the other hand is about free trade, free markets, etc. The closest equivalent to the 19th century meaning of "liberal" in the US today is the Libertarian Party.

[Romulox]

102. The "Third Way" movement here in the US ("New Democrats") is specifically an attempt

to synthesize the two senses of the term. Didn't you notice President Obama gleefully signing the free trade with Korea bill? Similarly, Bill Clinton and Al Gore championed NAFTA and Most Favored Nation status for China (sans any pesky human rights review!)