Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

[Mr Spinkles]

The thread title is rhetorical - of course you can be capitalist and liberal (in the American sense). This thread is directed at liberals, but I welcome everyone’s comments.

Should liberals be hostile towards capitalism - and by that I mean, not just the excesses of mismanaged capitalism, or the version pedaled by the Right, but all capitalism?

I support the “liberal” agenda to achieve universal healthcare, greater equality and fair taxation, protecting the environment and addressing the climate crisis, etc. But I do not think well-regulated competition and free markets are evil. In fact, I think they are a powerful engine for prosperity and innovation.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. But when people ask him if he’s a socialist, he doesn’t actually call for an end to capitalism. Far from it. He simply points to our lack of universal healthcare; our high levels of inequality; and our regressive taxation that favors the super-rich. These are sensible concerns and his proposed solutions do not entail dispensing with capitalism.

Elizabeth Warren said she is a “capitalist to my bones”.

The Right in the US likes to dismiss proposals on the Left as a path to becoming like Venezuela. This is absurd. Why would we, on the Left, feed into this absurdity by pretending that we aren’t capitalists “in our bones”, like Elizabeth Warren?

Comments?

 

[Sunstone]

Historically, capitalism in general was the world's greatest, most successful peasant revolt in history. It was almost the only time the peasants won against the aristocracy. Just about everyone's economic standard of living and for the most part, their quality of life rose over the centuries.

Yeah, I oppose capitalism in general -- or capitalism in principle -- about as much as I oppose having my life expectancy more than doubled and my material wealth and comfort increased several fold.

Let's for a moment put aside the fact that today's brand of capitalism is creating conditions that suspiciously look like the precursors to a new feudal age, or a new kind of feudalism, however you want to phrase it. In fact, let's put aside for a moment all of its problems and issues. Let's put that aside and acknowledge the role capitalism has performed in lifting much of humanity out of dire poverty, in providing the economic means necessary to advance more humane moralities, in creating (in many nations) the leisure to pursue self-development and 'spiritual' activities, and in offering me the personal grooming products I use so successfully in making myself irresistible to attractive women. Cheers for capitalism!

In practice, I am for a mixed economy involving various kinds of ownership of the means of production, including both capitalist, socialist, and a few other, less well-known kinds.

 

[Willamena]

The thread title is rhetorical - of course you can be capitalist and liberal (in the American sense). This thread is directed at liberals, but I welcome everyone’s comments.

Should liberals be hostile towards capitalism - and by that I mean, not just the excesses of mismanaged capitalism, or the version pedaled by the Right, but all capitalism?

I support the “liberal” agenda to achieve universal healthcare, greater equality and fair taxation, protecting the environment and addressing the climate crisis, etc. But I do not think well-regulated competition and free markets are evil. In fact, I think they are a powerful engine for prosperity and innovation.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. But when people ask him if he’s a socialist, he doesn’t actually call for an end to capitalism. Far from it. He simply points to our lack of universal healthcare; our high levels of inequality; and our regressive taxation that favors the super-rich. These are sensible concerns and his proposed solutions do not entail dispensing with capitalism.

Elizabeth Warren said she is a “capitalist to my bones”.

The Right in the US likes to dismiss proposals on the Left as a path to becoming like Venezuela. This is absurd. Why would we, on the Left, feed into this absurdity by pretending that we aren’t capitalists “in our bones”, like Elizabeth Warren?

Comments?

Liberals should be sceptical of captialism. If we are to embrace progress, as we do, capitalism, as it exists, should be a passing vouge on the road to bigger and better things. That includes bigger and better capitalism.

Sadly, it clings, like mould on moss, because of conservatism, which doesn't like to let go.

 

[Sunstone]

One thing history should have taught us by now is to quit inventing BS about how capitalism is necessarily linked to any particular political ideal. When I was a young man painting caves for my summer job while attending university to study hand axe manufacturing, it was popular to announce that capitalism inevitably lead to democracy. Such nonsense!

About the time I began my post-graduate work in stone projectile points, a few of the Seven Tigers were busy disproving the notion that capitalism inevitably led to democracy.

Then, just about the time I was preparing for my dissertation in bronze metallurgy, China began mixing capitalist and non-capitalist economic elements under an authoritarian central government that they cleverly labeled, "Communist". That pretty much laid to rest any last remaining shred of respectability to the notion that capitalism inevitably requires democracy.

In fact, it seems to me that capitalism, like science, can be adapted to just about any political system or model.

 

[sun rise]

To add just a bit...

"capitalism" can mean private ownership of the means of production. I have no beef with that. "capitalism" can mean "greed is good" and that the only purpose of business is to make money which makes money an idol that people "pray" to. I'm against that.

So yes, I can be a liberal and a capitalist

 

[Valjean]

Some Libertarians can be extremely liberal, and extremely Capitalist at the same time.

Capitalism, like fire, can be useful, but it can get out of control pretty easily if not carefully watched.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well, you've said all comments are welcome yet refer to the American sense but then start the OP in political debates, rather than "North American Politics." So that's a bit confusing to me. Here's my best shot for the UK.
Here liberalism is, I think, taken to be expressed in the Liberal Democratic Party. It is centre/centre-left politically. Ideologically it espouses "restrained" capitalism and supports free markets / free trade. The party grew out of the Liberal Party and the disillusioned rightwing of the socialist Labour Party (these disillusioned people originally formed another party, but let's not muddy the water!).
I think the short answer to your question is "yes."

 

[Father Heathen]

I support rights and equality for women and LGBTs.
I support gun ownership albeit with more stringent restrictions and regulations than what currently exists.
I support bodily autonomy and reproductive choice.
I support free speech and oppose censorship.
I support the separation of religion and state.
I support the legalization, regulation, and taxation of cannabis, as is done with alcohol and tobacco.
I support the legalization of prostitution, albeit regulated and licenced.
I support capitalism, albeit with regulations that protect consumers, competitors, and the environment from unethical practices.
I support universal healthcare.

Would I be considered a liberal?

 

[Yerda]

Elizabeth Warren said she is a “capitalist to my bones”.

The Right in the US likes to dismiss proposals on the Left as a path to becoming like Venezuela. This is absurd. Why would we, on the Left, feed into this absurdity by pretending that we aren’t capitalists “in our bones”, like Elizabeth Warren?

Comments?

Perhaps these people on the Left reject the political, legal and economic system that produces starvation on a planet that produces enough food to feed everyone many time over.

Can you be liberal and believe it is acceptable for us, here and now, to live in such a way that risks the immiseration of billions or extinction of our species a few generations down the line?

 

[PureX]

Please, please, please understand what capitalism IS. Capitalism is an economic system wherein the control of the production and distribution of goods and services is in the hands of the capital investors. (And no one else.) Capitalism is not the same thing as gaining a profitable return capital investment. Capitalism is not the same thing as a free market economy. Capitalism is specifically about who control the engine of commerce: i.e., the mechanisms of production. And in a capitalist economic system that control is completely in the hands of the capital investor. It's NOT in the hands of the actual producers. It's NOT in the hands of the buyers of the products (a common delusion). It's NOT in the hands of community in which it's occurring and of which it's effecting. It's solely in the hands of the people who put up the investment capital, and who are only interested in gaining a maximum return on the capital they've invested. Which means ALL THEIR DECISIONS in the execution of commercial enterprise are based on the singular goal of the maximum profit returned, and NOT on the well-being of ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the commercial enterprise. This needs to be clearly understood.

And this is why it's an economically, socially, and logically toxic economic system that is doomed to failure in every instance for every society that is foolish enough to engage in it.

The only reason it was successful in during the dawn of the industrial revolution is that it was being imposed on an agrarian society that allowed people to disengage in commerce, and still survive, when necessary That is, people could still refuse to participate in the toxic capitalist system when the toxicity became apparent to them. But those days are gone for most modern nations, now. We are all living at the mercy of commerce, and the toxicity of capitalism is literally killing us. It was killing us 100+ years ago to the degree that we had to institute socialist emergency counter measures like labor unions and health and employment insurance and social security and welfare to save the lives of the millions of people that unchecked capitalism was killing.

But the greed of capitalism never sleeps, and it eventually finds a way around all the measures we put in place to try and check the damage it does to any society foolish enough to engage in it. And so here we always are; facing our own destruction due to the unchecked greed of a capitalist economic system that operates solely for the purpose of making rich people richer by giving them total control over the means of production.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The thread title is rhetorical - of course you can be capitalist and liberal (in the American sense). This thread is directed at liberals, but I welcome everyone’s comments.

Should liberals be hostile towards capitalism - and by that I mean, not just the excesses of mismanaged capitalism, or the version pedaled by the Right, but all capitalism?

I support the “liberal” agenda to achieve universal healthcare, greater equality and fair taxation, protecting the environment and addressing the climate crisis, etc. But I do not think well-regulated competition and free markets are evil. In fact, I think they are a powerful engine for prosperity and innovation.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. But when people ask him if he’s a socialist, he doesn’t actually call for an end to capitalism. Far from it. He simply points to our lack of universal healthcare; our high levels of inequality; and our regressive taxation that favors the super-rich. These are sensible concerns and his proposed solutions do not entail dispensing with capitalism.

Elizabeth Warren said she is a “capitalist to my bones”.

The Right in the US likes to dismiss proposals on the Left as a path to becoming like Venezuela. This is absurd. Why would we, on the Left, feed into this absurdity by pretending that we aren’t capitalists “in our bones”, like Elizabeth Warren?

Comments?

IMHO, all of us on the left need to fight against capitalism everyday. Until it is dead. It is an irrational, inherently unstable system that never has the back of the average working person.

 

[Secret Chief]

Education department to review English schools guidance on anti-capitalist groups


...And limiting freedom of thought and expression is a tyranny from the left is it...

 

[Stevicus]

The thread title is rhetorical - of course you can be capitalist and liberal (in the American sense). This thread is directed at liberals, but I welcome everyone’s comments.

Should liberals be hostile towards capitalism - and by that I mean, not just the excesses of mismanaged capitalism, or the version pedaled by the Right, but all capitalism?

I support the “liberal” agenda to achieve universal healthcare, greater equality and fair taxation, protecting the environment and addressing the climate crisis, etc. But I do not think well-regulated competition and free markets are evil. In fact, I think they are a powerful engine for prosperity and innovation.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. But when people ask him if he’s a socialist, he doesn’t actually call for an end to capitalism. Far from it. He simply points to our lack of universal healthcare; our high levels of inequality; and our regressive taxation that favors the super-rich. These are sensible concerns and his proposed solutions do not entail dispensing with capitalism.

Elizabeth Warren said she is a “capitalist to my bones”.

The Right in the US likes to dismiss proposals on the Left as a path to becoming like Venezuela. This is absurd. Why would we, on the Left, feed into this absurdity by pretending that we aren’t capitalists “in our bones”, like Elizabeth Warren?

Comments?

I think capitalism can be acceptable, such as it was during the post-WW2 era, as long as it includes social programs for the poor and strong support for organized labor. Support for labor unions is what seems to be the key difference between now and 50-75 years ago when liberalism and capitalism could exist more harmoniously. I think that's really where liberals have failed, by not giving their fullest support to the labor movement. Other things have apparently taken a priority for them, and that's where they've gone wrong.

Liberals also dropped the ball by giving a blank check of support to anarcho-capitalist globalism, without concurrently supporting the international labor movement. Have free trade if you must, but only with countries which have comparable labor laws and legalized labor unions. If banks are allowed to be globalized, then organized labor must be given the same consideration - just out of simple fairness and the spirit of competition which capitalists claim to support.

So, yes, liberals can be capitalists, but that doesn't mean they ever had to embrace the conservative notion that capitalism is the be-all and end-all of America's existence, when such was never the case. It was only during the Reagan era that all this revisionism came about, and liberals fell for it hook, line, and sinker. If they had stuck by their principles, grew backbones, and demanded the same kind of policies that restrained capitalism during the post-war decades, then far fewer people would have fallen out of the fold and become as anti-capitalist as we're seeing today.

People like Reagan, Friedman, Rand, Greenspan, et al. ruined capitalism and turned it into a form of "Mafia economics," and liberals such as the Clintons ate it up like milk served to kittens. As a consequence, there is essentially zero difference between conservatives and liberals on economic issues - except that liberals might support slightly higher taxes and slightly better social services - with an emphasis on the word "slightly."

Anyone who does not agree with the shared economic agenda of moderate liberals and conservatives have to go elsewhere on the political spectrum to find their views expressed. That's where you get the "Bernie Bros." and the decidedly anti-capitalist bent one sees on the left, much to the dismay of the moderate liberals who are capitalists to their bones. Even worse are those blue-collar and other working class who feel totally abandoned by liberals and rush into the arms of the alt-right. This is another consequence of liberals selling out to big business. They gave the working classes no place to go, except to the further ends of the spectrum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?
Yes.

 

[Sunstone]

Please, please, please understand what capitalism IS. Capitalism is an economic system wherein the control of the production and distribution of goods and services is in the hands of the capital investors. (And no one else.) Capitalism is not the same thing as gaining a profitable return capital investment. Capitalism is not the same thing as a free market economy. Capitalism is specifically about who control the engine of commerce: i.e., the mechanisms of production. And in a capitalist economic system that control is completely in the hands of the capital investor. It's NOT in the hands of the actual producers. It's NOT in the hands of the buyers of the products (a common delusion). It's NOT in the hands of community in which it's occurring and of which it's effecting. It's solely in the hands of the people who put up the investment capital, and who are only interested in gaining a maximum return on the capital they've invested. Which means ALL THEIR DECISIONS in the execution of commercial enterprise are based on the singular goal of the maximum profit returned, and NOT on the well-being of ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the commercial enterprise. This needs to be clearly understood.

And this is why it's an economically, socially, and logically toxic economic system that is doomed to failure in every instance for every society that is foolish enough to engage in it.

The only reason it was successful in during the dawn of the industrial revolution is that it was being imposed on an agrarian society that allowed people to disengage in commerce, and still survive, when necessary That is, people could still refuse to participate in the toxic capitalist system when the toxicity became apparent to them. But those days are gone for most modern nations, now. We are all living at the mercy of commerce, and the toxicity of capitalism is literally killing us. It was killing us 100+ years ago to the degree that we had to institute socialist emergency counter measures like labor unions and health and employment insurance and social security and welfare to save the lives of the millions of people that unchecked capitalism was killing.

But the greed of capitalism never sleeps, and it eventually finds a way around all the measures we put in place to try and check the damage it does to any society foolish enough to engage in it. And so here we always are; facing our own destruction due to the unchecked greed of a capitalist economic system that operates solely for the purpose of making rich people richer by giving them total control over the means of production.

"Capitalism = Pure Evil". Got it. Why do I feel like I'm suddenly back in middle school?

 

[Sunstone]

I think capitalism can be acceptable, such as it was during the post-WW2 era, as long as it includes social programs for the poor and strong support for organized labor. Support for labor unions is what seems to be the key difference between now and 50-75 years ago when liberalism and capitalism could exist more harmoniously. I think that's really where liberals have failed, by not giving their fullest support to the labor movement. Other things have apparently taken a priority for them, and that's where they've gone wrong.

Liberals also dropped the ball by giving a blank check of support to anarcho-capitalist globalism, without concurrently supporting the international labor movement. Have free trade if you must, but only with countries which have comparable labor laws and legalized labor unions. If banks are allowed to be globalized, then organized labor must be given the same consideration - just out of simple fairness and the spirit of competition which capitalists claim to support.

So, yes, liberals can be capitalists, but that doesn't mean they ever had to embrace the conservative notion that capitalism is the be-all and end-all of America's existence, when such was never the case. It was only during the Reagan era that all this revisionism came about, and liberals fell for it hook, line, and sinker. If they had stuck by their principles, grew backbones, and demanded the same kind of policies that restrained capitalism during the post-war decades, then far fewer people would have fallen out of the fold and become as anti-capitalist as we're seeing today.

People like Reagan, Friedman, Rand, Greenspan, et al. ruined capitalism and turned it into a form of "Mafia economics," and liberals such as the Clintons ate it up like milk served to kittens. As a consequence, there is essentially zero difference between conservatives and liberals on economic issues - except that liberals might support slightly higher taxes and slightly better social services - with an emphasis on the word "slightly."

Anyone who does not agree with the shared economic agenda of moderate liberals and conservatives have to go elsewhere on the political spectrum to find their views expressed. That's where you get the "Bernie Bros." and the decidedly anti-capitalist bent one sees on the left, much to the dismay of the moderate liberals who are capitalists to their bones. Even worse are those blue-collar and other working class who feel totally abandoned by liberals and rush into the arms of the alt-right. This is another consequence of liberals selling out to big business. They gave the working classes no place to go, except to the further ends of the spectrum.

Very astute, if you ask me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please, please, please understand what capitalism IS. Capitalism is an economic system wherein the control of the production and distribution of goods and services is in the hands of the capital investors. (And no one else.) Capitalism is not the same thing as gaining a profitable return capital investment. Capitalism is not the same thing as a free market economy. Capitalism is specifically about who control the engine of commerce: i.e., the mechanisms of production. And in a capitalist economic system that control is completely in the hands of the capital investor. It's NOT in the hands of the actual producers. It's NOT in the hands of the buyers of the products (a common delusion). It's NOT in the hands of community in which it's occurring and of which it's effecting. It's solely in the hands of the people who put up the investment capital, and who are only interested in gaining a maximum return on the capital they've invested. Which means ALL THEIR DECISIONS in the execution of commercial enterprise are based on the singular goal of the maximum profit returned, and NOT on the well-being of ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the commercial enterprise. This needs to be clearly understood.

And this is why it's an economically, socially, and logically toxic economic system that is doomed to failure in every instance for every society that is foolish enough to engage in it.

The only reason it was successful in during the dawn of the industrial revolution is that it was being imposed on an agrarian society that allowed people to disengage in commerce, and still survive, when necessary That is, people could still refuse to participate in the toxic capitalist system when the toxicity became apparent to them. But those days are gone for most modern nations, now. We are all living at the mercy of commerce, and the toxicity of capitalism is literally killing us. It was killing us 100+ years ago to the degree that we had to institute socialist emergency counter measures like labor unions and health and employment insurance and social security and welfare to save the lives of the millions of people that unchecked capitalism was killing.

But the greed of capitalism never sleeps, and it eventually finds a way around all the measures we put in place to try and check the damage it does to any society foolish enough to engage in it. And so here we always are; facing our own destruction due to the unchecked greed of a capitalist economic system that operates solely for the purpose of making rich people richer by giving them total control over the means of production.

Samuel Parris couldn't have said it any better.

 

[ChristineM]

Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

Yes, i am an example, i wind up slap bang in the centre of the libertarian/left square of the political compass chart. Yet hubby and i owned a successful company. It made money. Our ethos was to provide the best, that meant hiring and keeping the best people. To do that we catered for their needs, provided a generous employment package and importantly, shared profit with them.

When we sold the company the same applied. The balance of the income from the sale after tax split approximate 3 ways. 1/3 went to various charities, 1/3 we invested for our own future and 1/3 divided between staff based on length of employment and position in the company.

 

[Sunstone]

It's solely in the hands of the people who put up the investment capital, and who are only interested in gaining a maximum return on the capital they've invested. Which means ALL THEIR DECISIONS in the execution of commercial enterprise are based on the singular goal of the maximum profit returned, and NOT on the well-being of ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED in the commercial enterprise. This needs to be clearly understood.

It's curious that you are in essence making an argument strikingly similar to Public Choice Theory. Ironically, Public Choice Theory was the brainchild of the libertarian economist, James McGill Buchanan, a pro-capitalist. He was also a rationalist who never once in his career bothered himself with offering empirical evidence for his Public Choice Theory. That's to say, his economics had no scientific basis. He was all theory, no fact. Much like Ayn Rand, for that matter.

What you seem to be doing here is confusing a trend or fashion in capitalism with capitalism itself. The trend is called 'shareholder value capitalism' or 'shareholder capitalism'. It got started in the early 70s with Milton Friedman, then was hugely popularized about ten years later by Jack Welsh. Today, it dominates how capitalists in general operate in America and most other places. But it is NOT 'capitalism'. It's relationship to capitalism is more or less analogous to the relationship of a person to the clothes they happen to be wearing at the moment.

Shareholder capitalism is the doctrine that -- ultimately -- the only legitimate responsibility of corporate management is the value they can return to investors per share owned of the corporation. All other 'constituents' of the corporation do not in the end count. Not the workers, not the suppliers, not the community, not the environment, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

Yes, i am an example, i wind up slap bang in the centre of the libertarian/left square of the political compass chart. Yet hubby and i owned a successful company. It made money. Our ethos was to provide the best, that meant hiring and keeping the best people. To do that we catered for their needs, provided a generous employment package and importantly, shared profit with them.

When we sold the company the same applied. The balance of the income from the sale after tax split approximate 3 ways. 1/3 went to various charities, 1/3 we invested for our own future and 1/3 divided between staff based on length of employment and position in the company.

I'd relate the many instances of how generous I am
towards customers & workers, but my magnanimity is
already so well known that enhancing it might cause
undue envy