Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

[Revoltingest]

I understand what's being said....

Were that true, this thread would be a lot shorter.

 

[Koldo]

It's in capitalism's nature to form toxic and exploitative classism because it places resource control in the hands of a minority of investors which then become a protected class of aristocracy.

I only take issue with this part: "place resource control in the hands".
Capitalism doesn't place control in anyone's hands. The one often doing that is the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

I only take issue with this part: "place resource control in the hands".
Capitalism doesn't place control in anyone's hands. The one often doing that is the government.

I see it very differently.
Control is something that one decides to take, & then does it.
That's what I did. Think of it....if I want to start a company,
acquire assets, hire employees, & sell to customers, I don't
have to ask anyone's permission. (Although sometimes I
need to get a license for a profession.) Government doesn't
do this for me, Obama's claims notwithstanding.

 

[Koldo]

On the contrary, I think the politicians know perfectly well that there is no alternative economic system that works at all.

You give way too much credit to politicians.
Should I remind you about the fiasco revolving around Brexit?

 

[Koldo]

I see it very differently.
Control is something that one decides to take, & then does it.
That's what I did. Think of it....if I want to start a company,
acquire assets, hire employees, & sell to customers, I don't
have to ask anyone's permission. (Although sometimes I
need to get a license for a profession.) Government doesn't
do this for me, Obama's claims notwithstanding.

Sure. Actually, I don't disagree with you. Control over resources can be gained and inherited in capitalism, but it can not be "placed into someone's hand" per se, unless someone is giving it away as a gift which results in loss of control to the giver. What I meant is that whenever I see control over resources being placed into someone's hands per se, the government is the one doing it, such as when it creates monopolies.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is that any country we can name, you will insist is not really "socialist" because they engage in "capitalism" (the Scandinavian countries, as an example). But the difference lays in how we define capitalism, and how we define socialism. Capitalists (as I ssume includes you) will inevitably define socialism something like: "a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production ...". Whereas a socialist will describe socialism something like: "a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social control of the means of production ..." . Such that in these various countries business enterprise may still be "owned" by private/public investors, but these owner/investors do not wield total control over the business enterprises that they are invested, in. That control is shared by various means and to various degrees by the people both involved in and affected by the commercial enterprise. Different nations have devised different representational mechanisms for sharing this control, but what they share in common, and why they are not "capitalist" (by definition) is that the owner/investor does not have sole control of the business enterprise he owns/invests, in.

That is the key difference, and it is the result of this sharing of control over their commercial enterprise, within these various nations, that should be examined for it's overall positive effect and social value.

But that never actually happens because the battle over definitions will never end. And even if it does get resolved, then the endless demands for more proof of their proposed success will ensue, because there will never be enough evidence to convince the capitalist that the toxic 'capitalism-is-a-virtue' lie is what it is: a lie. They will simply not be dissuaded.

I am interested. How does it work on those countries? Is it mandated by law?

 

[PureX]

I see it very differently.
Control is something that one decides to take, & then does it.
That's what I did. Think of it....if I want to start a company,
acquire assets, hire employees, & sell to customers, I don't
have to ask anyone's permission. (Although sometimes I
need to get a license for a profession.) Government doesn't
do this for me, Obama's claims notwithstanding.

Government, i.e., your fellow citizens, gave you the education, the infrastructure, the economic niche, the legal protections, the labor pool, and the real idea that you could succeed. Yet you seem to be under the very strange impression that you did it all on your own. I don't get that.

 

[PureX]

Sure. Actually, I don't disagree with you. Control over resources can be gained and inherited in capitalism, but it can not be "placed into someone's hand" per se, unless someone is giving it away as a gift which results in loss of control to the giver. What I meant is that whenever I see control over resources being placed into someone's hands per se, the government is the one doing it, such as when it creates monopolies.

"Ownership" is control. And it's given to people in exchange for money. Money = control. And control makes it easier to garner more money: to take it from others. It's a system that rewards wealth with more wealth. And it's also a system that doesn't care how you got the wealth in the first place, or how much of it you gather, or what you do with it. It's completely amoral. And this is why it so often generates such bad results.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course. It accelerated the devastation of the environment that seems to have begun tens of thousands of years ago with the 'rise' of Homo sapiens. But careful! I am not arguing that capitalism has no downside. I am arguing against the position that it has no significant upside -- that 'toxic' is a perfect description for it. That seems to be what PureX is arguing. But me, I recognize a much more complex reality than I believe he does.

That's fair.

Personally, I find myself agreeing with their perspective as do many in my age group because nobody in my age group was alive to see any of the positive manifestations of capitalism. I also don't see this changing within my lifetime either. Not when there is no separation of corp and state; corporatism is basically the new state religion and neither Republican or Democrat are really doing anything about that. Hell, both of them are enabling it. So yeah, in the present historical context - the only context my life has ever known and likely the only context my life will ever know - I'm going to decry it as toxic like @PureX does. It's only ever been that for me, and my religion also doesn't put much stock in contemporary concepts of ownership.

 

[Revoltingest]

S What I meant is that whenever I see control over resources being placed into someone's hands per se, the government is the one doing it, such as when it creates monopolies.

I agree regarding some monopolies, eg, public utilities,
USPS. But some monopolies are built by businesses,
eg, Standard Oil, Ma Bell.
I'm not a fan of monopolies, which are anti-competitive.

 

[PureX]

I am interested. How does it work on those countries? Is it mandated by law?

Each nation has it's own mechanisms of representation, and varying degrees of control. Presumably, tailored to the specific needs and desires of their people.

We would need to do the same for ourselves. But the bottom line is that once you start a business, and it begins to grow, you don't just "employ" people; with no responsibility to them but a paycheck. They get some say in how your business is being conducted. And that will usually include a share of the profits, as well as a share of the risk. Under capitalism, they only share the risk. They get no say in the operational decisions, and no share of the profits.

Also, as the business grows, and it increasingly effects your community, the community begins to get a say in how it is being grown and how it's being conducted. Capitalists hate this idea, but the fact is that businesses affect the communities that they operate in, greatly! And the community should have the right to some control over those affects.

The idea is to find ways of determining representation for these various aspects of social well-being, and allowing them input and control over the commerce being conducted on their behalf. Ownership does not give anyone sole control over what they own. And that's the part that freaks out the capitalists. But we need to face down this selfishness within us. And to learn to overcome it. Because it's destroying us. Humans are not independent beings. We are social-cooperative beings. We NEED each other to survive and thrive. And we really need to put a stop to this fantasy nonsense about our being "self-made", and "self-controlled", and about how we "own" this and that because we control it. Yes, control can be taken, but it's also given. No one owns or control anything that everyone else doesn't let them "own" and control. Everything we do, and everything we have, is because everyone else allows it. And we need to understand this, and respect it. Lest we imagine ourselves to be something were not. Because that's a fantasy that can get us in very big trouble, and/or do a lot of harm to a lot of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Government, i.e., your fellow citizens, gave you the education, the infrastructure, the economic niche, the legal protections, the labor pool, and the real idea that you could succeed. Yet you seem to be under the very strange impression that you did it all on your own. I don't get that.

Ahah! The straw man is underlined above.

Unemployed workers are there.
My parents paid for my education.
The infrastructure my hefty taxes paid for is there.
What did I do...just wait for government to create my business for me?
Nah.
I used my abilities & experience...risked money & effort...& assembled
the people & systems that are my businesses. The workers couldn't
have...they worked in trades, & had no interest in what I did. They
risked no money or effort....they wanted pay...not risk.
Without someone to create a business, those unemployed workers
would just be unemployed.

 

[Koldo]

"Ownership" is control. And it's given to people in exchange for money. Money = control. And control makes it easier to garner more money: to take it from others. It's a system that rewards wealth with more wealth. And it's also a system that doesn't care how you got the wealth in the first place, or how much of it you gather, or what you do with it. It's completely amoral. And this is why it so often generates such bad results.

I agree. I was merely disagreeing with the term "place control".

 

[Koldo]

Each nation has it's own mechanisms of representation, and varying degrees of control. Presumably, tailored to the specific needs and desires of their people.

We would need to do the same for ourselves. But the bottom line is that once you start a business, and it begins to grow, you don't just "employ" people; with no responsibility to them but a paycheck. They get some say in how your business is being conducted. And that will usually include a share of the profits, as well as a share of the risk. Under capitalism, they only share the risk. They get no say in the operational decisions, and no share of the profits.

Also, as the business grows, and it increasingly effects your community, the community begins to get a say in how it is being grown and how it's being conducted. Capitalists hate this idea, but the fact is that businesses affect the communities that they operate in, greatly! And the community should have the right to some control over those affects.

The idea is to find ways of determining representation for these various aspects of social well-being, and allowing them input and control over the commerce being conducted on their behalf. Ownership does not give anyone sole control over what they own. And that's the part that freaks out the capitalists. But we need to face down this selfishness within us. And to learn to overcome it. Because it's destroying us. Humans are not independent beings. We are social-cooperative beings. We NEED each other to survive and thrive. And we really need to put a stop to this fantasy nonsense about our being "self-made", and "self-controlled", and about how we "own" this and that because we control it.

I agree with the whole idea, I would just like to know more about the specifics.
Are you aware of how exactly it works in any given country?

Yes, control can be taken, but it's also given. No one owns or control anything that everyone else doesn't let them "own" and control. Everything we do, and everything we have, is because everyone else allows it. And we need to understand this, and respect it. Lest we imagine ourselves to be something were not. Because that's a fantasy that can get us in very big trouble, and/or do a lot of harm to a lot of people.

I am going to disagree with you, somewhat. Because I am not certain to which extent you mean that control is allowed.
I would say control is not allowed per se, it is merely enforced. It is not that others allow it to exist, it is rather that it is enforced at the gunpoint.

 

[exchemist]

You give way too much credit to politicians.
Should I remind you about the fiasco revolving around Brexit?

So? I don't argue that all politicians are wise, obviously. I mean, just look at some of these Brexitty specimens:

But serious politicians, of the type Bozo has purged from the Tory party, or people like Keir Starmer, know quite well what makes economies function.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Government, i.e., your fellow citizens, gave you the education, the infrastructure, the economic niche, the legal protections, the labor pool, and the real idea that you could succeed. Yet you seem to be under the very strange impression that you did it all on your own. I don't get that.

You beat me to this. Yes, I wonder how successful @Revoltingest would be at, say, starting a trucking company, if he also had to build his own roads? That is what Obama was saying (and you know that, @Revoltingest )

 

[Revoltingest]

You beat me to this. Yes, I wonder how successful @Revoltingest would be at, say, starting a trucking company, if he also had to build his own roads? That is what Obama was saying (and you know that, @Revoltingest )

I know exactly what Obama was trying to pull, his
clumsy phrasing notwithstading.

Trucking companies pay thru the nose for those roads
with property taxes, fuel taxes, & income taxes.
Government never offered to start a company for me,
to hire people for me, to pay them, to buy a building,
to develop a management system, to run the company,
etc, etc.
Obama & his ilk have no clue how businesses run.
There's risk & investment that the teeming masses never see.
So Obama thinks that it just happens...someone else provides
what we need, & do it for us. It's luck, privilege & freebies.
So he & people living on the dole are entitled to their
share...over & above the taxes we already pay.

 

[Stevicus]

So what you are saying is that you think capitalism is acceptable so long as we correct all the ways that it's unacceptable.

If it can be accomplished. This was in the context of the OP's question as to whether one can be a capitalist and a liberal. Liberals tend to support a mixed economy anyway, although I think there were more Keynesians back in the FDR era up until the 70s. Even Nixon was a Keynesian.

So why not just admit that it's unacceptable, and create a method of commerce that doesn't need to be "corrected for" because it doesn't cause the damage in the first place?

Well, no matter we do, there's going to have to be some repairing of the damage.

What is it uniquely about capitalism that makes it worth the effort of having to constantly guard against it, and limit it, and correct it's fundamental flaws, and risk the damage it will inevitably do is unchecked? Who do you find it do important that the capital investors have sole control the mechanisms of commerce that effect the lies of everyone? And keep in mind that if that control is being usurped by anyone else, then it's no longer "capitalism". It's some sort of hybrid system.

I'm not loyal to any specific "system." I don't believe that the "system" is the be-all and end-all of a society's existence. We are free to pick and choose which elements would work, and if it turns out to be a hybrid system, then so be it.

One thing I try to keep in mind is that, with capitalists, you're not just dealing with an economic "system." It's like challenging a religion. It's a philosophy with many variations.

We wouldn't need labor unions if the capital investors were not in sole control of all business enterprise. And instead, labor had a part in that control. And keep in mind that the capitalists don't what to give up ANY of that control. And in fact, use their wealth and power to keep that sole control at every turn. Because labor is a fundamental impediment to their only and primary goal: to maximize the return on the capital they've invested.
When and how was it EVER ANYTHING ELSE??? When did anyone ever put out their own money to start as business enterprise for the purpose of improving the lives of EVERYONE INVOLVED? I'm not saying it's never happened, but clearly if it has, it's been a very rare and obscure instance. What Reagan, Friedman and Rand did that we so heinous was to spew the lie that capitalism was "natural", and "essential", and even "virtuous", when it's never been anything but parasitic.

They were essentially setting forth an idea not unlike social Darwinism where "only the strong shall survive." That's what is "natural" about it. Add a touch of prosperity gospel and good old fashioned Americana in the mix, and there you have it.

Liberal capitalists might present a softer side to it, tending more towards advocating social programs and safety nets so that even the poor and weak can survive - such as their existence might actually be. Conservative capitalists also might claim to be practicing Christian values by aiding the poor and weak, but advocate doing so through the private sector, not through government fiat. But both sides present the same perception that the lower classes are just these hapless, helpless people who are dependent upon their "betters" to aid them. The liberal offers social programs where they can survive some meager existence, while the conservative offers them a job in a sweatshop, where they can survive some meager existence.

Let it not be said that we don't care for our poor and needy here in America. (That's sarcasm, by the way.)

But the downside of this dog-eat-dog, screw-the-poor, only-the-strong-shall-survive mentality is that it spreads and trickles down. I think we're seeing that somewhat on the street level these days, and it tends to get rather ugly.

And it wasn't just the liberals that bought into the horrible lies. It's been nearly all of us. Because greed is a natural human characteristic, and we all liked hearing that our greed and selfishness was OK. Even though the more we allow it to control our decisions and our behaviors, the worse everything get for most of us.
Gandhi once said that "lying is the mother of all violence". And the lie that capitalism is "natural, essential, and virtuous" is a monster that has caused the death and suffering of many millions of human beings, and will continue to so as long as we continue to accept it is true.

I've never believed that capitalism is "natural, essential, and virtuous." It is a reality, at least in the sense of how it has shaped our history here in America and around the world. But the other side of this is that, when we discuss capitalism in any form, it necessitates a discussion about the role of the state.

Despite what capitalists often claim these days about a "free and unfettered market," I don't believe they're such anti-statists as they seem to portray. They've been known to use the state when it serves their purpose, such as the exploits of the United Fruit company. They need the state to do their dirty work, yet they still publicly resent them just the same. In a more general sense, they need the state to mediate their disputes and maintain political stability, which is where things seem to be failing these days.

I think above all else, the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people as a collective whole, not just the wealthy and powerful - as their interests often do not align with that of the lower classes. And, as I mentioned above, there's significant damage that has to be repaired. Some of what we're dealing with is philosophical, and it's as much about America's role in the world and how Americans see themselves and the outside world. It's not just about capitalism as an economic system, even if that philosophy is a significant part of the overall tapestry which has made up the fabric of America.

When one considers the current world situation, economically, geopolitically, environmentally, militarily - not to mention overall health during this pandemic - we're going to have to make some hard decisions that may affect the direction of this country for generations to come.

We can't change the economic system without changing the political system, which is also tied in through alliances and/or treaties to the political and economic systems of other countries.

 

[Revoltingest]

One thing I try to keep in mind is that, with capitalists, you're not just dealing with an economic "system." It's like challenging a religion. It's a philosophy with many variations.

Yeah...as though you socialists aren't acolytes spreading your gospel.
There's a big difference between capitalists & anti-capitalists.
The former are reality based, ie, there are many wonderful countries
with economies & governments fueled by capitalism.
But countries without capitalism.....there are no real world positive
examples. It's a faith based utopian myth.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Money = control. And control makes it easier to garner more money: to take it from others.

Would you acknowledge that garnering more money does not, in fact, entail “taking” it from others?

If I spend money to invent something and secure a patent, for example, and then sell this invention to garner more money - I didn’t “take money from others” so much as I created value for others and was then rewarded for my efforts and for risking my money on this venture. No?

Just for context, I am 100% sympathetic to the reforms that people like Sanders and Warren propose. I do not believe in unfettered capitalism. I’m just trying to understand if you acknowledge the basic principle that earning money doesn’t mean “taking it from others” and may actually be a good thing.