Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

[Regiomontanus]

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.

I agree they pay taxes but considering the damage they do to the roads, it seems only fair. But the roads, electrical grid, water system, etc., are already there for you, enabling you to start up that company.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

With all respect -- and I mean that sincerely -- I cannot see how it would be possible to have a well informed view of capitalism -- especially a view well informed by economic and social history -- and still arrive at the conclusion that capitalism is all toxic. Moreover, I believe the view that capitalism is a mixed bag is more accurate than either the view it is all beneficial or all toxic. Last, even Karl Marx -- well, especially Karl Marx (the man was deeply flawed, but brilliant) -- perceived that capitalism was a mixed bag. On the other hand, I believe you have every right to your views.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree they pay taxes but considering the damage they do to the roads, it seems only fair. But the roads, electrical grid, water system, etc., are already there for you, enabling you to start up that company.

And I've been paying taxes for them since long before i started
my businesses. I continue paying even more taxes after start-up.
But what is the point here....including Obama's point?
It's that even though we pay the taxes to support what we use,
the masses are entitled to much much more.
Moreover, Obama created a straw man to manipulate the masses,
ie, to believe that businesses get huge subsidies to start up, that
they're no smarter than the masses...just lucky & subsidized.
Starting a business is that easy, eh.
This creates the sense of entitlement to even more from us.
Without any quantification, his story is pure appeal to emotion.

 

[Sunstone]

...If it was not that capitalism is exploitative...

Why do you think capitalism during the industrial revolution was not exploitative? As a fact, it was in general exceedingly exploitative.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I guess we'll never really agree on this issue.

"Fueled by capitalism"? That's an abstract metaphor. It's not the "real world," it's a perception of the real world. I'm not saying you're incorrect, but that the real world economic and political systems are far too intricate and variable from government to government to be summed with a casual quip. Some capitalist countries are wonderful, others not so much.

When you say countries without capitalism, it makes me think of the old advertising slogan, "A country without capitalism is like a day without sunshine." But you say there are no real world positive examples. But that's also just a value judgment based on what you think is "positive." I've tried to point out the positives in previous discussions, but you keep focusing on the negative and ignoring the positive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess we'll never really agree on this issue.

And that is a fine thing.

"Fueled by capitalism"?

Sure. I pay taxes.
They're used for schools, health care, roads, bombing foreigners, etc.
(I'm not thrilled about that last specific one.)
Even those vaunted Scandinavian countries provide largess
paid for by taxes on income derived from capitalism.

When you say countries without capitalism....

When people decry capitalism, it's very useful
to compare countries with & without it. (In this
thread, it's been decried in a manner suggesting
it's utterly evil...satanic as it were.)

As I see it....if we want a bountiful social safety
net, capitalism is the best economic system to
pay for it.

 

[Koldo]

Why do you think capitalism during the industrial revolution was not exploitative? As a fact, it was in general exceedingly exploitative.

Let me rephrase my question then: What were the communists criticizing if not capitalism in a similar manner to what you call shareholder value capitalism?

The crux of the issue has remained the same. Hasn't it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

Thanks, Jaiket. I agree that those conditions are unacceptable. However, can starvation exist without capitalism? Yes. Can capitalism exist without starvation? Yes.

It is possible to solve problems without ending capitalism. It is my understanding, to pick some specific examples, that the blue whale population is increasing because they are protected now, after they were on the verge of extinction. And the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk because of international treaties reducing ozone-depleting emissions.

I don’t see how those problems would have been resolved better if the whaling companies or chemical companies were state-owned, there was no private property, everyone received the same income, etc.

My own suspicion is that without the prosperity brought about by capitalism, we would have less luxury to be able to worry about saving whales, rather than our own survival and the continued mass extermination of species - which is what Homo sapiens have been doing for tens of thousands of years, long before we invented capitalism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

It sounds like your suggestion is that employees should be entitled to equity in the company as well as some Board seats. And that labor unions should be protected so that employees have greater sway and control.

That seems reasonable to me. Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting, essentially?

 

[PureX]

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?

Only vaguely, but I am sure this info is available online. One idea is that instead of republicans and democrats fighting for total decision-making control, having three legislative groups: one representing commercial interests, one representing labor and social interests, and one representing environmental and geographical interests. And each having an equal say in passing legislation.

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.

Well, I was referring to modern civil societies. Once those break down, force is the dominant factor. Which is why we will always have a significant number of citizens that want civil society to break down. The 'bully-boys' are always among us.

 

[PureX]

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

No. Money is the representation of resource (time, effort, material, property, opportunity). And resources are finite. That means that the more money one person controls, the less of it everyone else controls. To allow excess control of these resources by too few individuals is detrimental to the well-being of society as a whole. And it's also an exponential threat, and the more control over these resources one individual gets, the more able they are to forcibly take more.

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?

Invention for the sake of increasing one's own wealth adds no value to the whole. Invention for the sake of increasing everyone's share of the wealth, does. But when was the last time you saw that happen? What's at issue here is the difference between greed, and ambition. A difference that Americans sadly are nearly completely oblivious of. And yet it's the difference between commerce as exploitation, and commerce as fair and beneficial trade.

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.

"Earning" is a very vague term. And "money" in meaningless in and of itself. To understand what's really going on, we need to clarify these terms and ideas. "Earning" is a form of trade. And "money" is a representation of resource. If you gain more resource from the trade than you give, the trade is unfair. And you have "taken from" the other person.

 

[PureX]

It sounds like your suggestion is that employees should be entitled to equity in the company as well as some Board seats. And that labor unions should be protected so that employees have greater sway and control.

That seems reasonable to me. Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting, essentially?

Socialist countries don't have any need for labor unions because the 'employees' participate in the business decisions, and in many instances, are paid the same as the "management". Often, they trade job responsibilities so that everyone in the business knows better how all the other aspects of the business function. It makes for far better decision-making, as well as excellent redundancy if someone becomes unavailable.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. I pay taxes.
They're used for schools, health care, roads, bombing foreigners, etc.
(I'm not thrilled about that last specific one.)
Even those vaunted Scandinavian countries provide largess
paid for by taxes on income derived from capitalism.

The income is derived from work and productivity, not "capitalism" as such. The workers do all the work, while the capitalists do nothing but sit around and collect money, thinking that they're special snowflakes who are "worth it." So what if they pay taxes on money they never legitimately earned in the first place? That's the very least that they could do, and it's still not nearly enough of what they should be paying. (And remember, I started a thread a while back in which capitalists tacitly admitted that they're not "worth it" and that they never legitimately earned their money. It was called "A Challenge to Capitalists," and capitalists failed to rise to the challenge.)

When people decry capitalism, it's very useful
to compare countries with & without it. (In this
thread, it's been decried in a manner suggesting
it's utterly evil...satanic as it were.)

As I see it....if we want a bountiful social safety
net, capitalism is the best economic system to
pay for it.

Maybe if you didn't have such a Pollyanna view of capitalism and stop looking at it as if it's the be-all and end-all of society, you might see that there are fewer people who suggest that it's "evil" or "Satanic" (which I haven't noticed myself). There are also those who view socialism is "evil" and "Satanic." Reagan called the USSR the "evil empire," so your side spreads it on rather thick. This country's obsessive, irrational fear of socialism has been one of the worse things to affect America. It's the reason we bomb foreigners (one of the things you said you were against). It's the reason we've interfered with other countries' internal affairs and propped up tinpot dictators like the Shah, Pinochet, Batista, Somoza, Marcos, and many others.

So, yes, when capitalism has that much blood on its hands, then you'll find that people have a negative view of it. Why can't you at least admit that part of it? If you still consider capitalism the lesser of two evils, then okay, but I wish you would accede to a more realistic perspective rather than use Red Scare tactics and fearmongering.

 

[Revoltingest]

The income is derived from work and productivity, not "capitalism" as such.

My eyes are beginning to roll.

The workers do all the work, while the capitalists do nothing but sit around and collect money, thinking that they're special snowflakes who are "worth it."

Dang it....one of my eyeballs rolled out of its socket.
Without people with initiative, effort, smarts, & money willing to
start & invest in companies, those workers would have no jobs.

Employee....have you ever hired any?
I have. They want a guaranteed wage for the hours they work.
They don't want to invest any money or share any risk.
They need someone else to do the heavy lifting, ie, capitalists.
Under any economic system, there will be the rulers & the drones.
But with capitalism, the drones are historically better off.

Btw, you still have no examples of a a capitalism-free country
to offer as an upgrade. So this anti-capitalist dream is pure faith.

 

[Stevicus]

My eyes are beginning to roll.

That's not an argument.

Dang it....one of my eyeballs rolled out of its socket.
Without people with initiative, effort, smarts, & money willing to
start & invest in companies, those workers would have no jobs.

Are you talking about capitalists or gods here? It's hard to tell the difference. And you still don't think it's based on faith? You make it sound as if capitalists are responsible for the air we breathe.

Employee....have you ever hired any?

Actually, I have - many times.

I have. They want a guaranteed wage for the hours they work.
They don't want to invest any money or share any risk.
They need someone else to do the heavy lifting, ie, capitalists.
Under any economic system, there will be the rulers & the drones.
But with capitalism, the drones are historically better off.

They have no reason to work for you unless you offer incentives. Why do you want to hire them, especially if you think so little of them?

Also, I think you're wrong about them not wanting to invest any money or share the risk. Some workers would be willing to do that. I worked for a company that was employee-owned, and employees had the option of putting some of their pay into purchasing stock with the company. Lots of companies do that, and lots of workers avail themselves of the opportunity.

Your scornful and derisive view of the common people notwithstanding, I just don't think your perceptions are correct here. And this seems to illustrate perfectly one of the major flaws of capitalism. Capitalists think they're all that and that they're the center of the universe - while the workers are nothing more than proles and drones who should thank their lucky stars that they have capitalists to lead them. This is why capitalists think that they're "worth it," even when they can't offer a single factual, evidence-based argument which would prove their worth to society.

Btw, you still have no examples of a a capitalism-free country
to offer as an upgrade. So this anti-capitalist dream is pure faith.

Yet, I have offered examples. You just don't bother to look at them. You refuse to see anything that might make your religion look bad. On the other hand, I have no problem addressing and answering any criticisms of socialism. When socialists have done bad things, I'm willing to acknowledge it, yet you're not willing to acknowledge or address any criticisms of capitalism whatsoever. That's what I call real faith from a true believer.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me rephrase my question then: What were the communists criticizing if not capitalism in a similar manner to what you call shareholder value capitalism?

The crux of the issue has remained the same. Hasn't it?

Thanks for the clarification! The short answer is "yes". Socialism first arose in various theoretical forms as reactions to the exploitation of workers during the Industrial Revolution -- although it had precursors going back ages.

That is, communal ideals or visions have popped up now and then through-out recorded history. (I believe that's because humans evolved as a species of social animal.) But during the Industrial Revolution, the various communist movements and theories soon followed the earlier socialist movements and theories, and both the socialist and the communist movements and theories were mostly reactions to the mistreatment of workers by the early capitalists.

So basically speaking, today's 'left vs right' politics first emerged during the Industrial Revolution.

Good question, Koldo. Thanks!

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not an argument.

It's a medical condition.

Are you talking about capitalists or gods here?

I'm an atheist, so whaddaya think.

It's hard to tell the difference.

I can help...
Capitalists don't float in the clouds.
Gods don't offer extended warranties.

And you still don't think it's based on faith? You make it sound as if capitalists are responsible for the air we breathe.

We're just talking about economic systems.
Capitalism is merely better than any real world
alternative you've offered.
We're not gods...just mostly useful humans.

Actually, I have - many times.

Why did they want to work for you
instead of starting their own companies?

They have no reason to work for you unless you offer incentives. Why do you want to hire them, especially if you think so little of them?

They're useful.
But just cuz they're unambitious drones doesn't mean
that I think little of them. Some are excellent drones,
& fine people. They just don't aspire to anything more.
People needn't all be the same.

BTW, I've been one of the drones. I cut lawns, made
pizza, machined parts, guarded a building, moved
furniture, census taking, made drawings, picked apples,
mopped floors, etc. We all gotta start somewhere.

Also, I think you're wrong about them not wanting to invest any money or share the risk. Some workers would be willing to do that. I worked for a company that was employee-owned, and employees had the option of putting some of their pay into purchasing stock with the company. Lots of companies do that, and lots of workers avail themselves of the opportunity.

I know of such stock options. But how many companies
actually have workers who invest enuf to exercise control?
What I observe is that they buy only for the discounted
stock price.

Your scornful and derisive view of the common people...

I'm just mocking your scornful & derisive view of us,
you know....the ones who start & run businesses.

Wasn't that clear?
I should warn people before I attempt humor.

....this seems to illustrate perfectly one of the major flaws of capitalism.

All systems have flaws.
The issue should be which system is best.

Capitalists think they're all that and that they're the center of the universe...

Yes, I know how you feel about us.
But feelings aren't convincing.
So I eagerly await your better alternative to capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

So I eagerly await your better alternative to capitalism.

I offered that many times. Have you been asleep?

 

[Revoltingest]

I offered that many times. Have you been asleep?

Could be.
Which country ditched capitalism for a good result?

 

[Stevicus]

Could be.
Which country ditched capitalism for a good result?

Russia did, in 1917, and China did, in 1949. You can compare their quality of life indicators both pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary and see that the overall results were positive. They went from a backwards, primitive, agrarian state to becoming a nuclear armed superpower in 30 years. And they reached out into space ahead of us. Our own leadership was in a panic over how powerful they were becoming, and this dominated our political culture for decades. Our brave and powerful warriors were deathly afraid of the Russians - more afraid than they were of the Germans or the Japanese in WW2.

If they were really so incompetent, helpless, non-functional, and lacking in ambition as you claim, then none of that ever would have happened.