• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can You Be Capitalist and Liberal?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Russia did, in 1917, and China did, in 1949.
OK....those are positive examples of ditching capitalism.
It seems we have very different goals for economics & governance.

If they were really so incompetent, helpless, non-functional, and lacking in ambition as you claim, then none of that ever would have happened.
Oh, dear....where to begin with that perfect storm of misunderstanding....
- In all systems, some rise to the top, while others are below.
It was so in your examples too.
- I did say lacking in ambition regarding drones.
You added "incompetent", "non-functional" & "helpless" in a manner that misrepresents what I've been posting.
- I never claimed such things wouldn't happen.
Only that capitalism is better....if one prefers prosperity & liberty.

I'm failing to get my themes understood.
And now I'm just repeating myself.
If you respond to this post, just see my prior posts for answers.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
OK....those are positive examples of ditching capitalism.
It seems we have very different goals for economics & governance.

Yes, this is apparent. As it is often said, "Rome wasn't built in a day," but nobody ever asks why they ever wanted to build it in the first place. Some things just happen, without a plan or a system or an ideology. It's just humans doing what humans do.

Oh, dear....where to begin with that perfect storm of misunderstanding....
- In all systems, some rise to the top, while others are below.

And in socialist systems, people rise to the top based on merit, not because of "divine right" or being born into the right families.

It was so in your examples too.
- I did say lacking in ambition regarding drones.
You added "incompetent", "non-functional" & "helpless" in a manner that misrepresents what I've been posting.

You spoke of "countries without capitalism" and suggested that only capitalists have vision, drive, ambition, while the non-capitalists are drones who are ostensibly content being drones. Most of your observations of socialist countries seem to be very disdainful, negative, and judgmental, leading me to think that you see them as "incompetent," "non-functional," and "helpless." If you didn't think that, you'd actually have to acknowledge something positive they might have done, which you don't appear willing to do.

- I never claimed such things wouldn't happen.
Only that capitalism is better....if one prefers prosperity & liberty.

In America and a few other countries in our orbit - this may be true. But the flaw in your reasoning here is that you attribute "prosperity and liberty" to an abstract idea such as "capitalism," without really offering much to support such a claim. By the same token, you attribute the perceived failures of countries like the USSR to an abstract idea such as "socialism," without really looking at the larger picture.

I'm failing to get my themes understood.
And now I'm just repeating myself.
If you respond to this post, just see my prior posts for answers.

Well, you ignore 80% of what I write and fail to address so many cogent points I have made. Going back to prior posts won't make any difference. You keep avoiding the really tough questions and keep going back to your original theme - which I understand all too well.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
Capitalism is defined by who controls the mechanisms of commercial enterprise: i.e., the capital investor (owner/investor), making business enterprises in a capitalist system a functional dictatorship.

So, what good comes from this scenario?

1. As with any dictatorship, if the dictator is 'benevolent', engagement with that enterprise will likely be a positive experience. But if the dictator is 'malevolent', engagement with that enterprise will likely be negative.

2. Capitalism is an amoral system. It rewards wealth with power, and power with wealth. it does not care how one acquires the wealth to begin with. And it does not care how much wealth one acquires, or what one does with the wealth they acquire. So there is no innate incentive, filter, or reward for being the 'benevolent' dictator of a commercial enterprise. And there is no punishment for being a malevolent one.

3. We don't elect or appoint or otherwise approve of these commercial dictators for the positions of power and influence over the lives of others that they wield.

So recognizing these key points, it is clearly no impossible for a capitalist system to produce some benevolent commercial enterprise resulting in some positive social and economic effects. However, being that capitalism does nothing to curtail the abuse and exploitation of anyone who chooses to act with selfish malice, I can't honestly consider it a net positive system, or anything even close that.
 
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.

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.

"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.
Thanks, PureX. I think this is a fundamental point where we see things differently.

I agree with you that money is the representation of resource. And I also agree that the resources you identified - time, effort, material, property, opportunity - may be finite at any given moment.

However, you seem to be neglecting the fact that with the appropriate investment of resources - money, time, effort, materials, etc - total resources can increase. For example, if I spend a day building a plow, the world now has a device that can save many days of time and effort. On a net basis, total resources in the world have increased. If I then sell that plow at an appropriate price, both parties can share in that increase.

You also seem to imply that the exchange of money - or resources - can only be a zero-sum game. But that's not true. It can be mutually beneficial and increase the "pie" for both parties. Going back to the plow example: if I have two plows, and you have two horses, our total resources will increase if we agree to an exchange - one of my plows, say, for one of your horses. The reason is because the value of horse + plow is greater than the value of two horses, or two plows by themselves. The arithmetic is the same if the exchange happens to occur in the form of money (after all, the money just represents resource, as you said; I could turn around and exchange the money you gave me for a horse, and vice versa).

In short, both parties can gain more from a trade than what they put into it.

That may seem counter-intuitive, but that is the wonder of trade and how it is an engine for increasing prosperity. And that goes back for millennia, with the production and trade of all sorts of goods among tribes and kingdoms: food, dyes, metals, animals, textiles, lumber, etc. It long predates capitalism and it has contributed to longer lifespans, etc. This was, I thought, considered to be an established fact in economics and history. In fact, it's not even limited to humans - it is the basis of animal cooperation and primitive forms of animal trade, I thought.

This does not mean capitalism is perfect or even the best system - far from it. I am simply questioning the specific claims/assumption you made above. Do you acknowledge this, or do you still disagree?

Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:

Yerda

Veteran Member
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.
Hi, Spinks.

I think this is all fairly reasonable to be bringing up.

Can capitalism exist without starvation? In principle, yes it seems obvious that it can and I hope that it will someday soon. But remember the reason that people are going hungry isn't because there isn't enough food. It's that some entity holds the food as a commodity and is carrying out its economic function. Ireland, for example, was a net exporter of food during the famine. The same story repeats over and over again. In some cases it seems reasonable to say that capitalism was causing or worsening these situation. So, capitalism can exist without starvation but doesn't.

I also wouldn't propose that the state owns everything, there is no private property and everyone recieved the same income. Or that capitalism is simply markets.

You are right to say that the prosperity we enjoy allows us the luxury of worrying about the whales (or even engaging in little exchanges on internet debate forums). It's also this prosperity that is accelerating us to a place where human life on the planet is at risk. Capitalism is driving this even if humans are ecologically destructive by nature i.e. smoking causes lung cancer even though people who've never smoked get lung cancer and got lung cancer before cigarettes were invented.

So, there are people who look at the problems that capitalism causes or worsens and suggest that without changing the economic, political, and legal rules that govern our activities we cannot solve them. That would in effect be overthrowing capitalism. I think that although they may be wrong they have a perfectly reasonable position.

I'm actually much more optimistic about our ability to enact change within something like the current framework than I have been for a while. There are enough examples of people, companies, states even, making positive changes that I reckon that capitalism and the habitable planet can survive.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, this is apparent. As it is often said, "Rome wasn't built in a day," but nobody ever asks why they ever wanted to build it in the first place. Some things just happen, without a plan or a system or an ideology. It's just humans doing what humans do.



And in socialist systems, people rise to the top based on merit, not because of "divine right" or being born into the right families.



You spoke of "countries without capitalism" and suggested that only capitalists have vision, drive, ambition, while the non-capitalists are drones who are ostensibly content being drones. Most of your observations of socialist countries seem to be very disdainful, negative, and judgmental, leading me to think that you see them as "incompetent," "non-functional," and "helpless." If you didn't think that, you'd actually have to acknowledge something positive they might have done, which you don't appear willing to do.



In America and a few other countries in our orbit - this may be true. But the flaw in your reasoning here is that you attribute "prosperity and liberty" to an abstract idea such as "capitalism," without really offering much to support such a claim. By the same token, you attribute the perceived failures of countries like the USSR to an abstract idea such as "socialism," without really looking at the larger picture.



Well, you ignore 80% of what I write and fail to address so many cogent points I have made. Going back to prior posts won't make any difference. You keep avoiding the really tough questions and keep going back to your original theme - which I understand all too well.
I've addressed your points.
But it doesn't appear to be working.
I've nothing new to add.
 
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.
Thanks. I guess I’m unclear what specific reforms you are proposing. Companies today, in capitalist countries, encourage and foster employee participation in decisions and rotate roles for business continuity and employee development.

If you aren’t proposing mandating employee equity compensation and requiring employee representatives on the Board, what specific mechanisms do you want to effectuate the sharing of ownership you’d like to see? If I buy a condo and then rent it to make an income, and I hire someone to clean it once a week ... should that employee be entitled to X% of the profits? Should they have a say in how the business is managed and if so, how should that work?

I’m just curious if you have a specific vision or proposal, that I should consider. Or if you just have a view that capitalism needs to change “a lot” and how that happens, maybe you aren’t sure.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Thanks, PureX. I think this is a fundamental point where we see things differently.

I agree with you that money is the representation of resource. And I also agree that the resources you identified - time, effort, material, property, opportunity - may be finite at any given moment.

However, you seem to be neglecting the fact that with the appropriate investment of resources - money, time, effort, materials, etc - total resources can increase. For example, if I spend a day building a plow, the world now has a device that can save many days of time and effort. On a net basis, total resources in the world have increased. If I then sell that plow at an appropriate price, both parties can share in that increase.

You also seem to imply that the exchange of money - or resources - can only be a zero-sum game. But that's not true. It can be mutually beneficial and increase the "pie" for both parties. Going back to the plow example: if I have two plows, and you have two horses, our total resources will increase if we agree to an exchange - one of my plows, say, for one of your horses. The reason is because the value of horse + plow is greater than the value of two horses, or two plows by themselves. The arithmetic is the same if the exchange happens to occur in the form of money (after all, the money just represents resource, as you said; I could turn around and exchange the money you gave me for a horse, and vice versa).

In short, both parties can gain more from a trade than what they put into it.

That may seem counter-intuitive, but that is the wonder of trade and how it is an engine for increasing prosperity. And that goes back for millennia, with the production and trade of all sorts of goods among tribes and kingdoms: food, dyes, metals, animals, textiles, lumber, etc. It long predates capitalism and it has contributed to longer lifespans, etc. This was, I thought, considered to be an established fact in economics and history. In fact, it's not even limited to humans - it is the basis of animal cooperation and primitive forms of animal trade, I thought.

This does not mean capitalism is perfect or even the best system - far from it. I am simply questioning the specific claims/assumption you made above. Do you acknowledge this, or do you still disagree?

Thanks! :)
I understand the increase in value resulting from innovation and trade. But that value is only real if it profits both sides of the trade. Yet the greed motive deliberately intends to exploit one side of any trade to favor another. And greed is the primary motive of capitalism. So much so that it becomes the accepted practice to try and exploit every trade to advantage one side over the other as much as possible.

I posted an example on here a while back of a used classic car salesmen who had a classic car that he bought for $12K, and put $2K into in repairs and improvements, and that he knew to be valued by the market at $18K. This guy was a 'expert' in buying and selling classic cars in his area, and knew their values better than anyone.

A customer came in looking to buy a classic car, and stated up front that he wanted to pay no more than $20K, so the salesmen showed him this one, and told him it cost $26K. They haggled and finally the customer paid $24K for the car. And I pointed out that the salesman could have sold the man the car for the $20K the man wanted to pay, made a very good profit, and both would have been happy with the deal. The buy could have sold the car the next day, if he'd wanted to, and got most of his money back. But the salesman was greedy. And he exploited the customer's lesser knowledge of classic car values, and weaker bargaining skills to take as much money as he could possibly get from the buyer.

I told the story to try and point out the difference between fair trade and exploitation, and EVERYONE on here howled about how it was normal, natural, and justifiable that the salesman took the buy for every penny he could get, even though he knew the car he was selling was not worth it. This is how brainwashed we are after living in a capitalists system our whole lives, not to be able to recognize greed and exploitation when it's right in front of us. Everyone wanted to blame the buy for not being an expert in classic car values or in deal-making. Yet almost no one would be, or even could be. And yet the overwhelming response was , "too bad", it's "buyer beware", and so on.

Do you see how deeply this greed-based competitors and system of commerce harms us? Turns us all against each other as economic 'enemies'? And eventually brain-washes us to think this is "normal", and "natural", and even "virtuous"?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've addressed your points.
But it doesn't appear to be working.
I've nothing new to add.

There's actually a couple of questions regarding points you've never addressed, so I will ask you directly. If you ignore them or fail to address them (as you've done many, many, many times in the past), then that will tell me all I need to know.

1. Do you believe that Russia was better off in 1967 than it was prior to 1917?
2. Do you believe that China was better off in 1999 than it was prior to 1949?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There's actually a couple of questions regarding points you've never addressed, so I will ask you directly. If you ignore them or fail to address them (as you've done many, many, many times in the past), then that will tell me all I need to know.

1. Do you believe that Russia was better off in 1967 than it was prior to 1917?
2. Do you believe that China was better off in 1999 than it was prior to 1949?
I see what you're after....mischief of reducing a discussion of complex
issues to yes or no answers to a couple tightly controlled questions.
But full answers might not be what you want.
1999 China was already embracing capitalism in a big way.
I've still nothing to add to my reasons for preferring capitalism to alternatives.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I see what you're after....mischief of reducing a discussion of complex
issues to yes or no answers to a couple tightly controlled questions.
But full answers might not be what you want.
1999 China was already embracing capitalism in a big way.
I've still nothing to add to my reasons for preferring capitalism to alternatives.

It's not mischief. It's cutting to the core of your claim that countries without capitalism are doomed to failure. Obviously that claim can't be supported when you are faced with having to compare what countries were before they ditched capitalism to what they became later.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's cutting to the core of your claim that countries without capitalism are doomed to failure.
It doesn't do that.
Do you really want to compare China's pre-revolutionary economy
with its 1999 capitalist economy? That would support my claim.
The Russia question's dates avoid the issue of the fall of the USSR.

This discussion has become unproductive, so it's time to agree
to disagree about what a society's goals should be, & how best
to achieve them.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It doesn't do that.
Do you really want to compare China's pre-revolutionary economy
with its 1999 capitalist economy? That would support my claim.
The Russia question's dates avoid the issue of the fall of the USSR.


The whole thing is to address the commonly inaccurate and disingenuous argument that I often hear from capitalists that "wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed." It's simply not true, and it's provably untrue, as I have demonstrated numerous times. The least you could do is have the common courtesy to acknowledge that and refrain from harping on it in future discussions we might have. You're right in that the issues are highly complex and that they can't be addressed with just a few throwaway quips like that.

And when you say you prefer "capitalist countries," why not just say that you prefer America? Capitalist countries also include Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, so would you rather live in either of those countries? If not, why not? Aren't all capitalist countries alike and interchangeable, as your argument implies?

My only point is to say that it's possible you could be barking up the wrong tree by endlessly praising capitalism, while condemning all forms socialism as evil. Maybe it's not actually "capitalism" or "socialism," but something else? Is that possible?

The fall of the USSR was likely based more in nationalistic reasons than economic, as their economy at the time was relatively stable - even if not quite as luxurious, consumerist, or comfort driven as the West. The nations of Eastern Europe had grown exceedingly wary of hegemony by a foreign power, and the non-Russian Soviet Republics ostensibly believed it was time to break off and become independent nations.

This discussion has become unproductive, so it's time to agree
to disagree about what a society's goals should be, & how best
to achieve them.

Questions about society's goals and what they should be are not going to be resolved by us anyway.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The whole thing is to address the commonly inaccurate and disingenuous argument that I often hear from capitalists that "wherever socialism has been tried, it has failed." .
We've already covered this.
One might say that the typical socialist is disingenuous because
they redefine socialism to include capitalist economies. They're
loath to consider regimes that abandoned capitalism.
The "No True Socialist" fallacy, eh.

....endlessly praising capitalism, while condemning all forms socialism as evil...
It seems that much of your argument is predicated
upon re-phrasing my posts to be something histrionic.
This continues to be unproductive.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We've already covered this.

When?

One might say that the typical socialist is disingenuous because
they redefine socialism to include capitalist economies. They're
loath to consider regimes that abandoned capitalism.
The "No True Socialist" fallacy, eh.

It's the US capitalists and conservatives who have been doing that, for the most part. They even said Obama was a socialist, for Pete's sake.

It seems that much of your argument is predicated
upon re-phrasing my posts to be something histrionic.

Histrionic? Not really. You've made no secret of your disdain for socialism and your love of capitalism. Am I wrong about that?

This continues to be unproductive.

And yet you keep responding.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I think anyone making the "socialist" argument (not you, btw) should be muzzled until they define what they mean by "socialist" since there are so many different forms: Socialism - Wikipedia
I've defined it over and over and over, even on this thread, and the pro-capitalists just keep on insisting it's communism, or fascism, or some other form of totalitarian dictatorship; so they can keep on claiming that it doesn't work.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One thing the loony left & rabid right often have in common
is their definition of "socialism", which is more or less anything
remotely Scandinavian, eg, public roads, public schools,
public health care.
 
I understand the increase in value resulting from innovation and trade. But that value is only real if it profits both sides of the trade. Yet the greed motive deliberately intends to exploit one side of any trade to favor another. And greed is the primary motive of capitalism. So much so that it becomes the accepted practice to try and exploit every trade to advantage one side over the other as much as possible.

I posted an example on here a while back of a used classic car salesmen who had a classic car that he bought for $12K, and put $2K into in repairs and improvements, and that he knew to be valued by the market at $18K. This guy was a 'expert' in buying and selling classic cars in his area, and knew their values better than anyone.

A customer came in looking to buy a classic car, and stated up front that he wanted to pay no more than $20K, so the salesmen showed him this one, and told him it cost $26K. They haggled and finally the customer paid $24K for the car. And I pointed out that the salesman could have sold the man the car for the $20K the man wanted to pay, made a very good profit, and both would have been happy with the deal. The buy could have sold the car the next day, if he'd wanted to, and got most of his money back. But the salesman was greedy. And he exploited the customer's lesser knowledge of classic car values, and weaker bargaining skills to take as much money as he could possibly get from the buyer.

I told the story to try and point out the difference between fair trade and exploitation, and EVERYONE on here howled about how it was normal, natural, and justifiable that the salesman took the buy for every penny he could get, even though he knew the car he was selling was not worth it. This is how brainwashed we are after living in a capitalists system our whole lives, not to be able to recognize greed and exploitation when it's right in front of us. Everyone wanted to blame the buy for not being an expert in classic car values or in deal-making. Yet almost no one would be, or even could be. And yet the overwhelming response was , "too bad", it's "buyer beware", and so on.

Do you see how deeply this greed-based competitors and system of commerce harms us? Turns us all against each other as economic 'enemies'? And eventually brain-washes us to think this is "normal", and "natural", and even "virtuous"?
Thanks, PureX. You’ve raised some good points and I agree with you in part. I appreciate the thought-provoking discussion.

I want to respond to your post here and address the very interesting points you have raised.

But before doing that, I just want to confirm, you do acknowledge that it is possible to make money without “taking” it from someone else - so to speak - correct? And that it is possible for a trade to be beneficial to both parties. Is that right?

If you look at your post before last, the one I was responding to, you seemed to say no, that isn’t possible. But based on the first sentence of this post, it seems you are acknowledging this now. Is that fair?

This doesn’t address the unseemly used car situation you just raised. I would like to discuss that because your concern is valid. I agree that the mutual benefit of a transaction will be shared, and if one party has greater knowledge or bargaining power than the other, that party could gain a disproportionate share of the benefit. And this raises questions of business ethics, price gouging, exploitation, greed, etc. But earlier you were saying transactions and making money is a zero sum game even in principle. And that is not true. I just want to make sure we are on the same page about the first topic, more or less, before we move on to the next one. This is an interesting discussion and I just don’t want it to spin out of control! :)
 
Top