Page 1 of 3
Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:23 am
by BigBallinStalin
Basically, it comes from here and continues for a couple of posts (
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=69367&view=unread#p3559401), and
here I discuss the usefulness of having the idea of capitalism and free markets, but if you're not interested in the context then carry on:
Some people have strong feelings against and for capitalism.
I think that many who are against capitalism don't really know what capitalism is.
Can anyone here define capitalism? Let's clear up the metaphysical first, and then continue.
Be sincere (or troll),* but type what you think because I'm interested in knowing.
*For fun, ITT, I'll very likely assume all posts are sincere.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:51 am
by PLAYER57832
lol
The problem here is that many political types, particularly the right wing, but also liberaterians are actively attempting to change the definition.
Start here, with 2 basic dictionary definitions:
from answer.com:
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
See capitalism defined for English-language learners »
See capitalism defined for kids »
NOW, go to this site that appears to be put up by ayn Rand supporters
http://capitalism.org/ :
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. The Capitalism Tour is the most popular feature of this site. The rest of The Capitalism Site assumes you are familiar with the material provided in the tour.
The top of the site has a quote attributed to Ayn Rand:
"The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is consonant with a man's rational nature, that it protects mans survival qua man, and its ruling principle is justice"
I mean going from "he who makes the most money gets to decide the system to "ruling principle is justics" is a VERY long stretch unless you get your morals from Machiavelli. Sadly, Machiavelli seems to dictate a LOT of business leaders today.. and worse, the couch it with a form of Christianity, at least for the "masses".
Contrast Ayn Rand's quote with one from Terry Eagleton in Harper's (2005 -- cited below Webster's dictionary definition on the Webster site).
" Capitalism is at once far too rational, trusting in nothing that it cannot weigh and measure, and far too little as well, accumulating wealth as an end in itself." —Terry Eagleton, Harper's, March 2005
Wikki does a good job of adding blurr:
Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[3][4] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[5]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[6][7] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labour, class and emphasize capitalism as a unique historical formation.[8] Capitalism is generally viewed as encouraging economic growth.[9] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[8] A number of political ideologies have emerged in support of various types of capitalism, the most prominent being economic liberalism.
OVERALL.. the definition is pretty basic, but the implementation and impacts are not necessarily. So, too many people try to therefore change the basic definition so they can slant their arguments to make their beliefs/ideas something supported by capitalism.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:52 pm
by john9blue
PLAYER57832 wrote:NOW, go to this site that appears to be put up by Rand Paul supporters
http://capitalism.org/ :
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. The Capitalism Tour is the most popular feature of this site. The rest of The Capitalism Site assumes you are familiar with the material provided in the tour.
The top of the site has a quote attributed to Rand Paul: "The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is consonant with a man's rational nature, that it protects mans survival qua man, and its ruling principle is justice"
I mean going from "he who makes the most money gets to decide the system to "ruling principle is justics" is a VERY long stretch unless you get your morals from Machiavelli.
come on, player. rand paul and ayn rand are two different people. they are not even the same gender.
BigBallinStalin wrote:
*For fun, ITT, I'll very likely assume all posts are sincere.
don't tempt me
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:15 pm
by Lootifer
For me i [incorrectly?] seperate the free market and capitalism into the ideal and the actual.
The free market is the concept on which capitalism tries (and mostly fails) to achieve.
Capitalism is the half arsed implementation of the free market into todays society.
Well thats the way I look at it anyways.
Im generally pro-free market and anti-capitalism based on these definitions.
Specifics:
- The free market is the unregulated exchange of goods and services, with price and quantity signals set by the participants in said market
- Capitalism [for me] is the semi-regulated encumberant set of mechanisms we currently have for the exchange of good and services
I sort of think as the free market as uncorruptable since it's an ideal, where as capitalism is rife with corruption because its a pragmatic implementation of an ideal.
I dont know where im going with this...
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:21 pm
by nietzsche
I disagree with OP.
The "metaphysics" is where we should stay on. Here the ideas are discussed and principles are valued. Here we can reach conclusions, think for ourselves, find common values and work from there on applications, or more likely on mutual understandings on the strenghts and shortcomings on current applications of ideas like free market.
If we go right away to the actual, to the particular, we will find only differences among ourselves. We will choose sides, defend our sides, start arguing and never reach a consensus.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:22 pm
by ViperOverLord
Capitalism implies concepts like: Private ownership rights and autonomous business that are not state controlled.
The free market implies no regulations from govt. I don't know that there has truly ever been a free market at a country level. I'd be interested in any corollaries though.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:37 pm
by Phatscotty
lazy people and people who spend their money frivolously have a problem with any system in which hard work and saving money pays off and where the consequences of poor actions must be realized
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:38 pm
by Phatscotty
Lootifer wrote:For me i [incorrectly?] seperate the free market and capitalism into the ideal and the actual.
The free market is the concept on which capitalism tries (and mostly fails) to achieve.
Capitalism is the half arsed implementation of the free market into todays society.
Well thats the way I look at it anyways.
Im generally pro-free market and anti-capitalism based on these definitions.
Specifics:
- The free market is the unregulated exchange of goods and services, with price and quantity signals set by the participants in said market
- Capitalism [for me] is the semi-regulated encumberant set of mechanisms we currently have for the exchange of good and services
I sort of think as the free market as uncorruptable since it's an ideal, where as capitalism is rife with corruption because its a pragmatic implementation of an ideal.
I dont know where im going with this...
Where is there a free market?
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:57 pm
by saxitoxin
PLAYER57832 wrote:lol
The problem here is that many political types, particularly the right wing, but also liberaterians are actively attempting to change the definition.
Start here, with 2 basic dictionary definitions:
from answer.com:
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
See capitalism defined for English-language learners »
See capitalism defined for kids »
NOW, go to this site that appears to be put up by Rand Paul supporters
http://capitalism.org/ :
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. The Capitalism Tour is the most popular feature of this site. The rest of The Capitalism Site assumes you are familiar with the material provided in the tour.
The top of the site has a quote attributed to Rand Paul: "The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is consonant with a man's rational nature, that it protects mans survival qua man, and its ruling principle is justice"
I mean going from "he who makes the most money gets to decide the system to "ruling principle is justics" is a VERY long stretch unless you get your morals from Machiavelli.
Sadly, Machiavelli seems to dictate a LOT of business leaders today.. and worse, the couch it with a form of Christianity, at least for the "masses".
Contrast Rand Paul's quote with one from Terry Eagleton in Harper's (2005 -- cited below Webster's dictionary definition on the Webster site).
" Capitalism is at once far too rational, trusting in nothing that it cannot weigh and measure, and far too little as well, accumulating wealth as an end in itself." —Terry Eagleton, Harper's, March 2005
Wikki does a good job of adding blurr:
[quoteCapitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[3][4] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[5]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[6][7] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labour, class and emphasize capitalism as a unique historical formation.[8] Capitalism is generally viewed as encouraging economic growth.[9] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[8] A number of political ideologies have emerged in support of various types of capitalism, the most prominent being economic liberalism.
OVERALL.. the definition is pretty basic, but the implementation and impacts are not necessarily. So, too many people try to therefore change the basic definition so they can slant their arguments to make their beliefs/ideas something supported by capitalism.
Thank God Player isn't responsible for writing the dictionary. There aren't enough trees on the planet for that edition.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:02 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:lazy people and people who spend their money frivolously have a problem with any system in which hard work and saving money pays off and where the consequences of poor actions must be realized
Thanks for the non-sequitor. I was hoping you'd show up and grace us with one...well done!
But you forgot the irrelevant picture...that's disappointing.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:03 pm
by Woodruff
saxitoxin wrote:Thank God Player isn't responsible for writing the dictionary. There aren't enough trees on the planet for that edition.
<laughing> Indeed, that's certainly true. And yet, I did actually like her post there, long as it was.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:17 pm
by Lootifer
Phatscotty wrote:Lootifer wrote:For me i [incorrectly?] seperate the free market and capitalism into the ideal and the actual.
The free market is the concept on which capitalism tries (and mostly fails) to achieve.
Capitalism is the half arsed implementation of the free market into todays society.
Well thats the way I look at it anyways.
Im generally pro-free market and anti-capitalism based on these definitions.
Specifics:
- The free market is the unregulated exchange of goods and services, with price and quantity signals set by the participants in said market
- Capitalism [for me] is the semi-regulated encumberant set of mechanisms we currently have for the exchange of good and services
I sort of think as the free market as uncorruptable since it's an ideal, where as capitalism is rife with corruption because its a pragmatic implementation of an ideal.
I dont know where im going with this...
Where is there a free market?
Really?
Come on my man, even you are usually better than this...
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:20 am
by john9blue
it's a legitimate question...
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:11 am
by thegreekdog
john9blue wrote:it's a legitimate question...
And one that BBS has asked on multiple occasions...
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:52 am
by Baron Von PWN
john9blue wrote:it's a legitimate question...
He just said it isn't anywhere due to it being an ideal which gets twisted by pragmatism, don't you people read?
Anyways
Capitalism as BVP defines it: An economic system in which economic activities are conducted primarily by privately(individual or corporate) held means.
Usually this entails strong defence of property rights and personal freedoms. Though property rights more so than personal freedoms.
I do not consider Capitalism to be a grand social-political goal like say communism, in that way it is rather unassuming. It just means individuals or groups of individuals(corporations) having primary control of economic decisions. In order to have that its best to have strong property rights and personal freedoms though not necessary.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:07 pm
by Timminz
Not adding anything right now. Just tagging the read for future reference.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:44 pm
by PLAYER57832
john9blue wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:NOW, go to this site that appears to be put up by Rand Paul supporters
http://capitalism.org/ :
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. The Capitalism Tour is the most popular feature of this site. The rest of The Capitalism Site assumes you are familiar with the material provided in the tour.
The top of the site has a quote attributed to Rand Paul: "The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is consonant with a man's rational nature, that it protects mans survival qua man, and its ruling principle is justice"
I mean going from "he who makes the most money gets to decide the system to "ruling principle is justics" is a VERY long stretch unless you get your morals from Machiavelli.
come on, player. rand paul and ayn rand are two different people. they are not even the same gender.
OOPS... yes, I misread it. I will correct it now.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:47 pm
by PLAYER57832
Phatscotty wrote:lazy people and people who spend their money frivolously have a problem with any system in which hard work and saving money pays off and where the consequences of poor actions must be realized
Yeah, that's why so many people object to having their water wells polluted, to having their wages cut (DESPITE good evaluations, etc.) so the upper escheleons and stock holders can take a few more pennies in their bonuses.
And because plopping down some money you inherited intelligently takes so much more work than actually punching a clock and saving that money, whilst paying bills, etc.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:12 pm
by Phatscotty
Lootifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Lootifer wrote:For me i [incorrectly?] seperate the free market and capitalism into the ideal and the actual.
The free market is the concept on which capitalism tries (and mostly fails) to achieve.
Capitalism is the half arsed implementation of the free market into todays society.
Well thats the way I look at it anyways.
Im generally pro-free market and anti-capitalism based on these definitions.
Specifics:
- The free market is the unregulated exchange of goods and services, with price and quantity signals set by the participants in said market
- Capitalism [for me] is the semi-regulated encumberant set of mechanisms we currently have for the exchange of good and services
I sort of think as the free market as uncorruptable since it's an ideal, where as capitalism is rife with corruption because its a pragmatic implementation of an ideal.
I dont know where im going with this...
Where is there a free market?
Really?
Come on my man, even you are usually better than this...
yes....really....
Just askin ya
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:34 pm
by Lootifer
BVP nailed it: as I mentioned in my post, a truely free market doesnt exist.
(nor do I think it could personally, not now anyways, starting from scratch in a perfect world, sure, but not now all the wealth has been allocated already).
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:03 pm
by Baron Von PWN
An interesting debate going on at the economist website about "State Capitalism"
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/802
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:42 pm
by thegreekdog
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:08 pm
by Lootifer
I want to read it but the sound bites from the two speakers are bordering on retarded:
State capitalism in the 21st century is a hybrid form of capitalism that is propelling firms to the forefront of the Fortune 500.
Anyone who uses Fortune 500 as a genuine metric is an idiot.
The primary purpose of state capitalism is not to produce wealth but to ensure that wealth creation does not threaten the ruling elite's political power.
Sweet, a tinfoil hatter arguing on the other side...
F that.
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:17 pm
by john9blue
Lootifer wrote:I want to read it but the sound bites from the two speakers are bordering on retarded:
State capitalism in the 21st century is a hybrid form of capitalism that is propelling firms to the forefront of the Fortune 500.
Anyone who uses Fortune 500 as a genuine metric is an idiot.
The primary purpose of state capitalism is not to produce wealth but to ensure that wealth creation does not threaten the ruling elite's political power.
Sweet, a tinfoil hatter arguing on the other side...
F that.
lol really? they both have a point.
replace "fortune 500" with "highest revenue-generating companies". still a dumb metric? because they are the EXACT SAME THING
Re: Capitalism (then maybe later, free markets)
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:23 pm
by Lootifer
I loath the use of specific metrics in something like this; it leads to the perception that fortune 500 is always good. I believe any company in the fortune 500 should not get such a glossy cover, nor such high priase.
Highest revenue generating companies (even if they are the same thing it comes down to semantics) is far better, but even then it seems to be rewarding the wrong thing. They should be focussed on metrics like value-add, wealth and job creation, etc etc. Things that are genuinely and specifically positive, not things that sound good but have a few skeletons in the closet.