Ten Myths About Capitalism

It seems like many of you simply don't understand what capitalism is, nor do you know the difference between capitalism, crony capitalism, and fascism.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Someone can know the differences, while at the same time pointing out the similarities.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

The free market is the only system where aggressive force is thought immoral by any entity.

Free market is not a system and free markets don't, and probably never, existed.

edit on 5-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Free markets prevailed in 19th century America for the most part minus the war periods up till about 1913 and it was the most prosperous times in our history.

reply to post by hawkiye

Nope, there are always locals who control and influence local markets and on the national level there were more than a couple monopolies influencing the markets, which brought about the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Someone can know the differences, while at the same time pointing out the similarities.

Similarities?

Capitalism is essentially voluntary exchange benefiting all parties in a private or commercial setting.

Crony capitalism and/or fascism is the utilization of a monopolized use of force.

Would you say voluntary actions are similar to forced actions are 'similar'?


Any logical person that understands the fundamentals of capitalism will tell you that it is moral. Can capitalism coexist with government? Yes, if the government is limited and stays the hell out of its business. There is a school of thought that implies that the government should only exist to protect life, liberty and property and do nothing else.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
There is a school of thought that implies that the government should only exist to protect life, liberty and property and do nothing else.

Yikes! Report them to the Homeland Security Czar or your friendly neighborhood Brownshirts ASAP.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Similarities?

Capitalism is essentially voluntary exchange benefiting all parties in a private or commercial setting.

Crony capitalism and/or fascism is the utilization of a monopolized use of force.

Would you say voluntary actions are similar to forced actions are 'similar'?

Monopolized use of force and voluntary action is a difference. I was talking about similarities. I guess I don't have to point them out since you understand these three forms of "capitalism".

Any logical person that understands the fundamentals of capitalism will tell you that it is moral. Can capitalism coexist with government? Yes, if the government is limited and stays the hell out of its business. There is a school of thought that implies that the government should only exist to protect life, liberty and property and do nothing else.

Of course you mean "Laissez-faire" capitalism. It is only one type and others have a deeper government involvement.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by eLPresidente
There is a school of thought that implies that the government should only exist to protect life, liberty and property and do nothing else.

Yikes! Report them to the Homeland Security Czar or your friendly neighborhood Brownshirts ASAP.

oh they are quite aware and they do everything in their power to maintain control and demonize and/or ignore that school of thought

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Nope, there are always locals who control and influence local markets and on the national level there were more than a couple monopolies influencing the markets, which brought about the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

Those were anomalies. Why do people think that because every single market is not free or some government or other entity tries to subvert some market that there never were any free markets? When the majority of markets were free. Yes government meddled leading to the Anti trust act but that does not negate the fact the over all the economy was a free market economy even the currency was free market despite government printing money.

There will always be people trying to subvert markets especially government however as long as there is a free choice over all we have a free market which was the case in the 19th century. We no longer have that in currency and the majority of markets as government has intervened and passed laws and regulation favoring their cronies and driving their competition out of business.

reply to post by daskakik

Of course you mean "Laissez-faire" capitalism. It is only one type and others have a deeper government involvement.

As soon as government intervenes it is no longer a free market and no longer capitalism.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Those were anomalies.

No it has been and is the norm all over the planet, throughout history.

There will always be people trying to subvert markets especially government however as long as there is a free choice over all we have a free market which was the case in the 19th century. We no longer have that in currency and the majority of markets as government has intervened and passed laws and regulation favoring their cronies and driving their competition out of business.

People who claim free markets in the first 100 years or so of the US seem to have no problem labeling that time capitalist, despite all the cronyism and market manipulation that took place, while at the same time using those same types of actions today to claim "this isn't capitalism".

As soon as government intervenes it is no longer a free market and no longer capitalism.

I believe you are wrong. It may not be "free market capitalism" but it is some form of capitalism.

You know, you often accuse people of changing the definition of terms but here you are trying to dismiss any type of capitalism that doesn't fit your personal definition.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by hawkiye
Those were anomalies.

No it has been and is the norm all over the planet, throughout history.

There will always be people trying to subvert markets especially government however as long as there is a free choice over all we have a free market which was the case in the 19th century. We no longer have that in currency and the majority of markets as government has intervened and passed laws and regulation favoring their cronies and driving their competition out of business.

People who claim free markets in the first 100 years or so of the US seem to have no problem labeling that time capitalist, despite all the cronyism and market manipulation that took place, while at the same time using those same types of actions today to claim "this isn't capitalism".

As soon as government intervenes it is no longer a free market and no longer capitalism.

I believe you are wrong. It may not be "free market capitalism" but it is some form of capitalism.

You know, you often accuse people of changing the definition of terms but here you are trying to dismiss any type of capitalism that doesn't fit your personal definition.

edit on 5-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You cannot have capitalism without free markets. When the free market is subverted it ceases to be capitalism. There are not different types of capitalism it either is or it isn't!

I said the 19th century not the first 100 years. And its not my personal definition it is "thee" definition There is only one. It is people redefining capitalism to mean what ever they fantasy they can dream up that are using personal definitions. I have been over this ground many times with the neo-marxists on ATS read and learn. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by hawkiye

Doesn't matter what specific period of time in the past is referenced, the idea that a little government and cronyism didn't effect the status of capitalism is the same.

Sorry but it isn't "the" definition. "Crony capitalism" has the word in it so I can't even imagine where you came up with that. No it isn't black and white. Not in the real world.

You cannot have capitalism without free markets. When the free market is subverted it ceases to be capitalism. There are not different types of capitalism it either is or it isn't!

Yet you have no problem calling the 19th century "capitalist" despite government involvement and oligarchies/monopolies.

Which is it because your doing exactly what I pointed out in my last post?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Doesn't matter what specific period of time in the past is referenced, the idea that a little government and cronyism didn't effect the status of capitalism is the same.

Sorry but it isn't "the" definition. "Crony capitalism" has the word in it so I can't even imagine where you came up with that. No it isn't black and white. Not in the real world.

You cannot have capitalism without free markets. When the free market is subverted it ceases to be capitalism. There are not different types of capitalism it either is or it isn't!

Yet you have no problem calling the 19th century "capitalist" despite government involvement and oligarchies/monopolies.

Which is it because your doing exactly what I pointed out in my last post?

edit on 5-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You need to study some history and stop repeating BS marxist talking points. As I as said attempts to subvert the free markets were anomalies in the 19th century it was over all a free market economy. The Idea that unless everything was perfect with no problems it was not free markets is ridiculous. But then that seems to be the neo-marxist fortay unsubstantiated ridiculousness...

reply to post by hawkiye


You can say whatever you want but the truth is that they were not anomalies they were the norm.

The Idea that unless everything was perfect with no problems it was not free markets is ridiculous.

Says the person who just stated:

You cannot have capitalism without free markets. When the free market is subverted it ceases to be capitalism. There are not different types of capitalism it either is or it isn't!

So which is it, are there gray areas or not because you seem to want to have it both ways.

reply to post by hawkiye


Funny, I use that same exact line about Socialism which is by nature anti-state. As soon as the government (state) touches it, it is no longer Socialism. Both turn into Statism. But you probably don't want to hear any of that.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Funny, I use that same exact line about Socialism which is by nature anti-state. As soon as the government (state) touches it, it is no longer Socialism. Both turn into Statism. But you probably don't want to hear any of that.

Really now? If "pure" socialism is anti-state, as you claim, then whom exactly decides the prices and wages charged and paid, what is to be produced, in what quantities, by what methods, and then decides where it is to be sent?

Socialism requires a centralization of this kind of decision making into the hands of an agency. Perhaps the Central Planning Board or the Supreme Dictator?

No, that is not required in Socialist theory.
The Paris Commune (1871) was a test experiment, if you will, by history, of Socialism.
So who decided what things cost in those months?
Surely not the state, as there was no such thing recognized there.

If you understand Stalinism and its offshoots by the term Socialism, you are messing up terminology.
They are as far from a true practice of Socialism as the Inquisition had been from Christ's truths for a Christian.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye

 

You can say whatever you want but the truth is that they were not anomalies they were the norm.

The Idea that unless everything was perfect with no problems it was not free markets is ridiculous.

Says the person who just stated:

You cannot have capitalism without free markets. When the free market is subverted it ceases to be capitalism. There are not different types of capitalism it either is or it isn't!

So which is it, are there gray areas or not because you seem to want to have it both ways.

I am sorry this seems to be beyond your ability to understand so one last time let me try and simplify it for you. There are many markets not just one if government intervenes in a particular free market and uses force to manage or monopolize that particular market for one or more of its cronies then that market ceases to be free. If the majority of markets are left alone as they were in the 19th century or even government controlled markets are still competing with free market competition where people can choose not to patronize the government controlled market as in the 19th century then overall we have a free market economy despite government attempts to control it. The US government did not just come in and take over all free markets they did it one at a time incrementally.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
No, that is not required in Socialist theory.
The Paris Commune (1871) was a test experiment, if you will, by history, of Socialism.
So who decided what things cost in those months?
Surely not the state, as there was no such thing recognized there.

If you understand Stalinism and its offshoots by the term Socialism, you are messing up terminology.
They are as far from a true practice of Socialism as the Inquisition had been from Christ's truths for a Christian.

Please enlighten all of us and show one historical example of your definition of socialism?