What is capitalism?

[lancemurdoch]

I see discussions here on capitalism, but I see a lot of questions unasked, so, I'll ask them -

What is capitalism? Who controls capital in capitalism? How do workers make money in capitalism? How do capitalists make money in capitalism? Where does the money capitalists make in capitalism comes from? Where does all wealth come from? Why has their always been, worldwide and through the centuries, chronic unemployment, recessions and depressions in capitalism? What positive effects has capitalism had on the process of production over the centuries? What alternatives are their aside from capitalists controlling capital? Is the only alternative for government to control capital?

[David_REE]

1. Understand the other side first...

A capitalist would say that capitalism is the system that maximizes the freedom of the individual to engage in trade, contracts, employment, etc., and that government control can only limit individual choices.

[dutchdemocrat]

2. Did you just come from antistate.com?

Where they are snuggling up to Pinochet on the 30th anniversary of Pinochet?

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6901

on this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=317947

Sounds like it. With your last question that is.

[yeti]

3. I think the term is misused

...the way it is commonly understood.

Most people use it to mean "free-enterprise." But if you look at the structure of the term, and look at what a "capitalist" is, then "capitalism" is a term better used to describe a technique of using money to acquire more money.

I could feel passionate about an individual's freedom to do business as he chooses, with whom he chooses from among those who choose to do business with him. But "capitalism" is not something that is necessarily so great, and for a free economy to stay free, it will need some checks on really large-scale capitalism, because "capitalism" can be a tool of economic warfare as well as a way for a company's wealth to grow.

In fact, even in the hardest-core communist countries, wealthy capitalists can acquire permission from the government to use their money to do this or that and aquire wealth with their wealth. Think about internet service providers in China, etc... or Armand Hammer. So it is not capitalism that is the opposite of communism, but free-enterprise.

My reply is running on because, obviously, I've thoought about this before, the misapplication of the term being so widespread. Especially among Ayn Rand devotees and BushBot republicans, it's used as a synonym for laissez-faire economics. I just don't think it is.

I think using the term that way is like calling the open sea a whale and saying it is the opposite of mountians.

[leftyandproud]

5. it's all about personal property

property rights, etc

with pure capitalism, you have the ability to accumulate unlimited amounts of property (money)--whatever you earn is yours.

under socialism, they are limited with regulations/wealth redistribution

under communism, there are very few (if any) property rights...and NO private corporations

I think thats a good summary. You really should read the "Capitalism/Socialism/Communism: Opposing Viewpoints" books. Check them out at your local library...my favorite public (communist!) institution;)

[sangh0]

12. No it's not

The Barter System also contains property rights, but that doesn't make it Capitalism. Furthermore, the communistic ban on private corporations is NOT a ban on private property. By equating private property with private corps, you have swallowed the RNC line, hook line and sinker.

Capitalism is about using capital to accumulate more capital. In a capitalistic system, business exists to accumulate capital.

[Hanuman]

20. What's so bad about equating...

private property with private corporations?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm just slower than the average bear sometimes, and don't see the problem there.

Seems to me they are not the same per se, but they could live within the same "set."

[GirlinContempt]

18. Property rights

there are no bougeouis property rights under (marxist) communism.
So, basically means-of-production can't beowned.

[RapidCreek]

4. Buy Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations"

and read it....I highly recommend you do so. He founded the modern day principle of Capitalism, the details of which are dictated in the fore-mentioned book. Ayn Rand hijacked the word Capatalism and revised Smiths intent to serve her own sick and twisted views. Ms. Rands version is the one our Neo-Con friends are so fond of trying to sell as Capatalism.

Here are some of Adam Smiths true words....the unadulterated version, along with some points of reference.

Have fun!

RC

[leftyandproud]

6. do NOT read smith..

it's too damn long, boring, and written for 17th century language/situations. Smith had some good ideas...but the reading is just too heavy, much like the communist manifesto. These two books are talked about by everyone and read by noone. I recommend you check out "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell for a moderate/right wing viewpoint on economics and capitalism. After you read this, plow through some left wing stuff by modern authors to balance everything out. It's important to know both sides of every argument then make up your own conclusions.

[RapidCreek]

7. Reallllly? I read it....a couple of times.

Sowell is one of the Neo-con Assholes who embraces the bullshit, right-wing revisionist, Ayn Rand version of Capatalism. What a horrible recommendation....I can hardly think of a bigger asshole that Sowell...you call that turd a moderate!!!??? He's about as moderate as Tom Friggen DeLay! Why don't you tell him to read Anne Coulter, for cryin out loud? :mad:

Yes...it is long...and was written during an Agrarian time...which is precisely why it should be read and taken in the context it was intended....NOT in the context of some right wing wacko, idiot. Nothing worthwhile is easy to attain. Particularily the power of being well-informed. Take some time and read it....it is difficult to wade through, as any textbook is....but it is well worth the effort.

Smith paints not manufacturing, but farming and the well-being of the farm as the central point of the Wealth of Nations. At the heart of all economic values praised by Smith is the worker. Labour is the original foundation of all property, and therefore the most sacred. That is HARDLY the view expressed by a dickhead the likes of Sowell. If your gonna study a theory, study the theory...and hear it from the mouth of the person who came up with it not some pin-headed self serving boob, attempting to rationalize his idiocy.

Anyone who would recommend Sowell cannot be a lefty and proud of it.

RC

[leftyandproud]

8. hey there..

you obviously didn't read my post...and from the looks of it, you REALLY need to read the book I recommended.

I said its all about balance.
Read up very well on both sides and you will thank me for it. I've been doing this for years and notice some very important facts that are conveniently left out by authors on the left/right are mentioned by their counterparts. If you want to be informed, and to have the big picture, you need partisan books/mags from both sides of the aisle.

If you don't want to send Sowell a royalty, at least check it out at the library, along with his book titled "Vision of the Annointed"

I'm sure you'll be pissed while reading, but it is absolutely necessary if you want to pull together your own philosophy. Those who don't know their opponent's arguments can never fully understand their own.

[RapidCreek]

13. For crying out loud!!!

Why do I need to read someone else's interpretation of Smiths theory when I can read Smiths theory itself and arrive at my own conclusions? What purpose does this serve aside from clouding the issue with a partisan cloud of smoke?

What you suggest is something akin to reading the John Birch Societies break down of Communism or on the other hand....the Stalinist take....niether is pure and both are certainly tainted with self serving motivations. If I want to learn about the theory of Communism I shall pick up the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels....you know...the two cats who came up with the idea.

If I want to work on my car I'll buy the Manufacturers Factory Service Manual...not the Readers Digest version of Jim Bob's Unillustrated Car Repair and Beer Brewing Book.

One of the problems we have in politics today is the hijacking and subsequent self serving revision of philosophies....by both the left and the right. In the end, accepting the practice of revisionism serves to cloud the minds and frustrate the deductive processes of the public at large.....and to a degree this eventuality is intentionally propagated.

The fact is, is that the US does not now, nor has it ever practiced Capitalism or as Smith called it "the system of perfect liberty". The system Smith described and that which is currently defined as "Capitalism" are nearly polar opposites. Before one uses another's take on a particular theory it would be wise to know the theory itself so one might have the tools by which to compare and contrast self interested parties revisionist editorials on the subject.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation....Suppose a mathematician developed a theory which proved 2+2=4 and he called it the Quad Theory. Now lets suppose a couple MBA's wrote books redefining the Quad Theory which assert it's originator proved that 2+2=16 and 2+2=0, respectively. Would it make sense to seek information on the Quad Theory from the later authors before reading the work of the theories originator? Would doing so give you an accurate depiction of the originators true methods? The answer is no....it would not. Now it might be interesting to consider the later authors assertions after you have a fairly firm grasp of the original theory.....because you would have a concrete frame of reference from which to judge their quality and veracity. Doing anything else, is nothing more than putting the horse before the cart.

More to the point you state - "I've been doing this for years and notice some very important facts that are conveniently left out by authors on the left/right are mentioned by their counterparts. If you want to be informed, and to have the big picture, you need partisan books/mags from both sides of the aisle." How the heck could you possibly know what one side or the other conveniently left out the picture if you had no idea what the original picture actually depicted? You could not.

I've read plenty of Sowell's work....in fact, my local Newspaper tortures me with his Oreo drivel bi-weekly. Implementing this man's revisionist blather regarding the meaning of "Capitalism" as it's definition is about as wise as using Pat Robertsons revisionist blather regarding the meaning of "Christianity" in the same way.

Having actually waded through and studied the Bible....a boring, archaic but valuable text, I am empowered to discern that the crap which the self-described Christian, Mr. Pat Robertson espouses is an intentionally manufactured, self-serving misrepresentation of the motivations upon which the bible is actually based. You see, Mr. Robertson depends on people NOT reading and not studying the bible. His confidence game relies upon these individuals acceptance of his exclusive version of the bibles intent. Those who succumb to a lazy mind and accept the Pat Robertson revised and digested version of Christianity, believe that the Bible is a text which supports intolerance and hatred. This misrepresentation, of course, makes Pat happy while it pisses an, ill-informed, unread hater of religion off.

To judge the big picture, you first have to look at the artists work, yourself...you cannot wear a blindfold and judge it's content by relying upon the word of a couple of Art Appreciation instructors.

RC

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I'm Not A Big Fan Of ThomasSowell, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand

but I give them props for their spirited and informed defense of free markets ......

People can be of a different ideolgical bent and not be stupid or evil...

[RapidCreek]

14. The problem is they DO NOT support free markets....

People can be of different idealogical bents, that's true. But when that bent is based upon the intentional, self serving, out of context, misrepresentation of anothers words....it is stupid and evil. Such is the case With Thomas Sowell and Ayn Rand.....I have not studied any of Friedmans work so I haven't developed an opinion of him one way or the other.

RC

[TheYellowDog]

15. As compared to Krugman,

who is farther left than Marx. What kind of economist doesn't like the free market? Very, very few, and Krugman is one of them

[TioDiego]

10. Just remember that.....

it is driven by demand and not supply.

[Liberal Classic]

11. Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[shance]

16. Exactly. Communism wasnt Communism in Russia or any other eastern blocs

It was a military/totalitarian regime(s) that cloaked itself under the guise of being communistic for the purpose to manipulate and control the people at large.

I guess if I were to think of any healthy form of communistic living, it would be some of the Native American nations here in the US? Most forms of communal living in many respects is a form of communism.

Heres a question: with 'authentic' communism, is there actually a leader so to speak?

[GirlinContempt]

19. If you look at...

Marxism, yes, there are 'leaders' but they are elected in a far more democratic manner, and are supposed to be 'rotated' frequently.

[FarLeftRage]

17. Well, according to one of the many pins I wear...

Capitalism
is organized
Crime