Are Republicans Anti-Capitalist?

[DaveJ]

I've noticed libs shy away from wanting to be cosidered capitalists, but I personally never met one who wasn't. Most are hard workers who expect to get paid fairly for it. On the other hand the way neocons are moving more toward overwhelming corporate control, the more I see the prophecy of mounting Communism taking place. Plus we have companies like Wal-mart and others being supported by Cons despite the fact that their employees collect government benefits. I really see little about Republicans these days that reflects the spirit of capitalism. How in the world do Republicans continue to claim they are promoting capitalism when they are clearly heading in the opposite direction? When only a few corporations control the economy and work with the government in doing so, it looks pretty much the same a Communism. It's baffling that they can't see it.

[LostInAnomie]

1. They are definitely anti- free market...

... but they are definitely capitalists in the way that they fetishize wealth.

[DaveJ]

2. Hmm...

Does the fact that they have a fetish for the wealthy make them more capitalist? I don't think so. It just makes them more brainwashed into doing their masters' bidding. I do admit that some Republicans are paid well for being cronies, but the true spirit of capitalism includes the idea that wealth is acquired through hard work and merit, which is something Repugs definitely don't understand. They feel that they should get paid more for being white males, for instance, or at least behaving in such a way. I also admit that money is very near and dear to their heart, but again I don't see that as making them more capitalist when they support anti-capitalist behavior. On the other hand I'm sure many wealthy people have are not that obsessed with money, since most of them, at least the honest ones, need to be more interested in their line of work. We let our spouses spend it. Now that leads me to believe that their is a feminine quality to Republicans these days in that they expect to make money without putting forth the hard work required to earn it. (Please forgive the sexist reference, I mean feminine in the old fashioned 1950's sense and could not think of a better word at the time)

[Inland]

18. Right. Anti free market,

pro corporate welfare, pro government preventing competition, pro no bid contracts, pro rigging.

[stevietheman]

3. Today's Republicans are CINO's

Capitalists in name only. They support concentrated big corporate control over the people. They abhor competition and true free markets.

[Sammy Pepys]

4. The question boils down to control.....

I don't think the current Reps are anti-capitalist in the sense that they (nor anyone else) is looking to install a centrally-directed economy or price controls or anything like that.

But I do think many of the capitalists of the "old right" would find the current admin downright socialist as they operate now and the kinds of controls, both direct and indirect, they do exact on the economy.

[Lefty48197]

16. Actually, team Bush doesn't control the economy at all

They let corporate executives write the very legislation that will deregulate their particular industries. I would compare them to facists.

[Odin2005]

5. Capitalism it it's pure form is anti-market since it give consumers power.

This is why the robber barons of the late 1800's wanted monopolies, compitition is bad for profits because it forces a business to keep prices as low as possible and to "waste" money on innovation in order to compete. Capitalists would ideally want to join together an form an oligarchic corporate government with a command economy so the consumer wouldn't have any control over how much the government-corporation charged for goods and services. A totally free market is a market that self-distructs.

[DaveJ]

6. The components of capitalism have been warped

I'm not a huge expert on the terminology involved so I looked up the dictionary definition of the word:

Capitalism
"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."

In regard to "privately or corporately owned," there is less and less opportunity for the little guy to join the business world these days so more and more is becoming corporate. I think our economic system has lost its "capitalism-integrity" when private ownership is taken out.

In regard to the word "development," are the biggest profit makers really the biggest developers? I don't think so. That is in fact the biggest problem we face.

It seems fair that development should be proportional to wealth, but it would be easy to contend otherwise. There are a lot of people who become wealthy who really develop nothing. What does "development" mean in this context?

[Sammy Pepys]

7. Just foi clarity's sake, with a bit of IMHO thrown in

"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."

This private ownership can also refer to share ownership, in that we can all freely purchase shares in companies like Microsoft, etc. And small business is of course included there.

As for "...development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits.." I think that means that bigger development is not just contingent on profits, but the rate of reinvestment in the business of those profits. Just making a profit won't do it.

[DaveJ]

8. Wheels need to interact in order to turn

I thought the reinvestment part was thrown in to clarify the fact that currency has to circulate in order for capitalism to work. That's true enough.

My beef mentioned above pertains to the term 'development'. For the sake of clarity, I would take the phrase "the accumulation and reinvestment of profits" and call it "wealth." In these terms, that definition says development should be proportional to wealth, correct? But it's not, necessarily, maybe in most cases. This is not a country where the harder to work the more money you make, as the definition of capitalism would imply. In fact it would appear that the poorer people work the most and the richest work the least. Take the Walton family for instance, or the pResident and all his friends. Those are just examples but the bottom line is that development is not proportional to wealth as it should be for capitalism to function the way it should.

And of course most people are not able to invest in the stock market to a significant extent. So that part of capitalism is not implenented very well in this country either.

What surprises me is that these problems are being spurred by Republicans who think they are being pro-capitalist when in fact they are being anti-capitalist without realizing it.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. RE:

I thought the reinvestment part was thrown in to clarify the fact that currency has to circulate in order for capitalism to work. That's true enough

Well, yes...but I don't think that's what the definition is addressing. The term "reinvesting" suggest to me that they mean reinvesting the profits of a business in itself to expand. Outside investing or saving...that would just be investing or saving.

My beef mentioned above pertains to the term 'development'. For the sake of clarity, I would take the phrase "the accumulation and reinvestment of profits" and call it "wealth." In these terms, that definition says development should be proportional to wealth, correct?

Yes, but that's not the proper treatment of profits, or of wealth. The two are not interchangeable.

This is not a country where the harder to work the more money you make, as the definition of capitalism would imply.

I don't think the one cited implies that at all. It doesn't say anything about how hard one labors.

[DaveJ]

10. Okay

I'm obviously not a great communicator. I tend to attach my own personal meaning to words that I think are correct yet not fully recognized by the reader.

For instance, when I say "work" I am not necessarily thinking about labor. I'm thinking about how much one contributes to the economy by helping to produce products that people are willing to pay for. Based on that definition, wealth (or the accumulation and control of money) is not proportional to work (or development). This is what happens when corporate monopolies, government, and monarchs are at the helm of the economy, and then we are no longer capitalists.

You can continue to get me on semantics since I'm not an economics major but I stand by my overall hypothesis. I see capitalism as a good thing if it is controlled. Almost everything imaginable has to be controlled in order to maintain its integrity.

And I think it is worth pointing out that Republicans are not good for capitalism. Dems and Libs have this nonsense reputation for accepting anti-capitalists when in fact the Republican party's approach toward the economy may be better suited for them.

[Sammy Pepys]

11. Well, I'm not disagreeing with you

Yes, capitalism is only as good as the rules that govern it. Even majorly pro-capitalist thinkers agree with that.

And I don't mean to be nitpicky about semantics, but it does influence how your thoughts are interpreted. Not that I'm any great communicator myself...

[DaveJ]

12. Well I understand one point may be in question

Mainly, my point regarding the term 'proportionate' in that definition. I see how that word might be glossed over but I think it's very important. It doesn't say indirectly proportionate or semi-proportionate, just proportionate. It implies that a balance must be maintained.

Repugs are great at reinvesting but I don't see anything that they are doing to maintain a balanced relationship between development and the accumulation and reinvestment of profits.

I think this imbalance manifests at all levels, from the laborer to the business leader. The economy is just out of wack because it's being contolled by people who's brains are out of wack.

[dcfirefighter]

14. Educate yourself about Economic Rent

And Rent-Seeking. Today's republicans are Rent-Seekers. Oil families make their money by collecting RENT, as do Railroaders, Real Estate Speculators, most Banking families, and other monopolists.

Rent, being a 'natural surplus' and not being due to any one entities efforts, can and should be shared among the many rather than collected by the few. A practical version of this would be to tax 'Rent', and use it to provide for public goods.

Capital, as defined by Adam Smith and Karl Marx, is limited to man-made things. More modern economists have conflated Capital with Land, despite the inherent differences between the two. The returns to Land are known as Rent. Conflating the two factors of production mean that "Capitalists" get to become Rent-Seekers.

Separating the two means that Capitalists get to compete for consumers while all get to enjoy the increases in Rent.

At the extreme, such a system would mean an end to sales, income, and wage taxes, as well as property taxes assessed against man-made objects. "Taxes" would be replaced by full market rate user fees, including the annual rental value of of land titles, broadcast licenses, extraction permits, etc.

It is estimated that currently 'Rent' accounts for roughly 1/3d of the GDP: shifting to a Rent-Sharing scheme, as well as reducing taxes agaisnt productivity, would increase GDP and the share of Rent. Currently, a person's share of 'Rent' in the US would be a little over $14,000. Compare this with about $8,000 of government spending per capita. In theory, will full rent sharing, each person in the US could enjoy a surplus of $6,000 - or $24,000 for a family of 4. This would be in addition to current-level government services and a very significant increase in employment and wages.

[seasat]

13. Republicans promote Corporate Feudalism

I agree with the tenets of a system of regulated capitalism. Free market capitalism works good in theory but it assumes that people are honest and rational. If that were the case, then a completely libertarian Ayn Rand type system would work perfect. However, being a realist, people are not honest and capitalism requires regulation to promote fair competition and encourage innovation. IMHO, this is what separates a Democrat from a Repug. The Repug system is not even libertarian. They promote incentives, subsidies, loopholes to concentrate power among a small number of favored corporations. I agree with your premise but it is not a communistic system they are promoting but a feudal system with Ken Lays replacing lords of the manor.

[Lefty48197]

15. All Republicans support monopolies

They think one corporation getting huge and dominating their particular market IS capitalism.

[fedsron2us]

17. Privatize the profit. Socialize the risk.

Get with the message.