04 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFWell, most political systems today do indeed have capitalist systems. I don't see why that would be so strange or surprising. It's also probably true that the US is not the most capitalist system in the world.
But you have clear property rights of various forms and traditions in almost every type of political system seen around the world today and it would be nonsensically vague to call them all "capitalist", surely? And there is no country in the world that offers a 100% guarantee that the state won't confiscate property, notably the U.S.A. I have a sneaky feeling t ...[text shortened]... esident "capitalists" cannot differentiate between "capitalism" and "corporatism".
04 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't agree. I think corporatism is much more prevelant. I think most of the people who stand up on TV or in other media and lecture us about "being a capitalist", while having the airs and graces of 'tycoons' are in fact salaried employees of large corporate interests and entities that systematically distort the free market that is supposed to be the centre piece of capitalism. I believe that these individuals are not free to act and are rigidly contrained within these entities which are profoundly undemocratic, 'genetically' programmed to secure monopoly, reduce meaningful choice, and supress dissent. These corporate entities also always seem to be seeking to eradicate competition rather than seeking to flourish because of it - like it claims on the back of the packet. They intimidate and manipulate governments. And they do everything they can to preserve power structures and arrangments intent on carefully managing or restricting the way in which this "capitalism" rewards its various participants. Indeed if these so-called "capitalist" dogsbodies and jobsworths were to find themselves in a genuine capitalist environment or playing field, I reckon almost all of them would flounder.
Well, most political systems today do indeed have capitalist systems.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFI think government rules and regulations are essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Only if the parties involved are forced to play the game fairly can a free market arise. An unregulated free market is a contradiction in terms.
I don't agree. I think corporatism is much more prevelant. I think most of the people who stand up on TV or in other media and lecture us about "being a capitalist", while having the airs and graces of 'tycoons' are in fact salaried employees of large corporate interests and entities that systematically distort the free market that is supposed to be the centre p ...[text shortened]... capitalist environment or playing field, I reckon almost all of them would flounder.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour astute comment leaves no room for further bickering. 🙂 Oh well. Off to bed here in the benighted former Dutch East Indies.
I think government rules and regulations are essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Only if the parties involved are forced to play the game fairly can a free market arise. An unregulated free market is a contradiction in terms.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by Dace AceAs long as I can have my Bible, my chess set, and my little garden. The government (and it's corrupt officals) can all jump in a lake...and stay there! 😏
Please take a couple minutes and watch the link, then let me know if you agree or not?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b0_1230952167
05 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFDon't like the corporations, don't deal with them.
I don't agree. I think corporatism is much more prevelant. I think most of the people who stand up on TV or in other media and lecture us about "being a capitalist", while having the airs and graces of 'tycoons' are in fact salaried employees of large corporate interests and entities that systematically distort the free market that is supposed to be the centre p ...[text shortened]... capitalist environment or playing field, I reckon almost all of them would flounder.
I do agree that there needs to be a clear division between guvamint and business, the line should be as distinct and impervious as the division of the state and religion.
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation the first to be bought and sold are the legislators.
Can't see anything wrong with corporations, or any other form of partnership, or sole trader trying to eradicate competition, the competition is the competition, they're cutting into your business.
You have something against corporations? all or some? why don't you attempt a definition of capitalism that includes a ban on certain voluntary partnerships i.e.corporations.
Voluntary partnerships are a natural consequence of capitalism.
07 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI didn't use the word "corporation" on purpose in my previous post. I talked about "corporate entities". I am not just talking about Monsanto and Nike and the like. And the whole point was that, where others see (and extol the virtues of) "capitalism", I see "corporatism" - which is a profoundly undemocratic and anti-individualistic way of organizing things - packaged as definitively democratic and as empowering the individual.
You have something against corporations?
A "corporation" is any interest group, whether it be specialist, professional, public or private, profit-oriented or not. The one characteristic shared by all corporations is that the primary relationship of individual members is to the organization and not to the society at large.
In a corporatist society, the corporation replaces the individual and therefore supersedes the role of democracy. In their own relationship with the outside world, corporations deal with other corporations, not with individuals. It says much for the seductive/numbing appeal of all this, and indeed it is ironic, that "individualists" can actually believe that 'call-it-capitalism but it's-really coporatism' serves their best interests and provides them with the "structure of freedom" they advocate.
Corporatism is a school of representative government that is a rival to the collectivist school and the individualist school. In place of the democratic idea of the individual citizens who vote (and confer legitimacy and participate to the best of their ability), individuals in the corporatist state are reduced to the role of secondary participants. They belong to their professional or expert groups or their commercial entities - their corporations - and the state is run by ongoing negotiations between those various interests. This, I suppose, is the natural way of organizing things in a civilization based on 'expertise' and dedicated to the exercise of power through bureaucratic structures (in both the public and private sector).
The surface argument of corporatism has always been that democracy is inefficient, ineffective, corrupting, subject to whims and emotion. You've said as much, Wajoma, on many an occasion. That's why I have started to think that you don't believe in democracy (if it impinges on you in any way whatsoever) but that you are corporatist (rather than a true capitalist, who would balk at all this stuff about a state being run by ongoing negotiations, the technocratic compromises and accommodations between various corporate entities, and the systematic self-serving (and "rational" ) reduction of the choices placed before "society", and the marginalization/ disempowerment of the individual that goes hand in hand with this).
Yes, corporatism, unlike democracy and individualism, and a true market economy, presents itself as professional and responsible and uniquely able to deliver prosperity, even if democracy and the role of the individual within that democracy is emasculated and then repackaged in a swirl of delusions and manufactured aspirations that are in fact rooted in consumption and the pursuit of growth that sees scarcely any benefit going to the 'bottom' 66%. And when the elections come round, and all this swirling is starting to make you wonder how you were rendered so powerless (apart from the 'power to accept what your offered' and 'buy what you want'😉, you ask yourself, who on earth am I supposed to vote for?
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFAnd now you go and spoil things by trying to inject clarity and insight into an otherwise moribund debate. Don't you have some friends to corrupt and lay low!
I didn't use the word "corporation" on purpose in my previous post. I talked about "corporate entities". I am not just talking about Monsanto and Nike and the like. And the whole point was that, where others see (and extol the virtues of) "capitalism", I see "corporatism" - which is a profoundly undemocratic and anti-individualistic way of organizing things - packaged as definitively democratic and as empowering the individual.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are ignoring the basics, the definitions, the premises, which are vital to any debate.
Democracy doesn't imply mob rule. Most democracies have a constitution which cannot be easily changed, even if a majority wants to. Furthermore, socialism does not necessarily imply total government, although it can, of course. The maker of the video argues that democracies descend into anarchy relativily quickly, yet Europe has many stable democracies. ...[text shortened]... ies have very similar socio-economic policies and differ of opinion only on some moral issues.
It is true that democracy has a place in many forms of government, including many European, and of course the US. But democracy, without a Constitutional republic, is what tends to break down into anarchy.
And of course you are correct that Socialism doesn't necessarily take the form of total government. There is always a continuum, somewhere along the scale shown in the video, between Total Government, and Anarchy.
The lessons of history show that along that continuum are tipping points which may send a government down a slippery slope to the extremes.
One can argue where different governments stand on the continuum. I tend to agree with you that US government is dangerously lurching toward facism, or oligarchy, with the massive infusions of government funding to "save" large corporations from their own excesses, all in the name of saving the workers from pain. The other issue of a two party system, where the two parties don't really represent any differences, is another huge problem.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow about sticking to the premises laid out in the video. Democracy is a government of the people. A Republic is a government of laws.
Well, shifting the accepted definition of democracy to suit your needs is not really an argument for anything.
Clearly, (d)emocracy is used in the US government as an input, but that doesn't make the form of government a democracy. The US Constitution intentionally dilutes the democracy, so that it is very indirect at the Federal level, or at least it was.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFCapitalism's basis in the Constitution is in the guarantee of the rights of private property.
Would the so-called "capitalist" aspect of this republic of yours be constitutionally immunized from its own democratic process?
It used to protected by the "general welfare" clause, until that was bastardized.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe "obsession" with the founding fathers, is that a written Constitution is worthless if it is ignored in favor of whatever flavor modern intellectuals want to put on it. It is the basis in law of our republic.
There is no direct rule of the people anywhere.
Also, what's this obsession Americans have with the Founding Fathers and what they would've wanted? I'm sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted you to abolish slavery.
As to the matter of slavery, there was considerable debate on the matter at the Constitutional convention, with most of the northern colonies favoring abolishing it immediately. Even some Southerners were abolisionists, however without leaving it intact, the Union would not have ever existed, and British law including slavery would have come back anyway.
The "right to own slaves" was not in the bill of rights, however as slave at that time were considered property, the right to own them was protected in the US as it was in most of the civilized world at the time.
The means to alter the Constitution is there! It is by amendment, not by altering the original intent of the words.