Skip to comments.Is It Possible to Criticize Some Aspects of Capitalism, Without Being Labelled a Socialist?
Posted on 02/17/2012 8:05:14 AM PST by pinochet
The leader of the Russian Communist Revolution, Vladmir Lenin, once declared that: "The capitalists will give us the rope, which we shall use to hang them".
For most of American history, capitalism has been a force for good, because most of America's leading capitalists were patriotic citizens, who were also devout Christians. So long as American capitalism is in the hands of patriotic Christians, the forces of capitalism can be harnessed to do a lot of good for America and the world. J. D. Rockefeller's fortune built the University of Chicago and other useful projects during his lifetime. American capitalist funds converted Harvard, Princeton, and Yale - which were founded as Christian seminaries to train clergymen, into world class universities. But the Rockefeller Foundation, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have been hijacked by anti-Christian forces, and been used as tools to undermine American culture.
But we have to consider the possibility that a capitalist system can be very dangerous, if it is in the hands of people who hate America and hate Christianity. Do you remember when the Clinton administration was bribed by defence contractors, into permitting the transfer of US missile technology to China? China may attack America one day, with American missile technology. I am also opposed to selling US arms technology to Islamic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. These regimes have turned virulently anti-Israel, and may one day attack Israel using American technology. Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation, that should receive advanced weapons from America, because they are America's only true ally. American national security depends on putting the interests of Americans first, ahead of the corporate profits of defence contractors, who are notorious for bribing administration officials and congressmen.
Which corporation does this? How do they force it? I missed the news coverage where the Coca Cola SWAT team dressed in red kicked in the door of some unsuspecting family and made them consume the Coke. For a corporation to use force they need a partner with a gun (govt). The American people are to blame when force is used because we have provided the gun to the multi-national corporation.
they have no loyalty to the USA or any local community
Nor should they. They should have loyalty to their share holders and board of directors who should in turn have loyalty to the USA or their local community. If they don't they should be publicly held to account for the actions of the organization they are profiting from.
They fund the Democrats and the Washington elites. They are the reason we cannot get honorable men elected.
The INDIVIDUAL within the organization responsible for doing this has done something against the tenets of liberty and free markets. The POLITICIAN accepting the bribe has done something immoral. The PEOPLE who elected the POLITICIAN did something unwise.
Multi-nationals are evil and do no good
There are many multi-national corporations which have done wonderful things ranging from curing diseases, advances in science, advances in agriculture, advances in communications, etc...There are also those INDIVIDUALS who run multi-national corporations who immorally use the power of the organization to exert force over free men. These people, the politicians who provide the guns and the fools that vote them into office are the bad guys.
Well, ignorance and a blind eye to what’s going on is Rush’s position, too.
Nope "capitalism" isn't dangerous.
What is dangerous is when Government tries to make "Capitalism" "fair"!
You know what, I never thought of it like that before. Good point. Never mind what I said before.
“one class possesses the means of production”
Problem with that concept is that ANYONE can owns means of production. Sure, class distinctions seem apparent when talking very large scale production, but the distinction is position on a continuous spectrum and not an either/or. Any prole can start producing with his bare hands, leveraging his work to acquire more, and so produce more. Many a prole has, as a result of hard work, unexpectedly found himself “The Man” while railing against “The Man” along the way.
Those who object to capitalism as class warfare do not understand this.
Yale was founded using the money plundered from innocent people. It is named after the plunderer who was also a criminal and who donated plundered wealth in order to get the university named after him.
That’s why the author says:
America never had a proletariat.
In that case, America could not have been a capitalist country.
Communism, in reality, is just another variation of Capitalism, in which Capital is centralized in the hands of the State.
I remember the quote from Arthur Jensen in the movie, “Network”, when he dressed down Howard Beale...
“What do you think the Russians talk about in their Councils of State? Karl Marx? They pull out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, and minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments just like we do.”
One major difference... Individual Capitalism has plenty of competition. Government's tend to shoot competitors.
I think he might have said “sell” us the rope, but I could be wrong.
Another anti patriotic company is the Associated Press. It is the leading wire service in America - but all wire service journalism has the same effect of homogenizing journalism into a cabal of self-promoters. Without the unifying influence of the wires services, journalism was an ideologically diverse institution. There are still individual editorial pages - e.g., the Wall Street Journal's - which differ from the default wire service perspective, but the body of the newspaper is always dominated by the self-interest of journalism as an institution.
Were it not so, it would be impossible for journalism to sustain its fraudulent "objective journalist" imposture. Thinking you are objective is the very essence of subjectivity. Yet there are no journalists in good standing who dissent from the "objectivity" claim for journalism. That is entirely understandable when you consider that anyone who does dissent from it is instantly and permanently blackballed from acceptance as a journalist.
A journalism which is dedicated to the proposition that journalists are inherently objective is an institution whose default stance is hypercritical intolerance of political dissent or of any suggestion that actual performance against a bottom line is equivalent - never mind superior to - the journalist's criticism. That implies that journalists think critics should run everything, notwithstanding their ignorance of the constraints within which a businessman must operate. Thus, journalists promote socialism and denigrate capitalism.If you want to criticize capitalism in general and every executive in particular, you will have the full backing of wire service journalism. And they will call you any positive label they can think of - anything but "objective," of course, so long as you do not wear a journalist's hat. But their idea of a positive label is "moderate" or "progressive" or "liberal."
But if that's your stance, don't be shocked if you get called a "socialist" here.
Is it ok to criticize God & the Ten Commandments without being labeled an atheist?
Correct. It is what the economy will be in an environment with individual freedoms. It is not a "designed" 'system' like Marxism. Anyone like Marx who thinks he is smart enough to figure out a system to manage billions of transactions per day is just a foolish as someone who thinks they can control the universe.
What Adam Smith described in 1776 was not his prescription for an economy. It was simply how an economy would work when left alone. It is a natural order... the way people will interact, left to their own devices.
The only catch is that when society becomes larger, there must be an referee to set basic rules, call penalties, and keep the playing field level. That becomes the government's responsibility, and by nature, government is corrupt.
We have allowed the governments to become far too corrupt and to go too far beyond their duty as neutral referees and the natural system has become severely distorted as a result.
The problem is not Capitalism. The problem is corrupt governments.
“Sounds like a god excuse to have as small a government as possible. It’d be a lot easier to keep an eye on.”
Good point. Also, the fewer sheep, the less temptation for wolves. Small, lean government.
The topic is corruption. A lot of smart people get scammed all the time, such as people who trusted AAA ratings based on the “reasearch” of top firms.
Adam Smith wrote two books. The later better known one is “The Wealth of Nations”. The earlier, less well known one is the “Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Adam Smith saw it as a two-volume set. Unfortunately, too few people today see it that way.
Sure, it’s certainly ok to attack aspects of Capitalism without being a Socialist. I can give numerous examples:
1) In pure capitalism cars would be built as cheaply as possible - no pollution controls. I had an experience with that a while back in Europe, in an underground parking garage that was so choked with fumes, that my rental car barely got through it...and never ran right after. I like the fact that toxic pollutants have been virtually eliminated from exhaust, and no, that would not have happened without the government requiring it.
2) As others have said, you have Crony Capitalism. The most egregious examples are when governors (as in Texas and Indiana) sign monopoly-protected highway transfer deals that leave taxpayers at the mercy of these companies...which typically charge 25 to 35 cents PER MILE to drive on these highways.
3) Also, banking. I’m convinced that bankers are simply UNABLE to protect the money of depositors without regulation. Yes, the government was a factor in the latest meltdown, but the banks were the biggest factor. No one in their right minds can think that an adjustable rate mortgage where the principal on the loan actually INCREASES over the first 5 years (not to mention the interest rate) is EVER going to get paid back according to terms...particularly when the loan amount is 5 to 10 times the borrower’s income. But the banks did it, and the ENTIRE SYSTEM supported them, including the insurers. Bankers should NEVER be left to themselves.
Those are my examples.
I think the off shoring of our manufacturing base a form of a-political capitalism gone wild. My unfettered support of capitalism ends at the waters edge. Call me a commie for not wanting to trade with commies, flame away.