The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on September 26, 2009, 10:26:17 AM
-
Meldread (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 06:25 AM
Original message
What is with the hate of capitalism? Is it due to ignorance?
I do not understand some of the hatred of capitalism expressed by some folk here on this forum, but also elsewhere by other fellow lefties. I can only assume that the hatred is grounded in ignorance.
Capitalism is an economic system that focuses on private ownership, and it is often contrasted against socialism which is an economic system that focuses on state ownership.
A capitalist believes individuals are best suited to make choices regarding their own wealth. It generally assumes that people will act in their own interests most of the time. A socialist believes that the government is best suited to make the choice regarding an individuals wealth. It generally assumes that the government can better allocate the resources to benefit society as a whole.
The United States, contrary to popular belief, is not a purely capitalist nation. It is somewhat a mixture between the two, and in fact where I see the anger most passionate among others on the left is directed at some of the socialist aspects of the nations economic policy. (In particular at corporations.)
For example, bailouts for business goes directly against capitalistic philosophy. The government giving wealth to a business – whether through subsidy (such as farmers in Iowa) or bailout (AIG and huge failing banks) – is socialist. A capitalist would let them die because they've proven they cannot exist on their own.
However, that does not mean a capitalist cannot see the consequences of a business failure on society. To use the bailouts as an example, a capitalist would have put AIG and those big banks through some type of structured bankruptcy. Those businesses that were failing deserved to die.
While there is always a concern when the government interferes with the economy, unless someone is a laissez-faire capitalist there is no philosophical objection to regulation provided it is good regulation.
I would argue that capitalism – real capitalism – is anti-corporation. Not in the sense that large businesses should not exist, but in the sense that a capitalist believes that the system is most effective when there is major competition. This goes against the interest of any business which wants to dominate its current market. Thus, a real capitalist supports regulation that ensures that everyone is playing on a level field, and ensures that new businesses can easily enter the marketplace. That is good for capitalism.
A capitalist also does not have any major philosophical disagreement over consumer protection, so long as it is not being used as an excuse to shut out legitimate businesses. (Again with the exception of the laissez-faire capitalist who are a whole other pot of beans.)
I suppose the most major difference that I have with some other folks on the left is that I don't hate business. The job of a business is to make money. No more and no less. When it comes to the failings that are often blamed on business it is almost always as a result of the government. For example, a business might get around paying benefits to certain employees by calling them freelance contractors despite the fact that they are regular employees.
Someone might look at the business and call them unethical for doing such a thing (and they are), but the job of a business is to make money. By doing this they are saving the money they make and diverting it elsewhere that will hopefully provide them with additional money. The fault of this practice should not be laid at the feet of the business, but rather the government for creating a system in which that type of action can take place.
The government creates the rules by which everyone must play. When those rules are inadequate or created from corruption within the government then you get a system like our healthcare industry.
Sometimes I see fellow lefties saying the government should take over this or that area of our government. Yet, I cannot help but feel disbelief at statements like that especially after eight years of George W. Bush. There will come a day again in the future where the Republican's control the Presidency or both houses of Congress. Do you want a Republican overseeing some aspect of your life? I don't.
And for the record this post has very little to do with the healthcare debate. Since I am fairly certain that some people who disagree may attack me on that issue let me make my position clear: I support something similar to the French model. Contrary to popular perception in America the French have a model that is based off private insurance companies, the major difference being that they are all non-profit. It is not government owned such as in Britain or Canada.
One of the major sources of the problem in our healthcare system, outside of government corruption and stupidity, is the fact that health insurance companies are beholden to shareholders rather than policy holders. The two groups are in direct conflict. Competition in the healthcare market keeps prices low, encourages innovation, and ensures better quality healthcare overall. This is why the French model is superior to all others that I've looked into. Of course, I think we could improve upon it a great deal if we'd examine it with a critical eye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6633519
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. " I can only assume that the hatred is grounded in ignorance."
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 06:30 AM by armyowalgreens
I read that and immediately unrecced. Don't assume something like that. It completely discredits the rest of your argument.
On edit: It doesn't seem like you even know what capitalism or socialism is, let alone the difference between the two of them. Yet you were so quick to declare us all ignorant?
**** that. I'm glad I unrecced.
Do you honestly believe that the bailout was "socialist"? What a stupid thing to say.
The primitive who cant even recall the world before 9-11-2001.
Meldread (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Of course it was.
You would call it capitalist? The government was clearly injecting itself into the marketplace and using public funds to prop-up institutions that it believed were necessary for the welfare of American citizens. That sounds like corporate socialism to me.
And you seem to take the meaning of ignorance incorrectly. I would define ignorance as a lack of knowledge, to be contrasted with stupidity - an individual with knowledge who refuses to use it. I wouldn't classify ignorance as a bad thing or even an insult, as we are all ignorant of many things (myself included).
But it's so nice that you take the time to bitch without even reading my post. ;)
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. No, it was not socialism. Nice try though.
Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 06:47 AM by armyowalgreens
Thanks for further spreading the right-wing hate rhetoric. As a socialist, I really appreciate the smear.
Government spending money on private bailout of industry does not equal socialism. It's an action independent of an ideology. It simply is. But the argument could be made that it is much similar to an action that would be taken under a fascist state.
What the **** is "corporate socialism"? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Oh, my bad. You simply meant that we didn't know what we were talking about. That now makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
It's not my fault that your first few sentences are a complete embarrassment to logic.
Meldread (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I can feel the love through the internet tubes.
And just FYI - I'm not talking about individual socialist or capitalist ideologies, of which there are many in both camps. I am simply referring to the basic philosophy that underpins them both. Just because you are a socialist doesn't mean you're for the bailouts, I would have thought this would have been obvious, but apparently not for... some.
I'm rather certain that some laissez-faire capitalist would show up (though I doubt one exists on DU :P) and call me a pinko commie for suggesting that the government has a right (I would actually go further: an obligation) to have basic consumer protections.
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep-26-09 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You called the bailouts "socialist." That is a lie.
This isn't miscommunication. At best, this is a demonstration of your own ignorance.
I am against laissez-faire capitalism. I am also against more regulated forms of capitalism. It's not enough to simply provide "consumer protections". Government has a responsibility to control and operate vital industry and services as non-profit entities.
You are most certainly not a communist. You are also not a socialist. I'm not really sure what you are.
Excuse me for being a bit short with someone that so openly declares me to be ignorant when you are the one that is ignorant of the facts.
It's so cute watching the little Marxist trying to debate anything.
-
armyowalgreens
" I can only assume that the hatred is grounded in ignorance."
I read that and immediately unrecced. Don't assume something like that.
Given all the non-sense that's spewed on Skin's island, it's the only conclusion that a reasonable person could reach. It's either ignorance or willful ignorance with you primitives, and 99% of the time it's the latter.
.
-
Of course the WalMart DUmmy is speaking with the lofty authority and experience of a 19-year-old
hippie pothead, but I kind of think the dumber of the two is DUmmy Meldread.
How can anyone have over a thousand posts at the DUmp and not know it is 100% anti-capitalist,
anti-American, and anti-business. That is the DUmp's reason for being.
-
That thread is pretty funny. Old army reminds me of some of the
teenagers we used to get on CU who had all of 15-16 years of life
under their belts and knew everything. :-)