Capitalism: Do you believe in it? (2 Viewers)

[BandSixFix]

In the end, it's a constant struggle between the proletariat rising over the bourgeois - with the final world structure being communism.

 

[Orwell]

Right, the economic system that entails favouritism, suppression of progression and propels all the other negatives associated with government intervention. God help us all.

 

[AmorFati]

Supplant the word capitalism with corporatism. Laissez-faire capitalism is non-existent therefore pure capitalism can't be blamed for today's issues.

On Page 1, you literally were arguing that cases such as Japan, the other East-Asian 'tigers' and China were examples of "stunning economic development in contemporary capitalism", and now you're arguing that capitalism does not exist, but corporatism does. If capitalism cannot be blamed for the issues that 'corporatism' engenders, you cannot possibly use these examples as successes of capitalism, because the economic systems in all of the aforementioned countries were not even close to a laissez-faire free-market system.

Which way do you have it?

Like seriously, this is some edgy stuff happening right here.

Claim capitalist economic success, and then claim that capitalism does not exist when criticised upon certain aspects of capitalism.

 

[AmorFati]

Right, the economic system that entails favouritism, suppression of progression and propels all the other negatives associated with government intervention. God help us all.

Marxism is not an economic system as much as it is a theoretical apparatus analysing capitalism itself; Marx wrote very little about how to actually implement communism. If you're referring to communism as the system, there are plenty of forms of communism (actually all of them do at some point) that supports the withering away of the state.

 

[AmorFati]

Sorry, I didn't see this question originally. Many people do believe they correlate of one is a manifestation or the other, some believe the terms are synonymous, etc... This couldn't be less true, the two are different.

Capitalism - Hands free, no government intervention, laissez-faire, free market.

Corporatism - Government intervention, the employment of unethical means to keep businesses at the top.

Here's something a little more extensive,

Capitalism: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.

Free market: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

Corporatism: Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/11/explaining-difference-between.html (great article distinguishing the two)

Have you actually got a legit academic source that defines capitalism in this way apart from picking out random definitions from bloggers on the internet. Defining capitalism as a system predicated upon "individual rights" is utterly laughable and shows a lack of acumen in the history of political philosophy

 

[Orwell]

What do you want me to do? Conduct an experiment whereby I measure people's satisfaction in a capitalist v corporate society?

Those definitions aren't from some article composed by some 20 y/o teen whose doing a degree in economics, no, they've been taken from reputable websites and are usually the pinned definitions when searching for any of those terms. Capitalism is closely intertwined with Libertarianism and if you have any shred of knowledge pertaining to the ideologies of Libertarians, you'd know that the definition provided is in fact sound and logical.

 

[Orwell]

Marxism is not an economic system as much as it is a theoretical apparatus analysing capitalism itself; Marx wrote very little about how to actually implement communism. If you're referring to communism as the system, there are plenty of forms of communism (actually all of them do at some point) that supports the withering away of the state.

Yes, but I was referencing communism as the economic system vouched for by Karl Marx as the substitute to capitalism. Communism has not worked out lol. The ideologies brought forth by Karl Marx have seen extrapolation and appropriation and have manifested themselves in the following: Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism. If you wish for any of the aforementioned to be implemented in today's society, you must be deranged or relish subservience and obsequiousness.

Edit: Cultural Marxism. Don't let me ramble on about the negative effects of Cultural Marxism, namely: feminism, political correctness.

Here you are:

On Page 1, you literally were arguing that cases such as Japan, the other East-Asian 'tigers' and China were examples of "stunning economic development in contemporary capitalism", and now you're arguing that capitalism does not exist, but corporatism does. If capitalism cannot be blamed for the issues that 'corporatism' engenders, you cannot possibly use these examples as successes of capitalism, because the economic systems in all of the aforementioned countries were not even close to a laissez-faire free-market system.

Which way do you have it?

Like seriously, this is some edgy stuff happening right here.

Claim capitalist economic success, and then claim that capitalism does not exist when criticised upon certain aspects of capitalism.

Hold on:

In 1978, Deng Xiaoping, a Chinese revolutionary and veteran of the Communist Party, was eager to adopt capitalist methods and reforms in order to stimulate economic growth and restore confidence in the party. He and U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed an historic accord in 1979, reversing decades of China-U.S. tension.

Deng launched several economic reforms that allowed private sectors to start and operate their own businesses once again. He also established four special economic zones along the coast of China with intentions of attracting foreign investments. Due to the reforms Deng put in place, China has gone from being a country that opposed capitalism to one that embraces property rights, profits and free market competition.

I believe the article was referencing the positives seen by simply adopting a few aspects of laissez-faire capitalism (those mentioned above).

 

[durrrrr]

In the end, it's a constant struggle between the proletariat rising over the bourgeois - with the final world structure being communism.

maybe in the minds of delusional commies

 

[Orwell]

Finally.

 

[wannaspoon]

Marxism > Capitalism

Having descendants from a Socialist country I can tell you... You have rocks in your head...

Even Socialism was poison... I think most people in the West look at Marxism as this beacon of light, when the so called "East" shudders...

In the end, it's a constant struggle between the proletariat rising over the bourgeois - with the final world structure being communism.

Yes, the fall of the USSR really demonstrates how the final world structure would be Communism...

Kids these days...

 

[Orwell]

So, what do you propose?

 

[Amundies]

Having descendants from a Socialist country I can tell you... You have rocks in your head...

Even Socialism was poison... I think most people in the West look at Marxism as this beacon of light, when the so called "East" shudders...



Yes, the fall of the USSR really demonstrates how the final world structure would be Communism...

Kids these days...

I really don't understand why people don't listen to those who have actually lived under communism. Like you can come up with all the theories and ideas in the world (about why communism is better), but you'll never get anything better than by listening to those who have a first hand experience of it. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[AmorFati]

Yes, but I was referencing communism as the economic system vouched for by Karl Marx as the substitute to capitalism. Communism has not worked out lol. The ideologies brought forth by Karl Marx have seen extrapolation and appropriation and have manifested themselves in the following: Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism. If you wish for any of the aforementioned to be implemented in today's society, you must be deranged or relish subservience and obsequiousness.


Edit: Cultural Marxism. Don't let me ramble on about the negative effects of Cultural Marxism, namely: feminism, political correctness.


Here you are:

Hold on:

In 1978, Deng Xiaoping, a Chinese revolutionary and veteran of the Communist Party, was eager to adopt capitalist methods and reforms in order to stimulate economic growth and restore confidence in the party. He and U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed an historic accord in 1979, reversing decades of China-U.S. tension.

Deng launched several economic reforms that allowed private sectors to start and operate their own businesses once again. He also established four special economic zones along the coast of China with intentions of attracting foreign investments. Due to the reforms Deng put in place, China has gone from being a country that opposed capitalism to one that embraces property rights, profits and free market competition.

I believe the article was referencing the positives seen by simply adopting a few aspects of laissez-faire capitalism (those mentioned above).

China has become more liberalized since Deng, but state control is still very much the norm economically.

Even still, all of the aforementioned countries did achieve a significant amount of economic development through state intervention and privileging of like *everything* (so that would be corporatism under yer definition, as opposed to 'capitalism' per se)

quickedit: Do you have any thoughts on anarchism? Some people have argued that this is a form of communism that *has* worked out (to an extent)

 

[AmorFati]

Also "cultural Marxism" is completely irrelevant to discussing communism v. capitalism, so I can only assume that you brought it up because it has like the word, 'Marxism', even though it the term literally is a conspiracy theory created by right-wingers with approx. no academic basis (although you could always argue that this is because of the infestation of leftism in academia /s)

 

[Orwell]

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.

^^ I thought it relevant. I've made a separate thread if you wish to discuss it further over there.

Haven't done much research on anarchism, I won't weigh in as of yet.

I was making reference to the positives associated with implementing mere aspects of laissez-faire capitalism not stating that China in itself has become a capitalist state.

 

[AmorFati]

What do you want me to do? Conduct an experiment whereby I measure people's satisfaction in a capitalist v corporate society?

Those definitions aren't from some article composed by some 20 y/o teen whose doing a degree in economics, no, they've been taken from reputable websites and are usually the pinned definitions when searching for any of those terms. Capitalism is closely intertwined with Libertarianism and if you have any shred of knowledge pertaining to the ideologies of Libertarians, you'd know that the definition provided is in fact sound and logical.

You're taking it too far here. The thing is, you're arguing that capitalism has certain benefits, and have used practical examples, which is all and well (like even most Marxists would agree with this), but whenever you're criticised upon a flaw of capitalism, you're like

CAPITALISM DOESN'T EXIST IN SOCIETY ONLY CORPORATISM EXISTS.

Which is blatantly paradoxical.

Capitalism is indeed heavily intertwined with libertarian thought, but I would propose a more viable definition of it in terms of property rights and the means of produciton (because most people do say that the West is capitalist, even though not laissez-faire per se)

 

[AmorFati]

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.

^^ I thought it relevant. I've made a separate thread if you wish to discuss it further over there.

Haven't done much research on anarchism, I won't weigh in as of yet.

I was making reference to the positives associated with implementing mere aspects of laissez-faire capitalism not stating that China in itself has become a capitalist state.

There is no academic basis for cultural marxism existing. You also have to do better than quote articles from an "American paleoconservative, a columnist, a Christian, and a light rail enthusiast."

 

[Orwell]

You're taking it too far here. The thing is, you're arguing that capitalism has certain benefits, and have used practical examples, which is all and well (like even most Marxists would agree with this), but whenever you're criticised upon a flaw of capitalism, you're like

CAPITALISM DOESN'T EXIST IN SOCIETY ONLY CORPORATISM EXISTS.

Which is blatantly paradoxical.

Capitalism is indeed heavily intertwined with libertarian thought, but I would propose a more viable definition of it in terms of property rights and the means of produciton (because most people do say that the West is capitalist, even though not laissez-faire per se)

Name it.

 

[AmorFati]

Name it.

Even the Wikipedia definition would suffice: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

 

[Orwell]

I meant name a flaw that I've failed to refute,

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, and private-property anarchism) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

Various theorists have differing, though similar, legal philosophies which have been considered to fall under anarcho-capitalism. However, the most well-known version, was formulated by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard, who coined the term and is widely regarded as its founder, in the mid-20th century, synthesizing elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their anti-capitalism, along with the labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it). In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow."This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression.