RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : "Capitalism" - Is it time for a change?

Monday
September 20, 2004

"Capitalism" - Is it time for a change? by Marcus Bachler

Capitalism can be made the scapegoat of whatever it is that they happen to hate about the economy at the time. It can stand for corporate corruption and greed, unfair trade with third world nations, excessive profits or the exploitation of workers. Capitalism has become a general smoke-screen for the criticism of avarice and the ultimate in left-wing “woolly” thinking. Is it time for a change? (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (7 messages)

Post 0

Monday, September 20, 2004 - 1:25pm

Link

Edit

Marcus, I wish you could know the world 50 years ago, for you would marvel at the speed of change that has occurred. In the United States, there are two areas in particular where change is badly needed: the first is the media, and you can see with the current CBS scandal that is is happening. The second is in education. Here, I am afraid change is in its infancy.
Thomas Jefferson was unbelievably wise and could see how important it was to keep government limited. Unfortunately, he had a blind spot in this subject re: education. America continues to pay a price for that.

Post 1

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:27am

Link

Edit

Marcus,

George Reisman offers a short definition of capitalism on page 19 of his masterful treatise, Capitalism:

Capitalism is the economic system that develops insofar as people are free to exercise their right to life and choose to exercise it.

Which links naturally to his definition of economics (page 16):

I define economics as the science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor ... [Italics in the original.]

He further elaborates:

When the connections between capitalism and the division of labor have been understood, it will be clear that economics, as the science that studies the production of wealth under a system of division of labor, is actually the science which studies the production of wealth under capitalism. Economics' study of the consequences of government intervention and of socialism will be shown to be merely study of the impairment or outright destruction of capitalism and the division of labor.

If you wish you can explore more of the book online at the link I give above; if I understand the point of your article correctly, I think you will find Reisman's book enormously helpful. I find that I do quite frequently - it's open on my desk much of the time. :-)

Post 2

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 7:49am

Link

Edit

Peter,

What started me off were Thatcher's comments that the word "capitalism" was one of the few that was actually invented by the left-wing and then adopted by the right-wing (and all defenders of "capitalism" such as objectivists). She claimed that there was evidence that it started with that socialist thinker Saint-Simone and was propagated by Marx and his followers, although I could not find out where she got this information from.

What I believe subsequently is that it is true that capitalism does indeed have an imprecise meaning amongst the general public. It started out as a left-wing term of abuse and probably will stay like that for a long time to come. Wouldn't it be great if "capitalists" made their own term? After all - in the objectivist sense nearly everyone in the world is actively practising capitalism to a certain extent - and still hold that it is the epitomy of evil.

James,

I know what you mean. You have to change the cultural mentality before you can change the politics. This is not pie in the sky, after all left-wingers are constantly re-branding socialism and communism.

By the way- not that related:

I read this list in the newspaper of US election political dirty tricks and Goldwater (as a victim) is mentioned. As you were around I wondered if you would like to comment.

"

Low blows and dirty tricks are nothing new to American politics.

1844 The Democrat James Polk was accused of having had some of his slaves branded with his initials, as supposed proof that he had sold slaves to fund his campaign. Neither allegation was true and he went on to win the election.

1880 A forged letter was published suggesting that James Garfield had written to a union endorsing the right of a firm to hire the cheapest labour possible, including people from China. Garfield proved it was not his handwriting and went on to win the White House.

1884 Grover Cleveland was portrayed as a lecherous drunk after he admitted he had fathered an illegitimate child. His opponent was accused of having had premarital sex with his wife. Cleveland won.

1964 Supporters of President Lyndon Johnson's campaign funded an advertisement against the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, depicting a little girl and a giant mushroom cloud. Goldwater lost in a landslide.

1968 The Republicans are believed to have persuaded the South Vietnamese to abandon a peace conference backed by Lyndon Johnson.

The diplomatic shambles damaged the electoral chances of Richard Nixon's rival, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey.

1972 Nixon's campaign organised a burglary of the Democratic Party's headquarters in the Watergate building, Washington, in search of documents. Nixon was re-elected but later had to resign in disgrace.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 9/21, 7:53am)

Post 3

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 1:53pm

Link

Edit

Marcus:

Short Answer, NO!

Long Answer, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No !

We should NOT cede the word capitalism to its enemies. We should fight them at the roots of their arguments, as did Rand with the word Selfishness.

(Question to "old" people at this site: Is Selfishness a more "acceptable" word than 40 years ago? I suspect the answer is a resounding YES- Thanks Ayn).

"Free Market" is great, but it is not the essence of what is meant by capitalism. Capitalism is more encompassing, and includes the concept of using capital (in all its guises) to CREATE. It places the emphasis as such, on production, which must come before trade ("market").

I think we should wear the label capitalism proudly, and fight for its true meaning.

And despite the "negative" tone to this post, let me say thanks for an excellent, thought-provoking article!

Post 4

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 4:14pm

Link

Edit

James, I am envious that you experienced that period in America. I would have liked to witness the late 19th century as well, because I would have made an excellent robber baron. Just think of it: no income tax, a gun in my purse...oh, and no right to vote. Sigh...

In any case, I wanted to address David's point. I am as torn on this issue as I am with the word "selfishness." It has been my experience that people are much more accepting of the term "rational self-interest," so I wonder whether Marcus has a valid point here. Lately I have been throwing around "Free Market" and "Laissez-Faire," and they seem to be working much more effectively.

Well done, Mr. Bachler. I'm going to do a private little study of my own to see how people are affected by one term vs. the other. I'll post the results here.

Jennifer

Post 5

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:20pm

Link

Edit

Thank you for the link to Capitalism.

Another one of those books that's going to be staring back at me over the months................

Post 6

Friday, January 4 - 11:59am

Link

Edit

Capitalism, aka free enterprise in a free market has been the target of hatred from both the far left and the far right. Hitler hated Capitalism, and characterized it as a Jewish Abomination.

Marx and his buddies hated Capitalism because it was the mother of class injustice and it was fated by a dialectical process to be replaced anyway.

The militant Muslims, particularly those of the Wahabite persuasion hate Capitalism because it is materialistic, and distracts people from adhering to the True Faith. When Q'tab Sayyid was in the U.S (for a brief period) he came to hate the West and Capitalism because of the distractions from godliness it produces.

Pol Pot hated capitalism and any modern innovation because it encourage people to thing of getting things for themselves. Thinking of one's self is a prime evil for a collectivist. True goodness is serving the good of the collective, not pursuit of personal happiness or satisfaction.

Bob Kolker