Ten Myths About Capitalism

Originally posted by macman
That's nice and all, but under the other systems, the the individual is not able to either own the company or control it.
Same goes with the current tax system. Or, do you suggest people go against the Progressive ideals of taxation and have the person sell under the table.


Capitalism is just fine, when left alone by the Govt.

Do you not understand that what you are arguing has nothing to do with the post that started this line of back and forth?

reply to post by daskakik

For you?? Maybe not.


There will always be poor people, regardless of the economic system in place.

Capitalism has allowed more people to become wealthy and/or build wealth then the other systems.

reply to post by macman

For me???

Capitalism made this possible? Since the term didn't exist until the 17th century, I guess people for tens of thousands of years before that had no way of making and trading things. But thanks to capitalism today's paupers can live better than the kings of yore.

You have been lied to.

reply to post by daskakik


Oh, so feudalism wasn't active before that??
And Kings and Queens were the governing bodies. Along with serfs and everything else with that wonderful time where "Villages" were trading.

What a great economic system. Lets go right back to that. Sounds fantastic.


You go take your time machine and head back.

I will stay here and continue to want more Capitalism.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by CryHavoc
It has to work both ways, tho. Business has to stay out of government, as well.

Good point. When you have business men like John Hancock lining up to be the first to sign the country's magna carta, you would have to be a fool or a dreamer to believe that it was ever really about freedom.

And who did that benefit? 'We the People' or 'We the Businesses'?

Part of the problem clouding the issue is people screaming absolutism. The U.S. is a work in progress and always has been.

It does make for some seriously interesting discussions, tho.

reply to post by macman

There were many different systems and they all allowed people to make a living and even accumulate wealth.

I have not proposed a change of any kind but let's be honest about what capitalism is and isn't.

Originally posted by daskakik

There were many different systems and they all allowed people to make a living and even accumulate wealth.

Yeah, SO many were able to acquire wealth.

Now who is being intellectually dishonest?

reply to post by macman

They were, rolling your eyes isn't going to change that fact.

Also, the claim was that poor people have electronics because of capitalism. That just isn't true, its a non sequitur.

reply to post by daskakik


Yeah, ok then.

So, what is it that gives them the electronic goodies??

reply to post by daskakik


Oh, what is the percentage of people that were wealthy in those times, as compared to those within a Capitalistic economy??

reply to post by macman

What gives electronic goodies, as well as any other goodies, is what has always given them, peoples drive to create and trade. That is why I said that before the idea of capitalism even existed people were involved in commerce.

I didn't say people were wealthy, I said they were allowed to create and accumulate wealth.

Originally posted by daskakik

What gives electronic goodies, as well as any other goodies, is what has always given them, peoples drive to create and trade. That is why I said that before the idea of capitalism even existed people were involved in commerce.

And Capitalism is the medium for such thinks.
Trade is still a form of. So is bartering. So is pay for work or goods.
These days, the poorer of the population get their money not just from work, but from the Govt. That is not Capitalism. That is Progressive ideals.

Originally posted by daskakik
I didn't say people were wealthy, I said they were allowed to create and accumulate wealth.

To accumulate wealth brings a person to being wealthy.
Regardless if you deem the accumulation of gold, bills, houses or shoes, once obtained, they are wealthy into what they have accumulated.


Geez, not that hard to understand. And to think, I am the backwoods redneck savage.

Originally posted by macman
And Capitalism is the medium for such thinks.
Trade is still a form of. So is bartering. So is pay for work or goods.
These days, the poorer of the population get their money not just from work, but from the Govt. That is not Capitalism. That is Progressive ideals.

Such things existed before Capitalism so it isn't the source of such things. Why is that so hard to understand? I made no mention of how people get their money in this day and age.

To accumulate wealth brings a person to being wealthy.
Regardless if you deem the accumulation of gold, bills, houses or shoes, once obtained, they are wealthy into what they have accumulated.

If we are to apply this definition then people were wealthy back then. They had stuff. So what exactly was your point?

Such things existed before Capitalism so it isn't the source of such things.

reply to post by daskakik


Thats the point. Free markets are a natural tendency of humans. Every voluntary exchange that has ever taken place in history was an example of capitalism at work. Any time a farmer planted a crop and was able to trade the food it produced that was the free market in action.

Trade and voluntary action are the very nature of man. Economics is the study of this and capitalism is this action in progress.

reply to post by hawkiye

There is no one state or one period where you could locate working Socialism. You could point to various measures and practices in various places that come close to Socialist ideas, such as certain measures by Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, some practices by the Swedish government in the sixties and the seventies, or the town voting system of the Dutch.

That is because true Socialism is not the state-owned capitalism the Soviets or the Maoists practiced. It is essentially a grassroots, bottom-up way of organizing society, based on real values and not fake ones (like "selling futures"). Socialism has always been a critical philosophy, which means it knows what it does not want (exploitation and gross inequality), but - contrary to what Lenin and Stalin asserted - it does not force ideals upon people by a central state authority. Today's Socialism has everything to do with the rights of indigenous peoples, environmentalism, and women's rights (see the essay by Engels, On the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State).

The point is when people are blackmailed by the continuation of their mere material existence, you will have a status quo based on lies and power, which is, as Marx pointed out, not so different from the power of kings and priests over citizens. In fact it has historically been derived from that very same central power.

Another point few bring up here is the "original accumulation of capital".
You could point to history and see that working Capitalism has developed only in countries that either have had colonies, or a situation like the exploitation of slaves in the US (with all the free land grabbed from Natives). True, these are also the places where the ideals of democracy first flourished.
However, try and bring any example from a country that lives under a successful capitalist system today and has never had any colonies, even internally (e.g. the so-called Austro-Hungarian empire used Hungary as well as parts of Poland pretty much as a colony for a German-speaking Austrian Empire. The same goes for the Russian empire.) Perhaps there are a few exceptions, like South Korea. SK did not allow total "free trade" for a number of decades after the war though, it was pursuing a policy of heavy taxes on foreign goods and foreign capital. When that was broken by the "free trade" people in 1997, an economic crisis ensued.

Originally posted by crankySamurai
Thats the point. Free markets are a natural tendency of humans. Every voluntary exchange that has ever taken place in history was an example of capitalism at work.

The problem is that capitalism isn't the only system which allows for voluntary exchange so, trying to equate it exclusively to capitalism is incorrect.

Any time a farmer planted a crop and was able to trade the food it produced that was the free market in action.

That can still be done so where does that leave those saying that capitalism no longer exists in the US?

reply to post by Kokatsi

That is because true Socialism is not the state-owned capitalism the Soviets or the Maoists practiced.

Stopped reading right there. Please just stop this ridiculous non-sense no one is buying that Mao and Stalin were capitalist and its just pathetic that anyone would even try to redefine them as such. You are just proving how foolish and idiotic the neo marxists are... Full blown socialist states in any of its forms have resulted in nothing bu death destruction poverty and despair.

Trying to claim they were capitalist is the height of stupidity. The US is headed in this same direction precisely because the weak minded are persuaded by the ridiculous arguments and propaganda that this is somehow capitalism.

You people have no clue what you are advocating. If gains momentum it will be a civil war. Castro, Stalin Mao and all the others told romantic stories about worker controlled production utopias where every one had all they wanted with no rich and no poor if they won the war but they were lied to just like you.

If you want war keep pushing this tripe and that is what you will get but before you do ask a combat vet what life is like in a war torn country and then think long and hard about what you are "REALLY" advocating because you just might get what you are asking for!

Originally posted by daskakik
The problem is that capitalism isn't the only system which allows for voluntary exchange so, trying to equate it exclusively to capitalism is incorrect.

It is though. It is the only system where solely voluntary exchange takes place. No other system can claim this. All other systems permit aggressive force by one group of another for different justifications, common good, social good, ect. There is only one outcome when solely voluntary action is respected and that is called the free market. Purely the free market. No governments, no legal plunder, no using other peoples resources under the false pretense. There are different extents to which a people can be free. Total freedom, total voluntary action is the only moral way for people to live. This is laissez-faire capitalism.

That can still be done so where does that leave those saying that capitalism no longer exists in the US?

Well there are of course parts of the free market which are still in action. No matter how much governments force is used to control people it is absolutely impossible to stamp out all aspects of the free market completely, even in communist or socialist regimes. We do not have a capitalistic system currently, there is much to much aggressive force permitted for this to be the case. But that does not mean that all freedom has been eradicated, as I said before, it is impossible for any group of men to do this, no matter how ruthless and authoritarian they may be. There are still many aspects of freedom that are around. Any time free trade takes place thats the free market in action. Any time a man produces and is able to keep what he produces, thats the free market once again. Remember there are degrees of freedom. Make sure your pushing the right way...

Originally posted by crankySamurai
It is though. It is the only system where solely voluntary exchange takes place. No other system can claim this.

Anarchism, market socialism, fascism can claim this.

Any time free trade takes place thats the free market in action. Any time a man produces and is able to keep what he produces, thats the free market once again.

If this is true then all systems have free markets. Does this mean capitalism exists no matter what system is officially in place?

Anarchism, market socialism, fascism can claim this.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm sorry but you have to be crazy if you think fascism can claim this. Market socialism could claim this if it is not forced on anybody but arises voluntarily once freedom is established. Anarchism is the ultimate free society where no aggressive force is accepted as moral and a free market would thrive under this environment.

If this is true then all systems have free markets. Does this mean capitalism exists no matter what system is officially in place?

Look man there are two different poles that an economy can lean towards. One is called command economy where all freedom is outlawed and all economic choices are made centrally and enforced aggressively. The other is the absolute free market where all coercive force is illegal and only voluntary action takes place. Every economic system is on that spectrum somewhere between total force and total freedom. The idea is to understand this and push in the direction of the abolition of aggressive force as morally acceptable. There are however different variations and mixes between these two polarities. Just because there are aspects of the free market that exist does not mean that capitalism is the system in place. Both of those opposite poles are nearly impossible to come to in reality so there will always be some mixture. The point is to move as close as you can to the total freedom pole and your pushing the wrong direction.