Capitalism

You are currently browsing the archive for the Capitalism category.

Introduction to Socialism vs Capitalism

January 21, 2010 in Capitalism by Greg | 5 comments

While this blog was being formulated, there seemed to be little debate over which type of political economy should be dominant in the United States. In fact, the economic policies of the major political candidates at that time seemed to differ from each other only by degree in terms of government intervention in the economic affairs of citizens.1 This eventually led to the series Notes on Socialism which explores that topic from a religious, social, economic and historical point of view.

Das KapitalOver time, however, it was pointed out that the U.S. economy had really undergone many changes and had passed through various stages of government intervention to what Charlotte Twight called a Participatory Fascism-type system. During this time, some have stumbled upon the site and wondered about the other side of the proverbial coin. For example, what, if anything, does capitalism have to offer?

This series of posts explores a similar set of issues related to capitalism. At first, it might not be apparent why there should be a series called Socialism vs. Capitalism. The question might be asked, Why not just discuss capitalism on its own terms? The short answer is that the term capitalist (Kapitalist) was popularized in the mid-19th century and was used frequently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in some of their later writings.2

Over time, the term capitalist came to refer to someone with private ownership of capital and the means of production. Interestingly, some have noted that capitalism is really “a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, [and] is a misnomer for ‘economic individualism’, which Adam Smith earlier called ‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’”3

From a Hegelian Dialectic point of view, capitalism is the thesis in which socialism is the antithesis. Based on this perspective, these two systems are at constant odds with each other and as proponents of each system seek preeminence, new syntheses4 are created as societies “supposedly” continue to evolve.

So it is within this dialectical context that both series – Notes on Socialism and Socialism vs. Capitalism – should be considered. Capitalism simply cannot be discussed without exploring socialism and vice versa. And although today’s political discourse seems to portray choices based primarily along these two seemingly competitive political economies, perhaps there is a third way – or better yet, other ways – that should be considered and become part of public debate.

Sources:

  1. For example, see Ekelund, Robert B. and Mark Thornton. “More Awful Truths About Republicans”. 4 Sep 20008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  2. For example, the phrases capitalist and capitalist mode of production appear more than 2,600 times in Das Kapital. See “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  3. Hessen, Robert. “Capitalism”. Library of Economics and Liberty. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  4. For example, the development of Market Socialism.↩

Pravda on American Capitalism

June 11, 2009 in Capitalism by Greg | 6 comments

Thanks to Beetlebabeee at Beetle Blogger, I came across the article below in Pravda on the downfall of American capitalism.1. Here is a Russian’s perspective on America’s slide toward Marxism:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

Dollar Sign Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

Read the rest of this entry »

  1. Beetlebabee. “Yes We Can Be – A Communist Nation”. 4 June 2009. Beetle Blogger. 11 June 2009.↩

Crisis and Laissez Faire

October 23, 2008 in Capitalism by Greg | 1 comment

Is laissez faire truly responsible for the financial crisis? George Reisman, Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, today wrote:

Adam SmithThe news media are in the process of creating a great new historical myth. This is the myth that our present financial crisis is the result of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism.

The attempt to place the blame on laissez faire is readily confirmed by a Google search under the terms “crisis + laissez faire.” On the first page of the results that come up, or in the web entries to which those results refer, statements of the following kind appear:

“The mortgage crisis is laissez-faire gone wrong.”

“Sarkozy [Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France] said ‘laissez-faire’ economics, ’self-regulation’ and the view that ‘the all-powerful market’ always knows best are finished.”

“‘America’s laissez-faire ideology, as practiced during the subprime crisis, was as simplistic as it was dangerous,’ chipped in Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister.”

“Paulson brings laissez-faire approach on financial crisis….”

“It’s au revoir to the days of laissez faire.”

Recent articles in The New York Times provide further confirmation. Thus, one article declares, “The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal….” Another article tells us, “For 30 years, the nation’s political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules.” In a third article, a pair of reporters assert, “Since 1997, Mr. Brown [the British Prime Minister] has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party’s embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation. The laissez-faire approach encouraged the country’s banks to expand internationally and chase returns in areas far afield of their core mission of attracting deposits.” Thus even Great Britain is described as having a “laissez-faire approach.”1

Read the rest of this entry »

  1. Reisman, George. “Is Laissez Faire Responsible for the Financial Crisis?“. Mises.org. 23 October 2008.↩