Be very cautious of those promoting capitalism, especially Pete Buttigieg

[johnwk]

The meaning of words do matter in any productive discussion, so, what is the meaning of “capitalism”.

cap·i·tal:… wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.

ism:… a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.

So, to be accurate, the significant feature of capitalism is therefore the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.

By contrast, a free market or free enterprise's primary characteristics are: people being left free to pursue their own economic interests, and with the least government intrusion, and left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

In a recent interview, Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg warned that "democratic capitalism" is "slipping away" from the U.S.

"America is a capitalist society. But it's got to be democratic capitalism. And that part's really important. And it's slipping away from us. In other words, when capitalism comes into tension with democracy, which is more important to you? I believe democracy is more important," he said.

What Buttigieg is promoting when he refers to “democratic capitalism” is, folks in government spending ___ or “investing” as they put it ___ federal revenue to advance government’s dictatorial goals. This type of capitalism gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters.

Capitalism has also produced thieves like Bernard Madoff, countless pyramid schemes, the pillaging Trusts of the early 1900s, and destructive monopolies.

By contrast, a judiciously regulated free market, free enterprise system gave us such things as the phone, the model T Ford, mass production, the mom and pop bakery, our local plumber, carpenter, dentist and farmer.

Keep in mind our Founder’s often describe our system in a manner promoting a “free” market, “free” trade, or “free” enterprise ___ “free” being the operative word, e.g., see Thomas Jefferson’s First Annual Message to Congress: ”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”


So, are there marked differences between capitalism and a free market, free enterprise system? And why do so many otherwise “conservative” media personalities, and those running for office refer to our system as capitalism, rather than a free market, free enterprise system ____ FREE being the operative word?

JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of federal crony capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[PAF]

Once the term "democratic" comes into play all bets are off.

I also want to point out that we will never achieve a free market system. Even the slightest compromise with the greatest of intention completely destroys any chance of a true "free market" system. Such as Eminent Domain, because read my signature.

Before we can ever achieve any form of freedom, free enterprise included, private property rights must be regarded higher than any other right, with the 2nd A to defend it. Until then, wishful think/blog all you want, all bets are off.

[bv3]

I've heard the current year Chinese system described as State-Capitalism. However, I think such a name is redundant: Capital is liquid means-of-production, without it (I've been told, production ceases) if the state has its hands on the nozzle that dispenses capital then I do not see how this is anything other than an edgy spelling of socialism.

WRT your ending question, you and I have just experienced synchronicity, I was going to post a very similar question a few weeks back.

I say that Capitalism and Free-Markets are not the same thing. Capitalism indicating what is to be allocated, free-markets indicating how that what​ is to be allocated. No sleep, so sorry for poor quality on this one. Another thought: Capitalism isn't a choice. Whatever that what is. Slave labor, even, could be a form of capital--but where slave labor is a free-market isn't. Every society that has ever been, or will ever be, is 'capitalistic' differences arises in culturally accepted forms of capital. Slave-labor, digibucks (FRNs), gold, silver, tobacco, spice, salt, copper, et al.

As a neophyte, lets take a look at Stalin (may he burn in hell, or at least be terribly uncomfortable in nothingness). He was a capitalist in the worst sense of the word, literally terror-starving his people--into submission yes--but also to rapidly industrialize the USSR's military production capabilities. At least that is how I've always understood it, essentially trading the lives of millions of people for the material (industry) and sinew (capital) of war. He used one form of capital (food stuffs, and human lives) to obtain other forms of capital.

Could not food be considered capital?

[Brian4Liberty]

No one has mentioned “competition”, which is key to innovation, increasing productivity, reducing price, etc. Free market competition.

[oyarde]

Petes idea of capitalism would be 1959 chicago . Pay your Dem Ward boss first and then see if you can do business later .

[bv3]

No one has mentioned “competition”, which is key to innovation, increasing productivity, reducing price, etc. Free market competition.

At first I wanted to say that adding 'competition' to the end of 'Free market' is pleonastic. But then I remembered that I've turned into the worst kind of writer in existence, the pedantic ass. Why, good lord, did I study the Womanities(tm) in two thousand teens. At least I had a front row seat.

But it isn't necessarily so, since people that lived in a true-free market would be free to not compete. Absent Government interdiction of discretionary funds, such people could probably not compete in relative comfort. 22 trillion dollars.

[Anti Globalist]

I was cautious of Buttigieg the moment I heard his name.

[Brian4Liberty]

At first I wanted to say that adding 'competition' to the end of 'Free market' is pleonastic. But then I remembered that I've turned into the worst kind of writer in existence, the pedantic ass. Why, good lord, did I study the Womanities(tm) in two thousand teens. At least I had a front row seat.

But it isn't necessarily so, since people that lived in a true-free market would be free to not compete. Absent Government interdiction of discretionary funds, such people could probably not compete in relative comfort. 22 trillion dollars.

It is redundant to a certain extent. But “competition” is really the key component if innovation and lower prices are desired. Government is not the only entity that can prevent competition.

[bv3]

It is redundant to a certain extent. But “competition” is really the key component if innovation and lower prices are desired. Government is not the only entity that can prevent competition.
But did you like my portmanteau?!

Fair point, otherwise. But if two firms in a free market agreed to work together to 1.keep others from entering their market and/or 2.utilize a majority share of the market to 'fix' prices. Lets take Twifacoogle (I'm in a portmanteau mood), and assume for the moment that absent .gov investment and favorable treatment they managed to corner their respective slices of that market anyways, and Twifacoogle used direct bribes instead of government intervention to protect their Oligopoly (bribing ISPs), how could that hold be shattered without imposing restrictions on the free market, and thus dropping the former, and most significant, part of the concept?

Now, this example might be invalid because absent government administration, intervention, and protection could such oligopolies form in the first place?

[johnwk]

No one has mentioned “competition”, which is key to innovation, increasing productivity, reducing price, etc. Free market competition.

A-freaken-men! The fight is about leaving the people free to pursue their own economic interests, and being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

What amazed me, when I realized it, the use of the word "capitalism" by Democrats running for office is necessary in advocating their planned economy, and why they reject the use of free market, free enterprise, which is contrary to what they propose and actually exposes their evil desire ____ their desire being a centralized economy controlled and regulated by government financial "investments", much like the Soviet Union's planned economy which left the people enslaved and destitute, while the planners lived large at the people's expense.


JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[Superfluous Man]

"America is a capitalist society. But it's got to be democratic capitalism. And that part's really important. And it's slipping away from us. In other words, when capitalism comes into tension with democracy, which is more important to you? I believe democracy is more important," he said.

That doesn't sound like promoting capitalism. It sounds like diminishing it. He has this equation completely backwards. And his failure to promote capitalism over democracy is a reason to oppose him.

Capitalism can be (and historically always is) corrupted, and we need to oppose those corruptions of it. But capitalism in and of itself is a good thing that we need to support unflinchingly.

[phill4paul]

Despite being a military veteran Buttigieg refers to the AR sporting rifle as an "assault" rifle. Any politician that cannot get the basics of firearms down does not deserve consideration.

[johnwk]

That doesn't sound like promoting capitalism. It sounds like diminishing it. He has this equation completely backwards. And his failure to promote capitalism over democracy is a reason to oppose him.

Capitalism can be (and historically always is) corrupted, and we need to oppose those corruptions of it. But capitalism in and of itself is a good thing that we need to support unflinchingly.


Capitalism gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Enron, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters. Do you not learn from history?


JWK

Democratic Capitalists running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.

[Superfluous Man]

Capitalism gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Enron, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters. Do you not learn from history?


Capitalism itself isn't to blame for any of those things. Those are results of corruptions of capitalism.

You claim you support the free market. But you can't support the free market unless you support capitalism, which is essential to a free market.

[ATruepatriot]

Capitalism itself isn't to blame for any of those things. Those are results of corruptions of capitalism.

You claim you support the free market. But you can't support the free market unless you support capitalism, which is essential to a free market.

I think there is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Crony Corporatism is corruption of power and hinders free market Capitalism with intent. They are not the same thing and cannot be classified as the same.

[Superfluous Man]

I think there is a difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Crony Corporatism is corruption of power and hinders free market Capitalism with intent. They are not the same thing and cannot be classified as the same.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ATruepatriot again."

[ATruepatriot]

Capitalism gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Enron, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters. Do you not learn from history?


JWK

Democratic Capitalists running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.

You may be labeling Corporatism as Capitalism here. They are two totally different critters.

[Superfluous Man]

Here's an apropos speech from Ron Paul on this subject:

Congressional Record — US House of Representatives July 9, 2002

It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government — for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that runs the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market." No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn't have come from a dearth of regulations.

What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

Nixon was right — once — when he declared "We're all Keynesians now." All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.

But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policy makers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan's economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we're not careful — and so far we've not been — we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.

In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, "the ultimate Maestro." Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.

Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.

Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn't occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to "prevent" such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more useless Keynesian regulations.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political parties. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names — Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.

First, Congress should be investigating the federal government's fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it's the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that's wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it's a state rather than a federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 1990s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

But now we know that's just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we've been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We've had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that's not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can't possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.

If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.

We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it is deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.

Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.

These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.

Capitalism didn't give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it's not proactive. Congress's job is to get out of the way.
https://mises.org/library/has-capitalism-failed

ETA: Those who want to look into this terminology would also do well to just do a search of for the word "capitalism" at mises.org and see all the hits that come up. The same basic points RP makes in the above speech are a theme there.

[ATruepatriot]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ATruepatriot again."

Compulsory reputation equality. lol I tried to hit you with another one too.

[Superfluous Man]

..

[Brian4Liberty]

Despite being a military veteran Buttigieg refers to the AR sporting rifle as an "assault" rifle. Any politician that cannot get the basics of firearms down does not deserve consideration.

I’d wager he knows the basics, but is just framing it in gun prohibitionist language. Anyone who thinks this guy is a straight shooter will be terribly disappointed.

[ATruepatriot]

Here's an apropos speech from Ron Paul on this subject:

https://mises.org/library/has-capitalism-failed

ETA: Those who want to look into this terminology would also do well to just do a search of for the word "capitalism" at mises.org and see all the hits that come up. The same basic points RP makes in the above speech are a theme there.

Absolutely. Corporatism is being falsely labeled as Capitalism by both liberals and conservatives. They are trying to redefine the concepts as synonymous when they are not.

[Sonny Tufts]

Here's an apropos speech from Ron Paul on this subject

One thing that's conspicuously absent from Dr. Paul's critique of governmental intervention in the market is the existence of corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships, which are nothing more than associations whose owners have been granted a special privilege by the government: protection from personal liability for the liabilities of the association. Or as Ambrose Bierce put it in The Devil's Dictionary, a corporation is "an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility".

There is no doubt that the use of limited-liability entities has dramatically increased innovation. But are they truly compatible with a free market system?

[Superfluous Man]

There is no doubt that the use of limited-liability entities has dramatically increased innovation. But are they truly compatible with a free market system?

Yes, they are. Contrary to what I've seen some claim here over the years, corporations, including limited liability corporations, are not necessarily creations of the state, just like the prevailing state requirements for married couples to get a marriage license in don't make marriage itself a creation of the state. Limited liability corporations would exist by way of voluntary contracts without the state's interference in them just as the institution of marriage would exist without the state's interference in it.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yes, they are. Contrary to what I've seen some claim here over the years, corporations, including limited liability corporations, are not necessarily creations of the state, just like the prevailing state requirements for married couples to get a marriage license in don't make marriage itself a creation of the state. Limited liability corporations would exist by way of voluntary contracts without the state's interference in them just as the institution of marriage would exist without the state's interference in it.

But voluntary contracts have no effect on third persons who aren't parties to the agreement, such as tort victims.

[ATruepatriot]

Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests.[1][2][3] The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.

Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties. They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.[4]

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between labour and business interest groups and the government to establish economic policy.[5] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[johnwk]

You may be labeling Corporatism as Capitalism here. They are two totally different critters.

No. I am specifically talking about capitalism ___ the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal ___ which gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters.

cap·i·tal:
… wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


ism:
… a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.


JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and theSixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spreadthe evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our oncefree market, free enterprise system

[Superfluous Man]

No. I am specifically talking about capitalism ___ the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal ___ which gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters.


Capitalism, even using your not-very-good definition based on your committing of the root fallacy, on its own didn't give us any of those things.

And capitalism, even when using your not-very-good definition, is still not at all incompatible with free markets. In free markets, people must be free to invest capital to achieve an anticipated profit, which is exactly what they are bound to do by human nature.

If you oppose capitalism, even using your definition, then you must oppose free markets too.

[ATruepatriot]

No. I am specifically talking about capitalism ___ the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal ___ which gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters.

cap·i·tal:
… wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


ism:
… a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.


JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and theSixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spreadthe evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our oncefree market, free enterprise system





The examples you give are Crony Corporatism which suppresses free market Capitalism though government lobbying, corruption, and regulation of competitors.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[kcchiefs6465]

"Democratic capitalism"?

Sounds like a bunch of commie bullshit to me.

[bv3]

"Democratic capitalism"?

Sounds like a bunch of commie bull$#@! to me.


"and edgy spelling of socialism"

[bv3]

The examples you give are Crony Corporatism which suppresses free market Capitalism though government lobbying, corruption, and regulation of competitors.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism


Thats the box, and I believe JohnWK is attempting to think outside it.

See my earlier post for more on this.

[Superfluous Man]

Stalin...was a capitalist in the worst sense of the word

Only by using the word with a sense that is totally contrary to the meaning it has come to have through historic usage.

Communication becomes impossible if people insist on re-defining words willy-nilly like this.

[bv3]

Only by using the word with a sense that is totally contrary to the meaning it has come to have through historic usage.

Communication becomes impossible if people insist on re-defining words willy-nilly like this.

Why don't you incorporate the rest of what I said regarding the issue into your chastisement? Capitalism is a general condition, Free-Markets are not. They are not the same thing. If they were, why the redundancy of language? Why do we have a term 'free market' and a term 'capitalism'? I mean, historic usage and all.

I stand by the statement, Stalin was a capitalist. He privately owned a nation, and treated its people like capital that he traded for industrial capacity.,

[Superfluous Man]

Why don't you incorporate the rest of what I said regarding the issue into your chastisement?

I zeroed in on a line that revealed the weakness of your point of view rather than making a TLDR post to end up saying the same thing I could say that succinctly.

I'm not saying that the terms "free markets" and "capitalism" are synonyms, so that's a straw man I see no need to bother with.

But those two things not being synonymous isn't a reason to cook up some new definition for "capitalism" that bears no resemblance to what the word really means.

[bv3]

I zeroed in on a line that revealed the weakness of your point of view rather than making a TLDR post to end up saying the same thing I could say that succinctly.

I'm not saying that the terms "free markets" and "capitalism" are synonyms, so that's a straw man I see no need to bother with.

But those two things not being synonymous isn't a reason to cook up some new definition for "capitalism" that bears no resemblance to what the word really means.


Okay, so then give me the definition of capitalism. Or should I just assume you mean what Webster means?

Did Stalin not own the Russian nation in the 30's? Was Stalin an individual? A private individual?

[Superfluous Man]

Okay, so then give me the definition of capitalism. Or should I just assume you mean what Webster means?

Yes, consulting any decent dictionary is exactly the way to go about this. There is not just one definition of the word, just like there isn't just one definition of practically any word. But there is still a limited range of meanings of the way the word is normally used.


Did Stalin not own the Russian nation in the 30's? Was Stalin an individual? A private individual?

No, Stalin did not own the Russian nation as a private individual. His control of the economy was a function of his position within the state.

[bv3]

Yes, consulting any decent dictionary is exactly the way to go about this. There is not just one definition of the word, just like there isn't just one definition of practically any word. But there is still a limited range of meanings of the way the word is normally used.



No, Stalin did not own the Russian nation as a private individual. His control of the economy was a function of his position within the state.

So he didn't own the nation, he just controlled it entirely. Ownership is what exactly?

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

By function of his position in the State, did Stalin cease to be a private individual?

[pcosmar]

Capitalism.. ?? ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lCMUkqpI7o

I think a lot of people are confused about what it is and what it ain't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfB2tzSEIWo

[ATruepatriot]

"Democratic capitalism"?

Sounds like a bunch of commie bull$#@! to me.

That's exactly what it is. It is Google, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Chase, Etc. Ever dealt with these folks and their "fair free market capitalist business practices" and government corruption?

These are "Democrat Capitalism".

[Superfluous Man]

So he didn't own the nation, he just controlled it entirely. Ownership is what exactly?

You're quibbling about the wrong part. Stalin was not a private individual but a state functionary.

[bv3]

You're quibbling about the wrong part. Stalin was not a private individual but a state functionary.

Oh. So Stalin wasn't a human? Was he sometimes a private individual and sometimes a state functionary--depending on his state of mind or location? Maybe a magic line outside the Kremlin that, when he crossed it, transformed him into a state functionary? I'd not argue that Stalin didn't use the State to enforce his will, but that his will was his own private will.

[Superfluous Man]

Oh. So Stalin wasn't a human?.

That's not what I said.

[bv3]

That's not what I said.

What human is anything other than a private individual, first?

I am not saying capitalism is bad, that would be like saying oxygen is bad. Its necessary, and no matter what name you give something, marxism, national socialism, monarchy, feudalism, whatever--it includes capitalism. But you missed that cause TLDR, or something.

[Superfluous Man]

What human is anything other than a private individual, first?

One acting as a functionary of the state.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. The whole point of the qualification "private" in the definition of "capitalism" is over against "the state."

What you're doing now is trying to cook up new ways of using the words "private" and "state" that have nothing to do with their actual definitions, so that you can prop up the way you wanted to use the word "capitalism" in a way that bore no resemblance to its actual definition.

It's like Humpty Dumpty's philosophy of language in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass).

You can go ahead and do that. But you'll only be talking to yourself. In order to communicate with others, you have to agree to use words within the parameters of their mutually agreed upon meanings as expressed through their historic usage in the language, as described in the definitions given in dictionaries.

[bv3]

One acting as a functionary of the state.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. The whole point of the qualification "private" in the definition of "capitalism" is over against "the state."

What you're doing now is trying to cook up new ways of using the words "private" and "state" that have nothing to do with their actual definitions, so that you can prop up the way you wanted to use the word "capitalism" in a way that bore no resemblance to its actual definition.

It's like Humpty Dumpty's philosophy of language in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass).

You can go ahead and do that. But you'll only be talking to yourself. In order to communicate with others, you have to agree to use words within the parameters of their mutually agreed upon meanings as expressed through their historic usage in the language, as described in the definitions given in dictionaries.

Ten four, a position in government replaces a person's humanity. And I suppose groups, like the State, take action beyond the discrete actions of individual members.

Nothing I've said, or supported, goes beyond either definition.

[Superfluous Man]

Ten four, a position in government replaces a person's humanity

Case in point. This is more redefining of words on your part.

Nothing I said had anything to do at all with whether or not anyone was human.

[bv3]

If something acts other than as a private individual, can that thing be a human? I can't imagine one that does. That a private individual insinuates himself into the State apparatus does not mean he is no longer a private individual. He may be a functionary, and his actions may be in line with that function, but he remains a private individual.

[Superfluous Man]

If something acts other than as a private individual, can that thing be a human? I can't imagine one that does.

Again, the only way for you to follow this line of reasoning is by cooking up a new meaning for the word "private" that's all your own. Communication with others is impossible when you do this.

[bv3]

Again, the only way for you to follow this line of reasoning is by cooking up a new meaning for the word "private" that's all your own. Communication with others is impossible when you do this.

I agree with you wrt communication. I just do not believe that I'm cooking up anything, its a bit insulting that you belabor that--but thats okay. Perhaps you are missing my point: A human being doesn't cease being exactly what it is--an individual--when it joins/takes over a club, group, society, government, whatever.

[Superfluous Man]

Perhaps you are missing my point: A human being doesn't cease being exactly what it is--an individual--when it joins/takes over a club, group, society, government, whatever.

Again, at no point did I ever say or imply that state functionaries were not human.

[bv3]

but you do say that that a human (Stalin, in this case) ceases to be a private individual when it enters the state apparatus, and I understand why you say that, I am saying that is a misapprehension. You are saying that the word private traditionally denotes a person NOT in the service of the state, and that said denotation is definitive of the word so I must be inventing a new word entirely, which I am not. And so far as the permanence of language, when taken to an extreme: oooga booga, *grunt*.

Anyways, well derailed. Free markets and capitalism are not the same thing, and Stalin remains a capitalist. Just like Marx was, and King Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Ivan the Terrible, the first chief of the first village--the difference being that in free-market capitalism EVERYONE (ostensibly) has equal access to the market. Free markets are to capitalism what isonomy is to the law. I doubt you and I will make any further progress, or have made any.

[johnwk]

If you oppose capitalism, even using your definition, then you must oppose free markets too.




Actually, I am the one who supports free market, free enterprise to describe our system, the primary characteristics of which are people being left free to pursue their own economic interests, without government preferences, and with the least government intrusion, and left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


By contrast, capitalism's distinguishing feature is focused on the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.

cap·i·tal:
… wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


ism:


… a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.


A free market, free enterprise system includes the use of capital by people in pursuing their individual economic interests, but the important distinguishing feature is with the least government intrusion, no special preferences, and left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.



I am very curious as to why so many refuse to refer to our system as a free market, free enterprise system and prefer using "capitalism", a word never used to describe our system by our founders during the framing and ratification of our Constitution. Do they object to word "free" ?

Did you know that Karl Marx popularized the word "capitalist" and "capitalist mode of production" to attack the free market system, and they appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy "Das Kapital"?

In any event, I agree with Thomas Jefferson’s First Annual Message to Congress and his description using the word "free": ”Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.”



JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[Superfluous Man]

Actually, I am the one who supports free market, free enterprise to describe our system, the primary characteristics of which are people being left free to pursue their own economic interests, without government preferences, and with the least government intrusion, and left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


If you really do support this, then you cannot oppose capitalism.

Also, if you want a definition for the word "capitalism" you won't find it by combining the definitions of "capital" and "-ism." That is committing the root fallacy. You need to look up the definition of the word "capitalism" itself.


Capitalism-
noun

1 an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism

That said, even using your own definition of "capitalism," it's still the case that you can't both oppose that and support free markets at the same time.

[ATruepatriot]

If you really do support this, then you cannot oppose capitalism.

Also, if you want a definition for the word "capitalism" you won't find it by combining the definitions of "capital" and "-ism." That is committing the root fallacy. You need to look up the definition of the word "capitalism" itself.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism

That said, even using your own definition of "capitalism," it's still the case that you can't both oppose that and support free markets at the same time.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/

[Ender]

The word "capitalism" has been thwarted & stolen by the elitists & is now thought to be what we call "crony capitalism".

True capitalism IS free markets & operates thus:

-You make a product, people like it, you make more, hire more people, the costs go down, and you're on to more & better products.

-I make a product, it's low quality, people ignore it, time to make a better product.

THIS is true capitalism.

No government interference- period. The customer makes the decision.

[DamianTV]

Lets be perfectly clear here. What we are watching is an Exchange of Definitions.

We do NOT have a Free Market by ANY means what so ever. They are flat out practicing Fascism and telling everyone it is Capitalism so that people learn to hate the old ways, then those same morons that fall for the bait and switch tactic flock in droves to anything BUT Capitalism. Those at the top have NO intention of changing ANYTHING in actuality, but quickly slap new labels on old garbage to get people to buy the "New and Improved" Shit Burger but still it is the exact same Shit Burger as it was before. In fact, its probably WORSE than what you had before. Those at the top do NOT want Real Capitalism by ANY means because competition is a threat to their business model. Thus, to absolutely destroy Capitalism, they take peoples hatred towards the problems the current system has (again, NOT Capitalism) and easily redirect that hatred towards Capitalism by telling people what they have is Capitalism. It isnt. Its a fucking lie. More fake news / disinformation.

The purpose of Exchanging Definitions is that it causes Confusion. Once Confusion has taken place in the mind of the victim, they become so desperate for an answer that they will accept ANY answer given to them as long as it sounds at least barely plausible. Confusion gives even more control to the Confusers. To which they will immediately follow their new definition with an order backed by LAW to go purchase your required daily ration of whatever shit you are on their list for.

[johnwk]

If you really do support this, then you cannot oppose capitalism.

.


I never indicated I oppose capitalism. Stop with your innuendos. I simply emphasized the prominent feature[s] between the two, and indicated our system is best described as free market, free enterprise, "free" being the operative word, a word you seem to have a problem with.

:rolleyes:

JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[Superfluous Man]

I never indicated I oppose capitalism.

So when you said the following, you didn't mean it as a criticism of capitalism?

Capitalism gave us Obama’s green energy money laundering operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Enron, our student loan crisis, and many other taxpayer financed disasters. Do you not learn from history?


I simply emphasized the prominent feature[s] between the two, and indicated our system is best described as free market, free enterprise, "free" being the operative word, a word you seem to have a problem with.


I don't have a problem with it. I positively promote it. That's why I embrace capitalism, as all who who promote the free market do.

[johnwk]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/

see: The Sad Decline Of The Word "Capitalism" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2013/05/01/the-sad-decline-of-the-word-capitalism/#42260468a712)

If “capitalism” is viewed as a dirty word, should think tanks “clean it up” or abandon it? Like other Americans who were not born in the United States, I still mourn the loss of the word “liberal.” In most of the world the word means nearly the opposite of what it means here. I doubt that the word capitalism will be “stolen” but should we mind if it gets lost?

As to the meaning of "capitalism", why not apply fundamental rules to get at its meaning? Breaking the phrase down we find:


cap·i·tal:
… wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.


ism:
… a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.



capitalism's distinguishing feature is focused on the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.


JWK

The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and theSixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spreadthe evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our oncefree market, free enterprise system

[johnwk]

So when you said the following, you didn't mean it as a criticism of capitalism?



Stop with the crap. I pointed to examples of capitalism . . . the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.

:rolleyes:

[Superfluous Man]

As to the meaning of "capitalism", why not apply fundamental rules to get at its meaning? Breaking the phrase down we find:


Breaking a word into its parts, defining those parts, and then putting those definitions together is not a fundamental rule. It is a type of lexical fallacy. That's not how words work.

When using the word "capitalism," rather than use that method to insist on pretending it has a different definition than it really does, why not just use the word with a definition within the range of meaning it actually has?

Following your method, if you really think it's valid, you shouldn't stop breaking the word down with the word "capital." You should further break that word down and insist on a definition that has something to do with its root "cap," meaning head.

But if you really wanted to use the word correctly, then just as you used a dictionary to find meanings for "capital" and "-ism," you could have, and should have, also used a dictionary to find the definition of "capitalism."

I believe I already posted it, but here it is again:


an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Superfluous Man]

Stop with the crap. I pointed to examples of capitalism . . . the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.


But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed that capitalism gave us those things.

But if you want to go back and clarify that all this time you never meant to oppose capitalism, I'm glad to hear it, because that was what it looked like. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought that.

[ATruepatriot]

Stop with the crap. I pointed to examples of capitalism . . . the investment of capital to achieve an anticipated profit and/or goal.

:rolleyes:


But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed that capitalism gave us those things.

But if you want to go back and clarify that all this time you never meant to oppose capitalism, I'm glad to hear it, because that was what it looked like. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who thought that.

May I interject here guys? Thing is we are trying to apply one definition of Capitalism when there are actually several forms making it more complicated. And now the liberals are trying to add another that falsely claims to be Capitalism when it is not. They are wrongfully trying to "redefine" the concept.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/4896/economics/types-of-capitalism/

[johnwk]

Breaking a word into its parts, defining those parts, and then putting those definitions together is not a fundamental rule.

Capitalism, the investment of capital, is utilized in a free market system to achieve economic goals. But capitalism, when applying morphology [the study of how words are put together or “shaped” by using morphemes, which include prefixes, roots, and suffixes] is not descriptive of free enterprise or free market.

Are you a victim of a government school education?


JWK


The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of federal capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.

[johnwk]

But if you really wanted to use the word correctly, then just as you used a dictionary to find meanings for "capital" and "-ism,"



I didn't use the dictionary to find the meaning of capitalism. I used morphology, the study of how words are put together or “shaped” by using morphemes, which include prefixes, roots, and suffixes.


:rolleyes:

[Superfluous Man]

[SIZE=3]

Capitalism, the investment of capital, is utilized in a free market system to achieve economic goals. But capitalism, when applying morphology [the study of how words are put together or “shaped” by using morphemes, which include prefixes, roots, and suffixes] is not descriptive of free enterprise or free market.


In addition to using a wrong definition for "capitalism," you're also using a wrong definition for "morphology."

morphology
noun
1....
2....
3 Linguistics .
the patterns of word formation in a particular language, including inflection, derivation, and composition.
the study and description of such patterns.
the study of the behavior and combination of morphemes.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/morphology?s=t

I won't get into what my educational background is. But I have done a fair amount of studying languages, morphology, and lexicography as part of my studies.

Don't take my word for it though. Just look up the word "capitalism." If your method of defining it were a good one, don't you think the editors of every reputable English dictionary would give your definition in their entries for "capitalism"? What does the fact that they don't do that tell you? The definitions they give for that word are the definitions it has in its actual usage by English speakers. And ultimately, that's the basis for the definition of every word: what do the people who use the word mean by it?

Granted, you are also a user of the word. And you seem to have a definition that you give it when you use it. But as the dictionaries will tell you, the definition you insist on is not the one others use, so you're undermining your own ability to communicate with others when you do that.

And as a matter of fact, capitalism (whether we use the definition you made up or its actual definition) is descriptive of free enterprise.

[Superfluous Man]

I didn't use the dictionary to find the meaning of capitalism.

That's obvious.


I used morphology

No you didn't. Because just like you don't know what the word "capitalism" means, you also don't know what the word "morphology" means.

[Ender]

Lets be perfectly clear here. What we are watching is an Exchange of Definitions.

We do NOT have a Free Market by ANY means what so ever. They are flat out practicing Fascism and telling everyone it is Capitalism so that people learn to hate the old ways, then those same morons that fall for the bait and switch tactic flock in droves to anything BUT Capitalism. Those at the top have NO intention of changing ANYTHING in actuality, but quickly slap new labels on old garbage to get people to buy the "New and Improved" $#@! Burger but still it is the exact same $#@! Burger as it was before. In fact, its probably WORSE than what you had before. Those at the top do NOT want Real Capitalism by ANY means because competition is a threat to their business model. Thus, to absolutely destroy Capitalism, they take peoples hatred towards the problems the current system has (again, NOT Capitalism) and easily redirect that hatred towards Capitalism by telling people what they have is Capitalism. It isnt. Its a $#@!ing lie. More fake news / disinformation.

The purpose of Exchanging Definitions is that it causes Confusion. Once Confusion has taken place in the mind of the victim, they become so desperate for an answer that they will accept ANY answer given to them as long as it sounds at least barely plausible. Confusion gives even more control to the Confusers. To which they will immediately follow their new definition with an order backed by LAW to go purchase your required daily ration of whatever $#@! you are on their list for.

THANK YOU!

[johnwk]

No you didn't. Because just like you don't know what the word "capitalism" means, you also don't know what the word "morphology" means.

:rolleyes:


JWK

[acptulsa]

:rolleyes:


JWK


2a : a study and description of word formation (such as inflection, derivation, and compounding) in language
b : the system of word-forming elements and processes in a language
According to English morphology, the third person singular present tense of a verb is formed by adding -s.

You really don't. Or didn't.

[johnwk]

You really don't. Or didn't.

:rolleyes:

[johnwk]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, see: Pete Buttigieg’s father was a Marxist professor who lauded the Communist Manifesto

(https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pete-buttigiegs-father-was-a-marxist-professor-who-lauded-the-communist-manifesto)“The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.”


It’s quite obvious when Pete talks about “democratic capitalism”, he certainly is not talking about a free market, free enterprise system and leaving the people free to pursue their own economic interests. He’s talking about a centrally controlled system in which folks in government manage a centrally controlled economy and invest tax revenue [capitalism] to accomplish part of their goals.


JWK



The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment,also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles offederal capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, freeenterprise system.