That's true, but a longer title for the article might have been, "The oft-repeated, scientific support for capitalism is shit".
Libertarians and classical economists often use data to support capitalism, so a scientific look at it is warranted.
This isn't a particularly scientific article, though. It's more like "let's cut through all the cynical rhetoric that capitalists use to make it seem like capitalism is good for everyone and not just the wealthy/powerful."
There's tons of examples of the failure of overly centralized, planned economies: USSR, N. Korea, China, Venezuela, Greece.
I don't need to test a science report. I just need to have lived for the last 40 years.
And they were all suppressed, corrupted and/or destroyed by the same powerful propagandists of monetary value, or capitalists. The version of history that you've been fed conveniently decided to forget that part since it ruins the point they're trying to make. But keep doing the drone-dance for all I care; collectively we are slowly becoming aware of the rules of the game, with or without your help.
Of course, and communist revisionist always do their best to sell this idea that whenever communism fails, it's always a conspiracy and someone else's fault.
That, in spite of the repeated spectacular failures that were caused by communism.
I've also lived for 40+ years, but don't profess expertise from the same experience. :)
Conflating economic with government / ideological constructs is a common trap. Centralised & planned economies are common everywhere, I think, but in 'the west' they're just masked a bit more creatively -- and, of course, they're not planned by the state.
capitalism isn't a ideology at all. Capitalism is just an economic system, and one which works orthogonally to any ideology or political system.
Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society, including what people can and cannot do with their professional skills and where any resource can and cannot be used.
That's the main reason why communists are so hell bent on attacking capitalism, as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living and how to spend their resources in a manner which is totallly independent of the communist elites' control and the policies that they dictate.
You see, their team's arguments concerning the organization of the means of production are ideological but my team's arguments are purely based on fact and not value at all and therefore they are not ideological. (Even though for some reason the other team keeps calling our system an ideology and I can't for the life of me figure out why.)
> but my team's arguments are purely based on fact
There are no arguments. There is only economic actors that have their own resources and decide where to use them, and these economic actors interact between themselves.
Even communist dictatorships that impose castratingdegree of control on their citizens do trade with other nations, and the degree to which they demand access to some goods and services combined with what they are able to supply o other nations influences how they exchange and use resources.
That's capitalism as well.
The basic inner workings of any economy don't simply vanish just because a communist dictator decides it's a good idea to hold entire nations hostage.
> Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society
It doesn't require a lot of googling to find out that Socialism is not just a synonym for Bolshevism. I've found that the usual "No true Scotsman" reply to the former is just a cop-out to be able to ignore this historical fact. The reality is that apart from the rare tankie, most socialist are looking to radically extend democracy.
> as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living
You really have to come from a privileged societal background to be able to believe this. Capitalism is just a scheme to create artificial scarcity. Hence, it's exactly the opposite of that.
> It doesn't require a lot of googling to find out that Socialism is not just a synonym for Bolshevism.
You're conflating socialism with communism. Socialism and capitalism are actually quite compatible. In fact, all of europe is profoundly socialist and their economy is as capitalist as it gets.
Socialism only starts to become incompatible with capitalism when venturing into the realm of communist orthodoxy, where people are denied the fruit of their labor and instead are held hostage by the state as indentured servants.
I'm not. But even Communism is not synonymous with Bolshevism. You really should "learn your enemy" - atm you're just repeating ahistorical platitudes.
Well, you clearly are, and in the process you're showing that you are completely clueless, and resorting to veiled personal attacks to try to hide the fact that you know nothing.
> But even Communism is not synonymous with Bolshevism.
This wouldn't be a standard communist revisionism discussion without the tired and old "no true scotsman" arguments.
You're not doing too well regarding that either it seems.
I already tried to guard against the "no true scotsman" reflexive replies in my answer above, but to no avail. That there were many different socialist faction, and among them many non-authoritarian, is not revisionism, but available to read about for anyone that want to learn about the history of the Russian revolution. Alexander Berkman even published a diary in 1922 after fleeing Russia detailing the early years of the revolution and the totalitarian betrayal of the Bolsheviks.
This is the last few paragraphs to illustrate the point:
"Gray are the passing days. One by one the embers of hope have died out. Terror and despotism have crushed the life born in October. The slogans of the Revolution are foresworn, its ideals stifled in the blood of the people. The breath of yesterday is dooming millions to death; the shadow of today hangs like a black pall over the country. Dictatorship is trampling the masses under foot. The Revolution is dead; its spirit cries in the wilderness.
High time the truth about the Bolsheviki were told. The whited sepulcher must be unmasked, the clay feet of the fetish beguiling the international proletariat to fatal will o’ the wisps exposed. The Bolshevik myth must be destroyed.
"Capitalism is just a scheme to create artificial scarcity."
And yet it always seems to be the Venezuelas and the Soviet Unions where people have to wait in line for days to buy a loaf of bread, and it always seems to be the "artificial scarcity" capitalist countries where you can find 30 different kinds of bread on the shelf at all times.
> In 3rd world countries the scarcity is not artificial unfortunately.
As Venezuela demonstrates, it's more a case of the communist regime destroying the economy to the point that it fails to even provide the most basic goods and services to keep society from collapsing, even when the country is standing on one of the world's largest oil reserves.
I very much appreciate the 'no true scotsman' allusion to capitalism -- the asymptotic ideal manifestation that we're forever approaching, but can never obtain. And, of course, the anger about our tacit agreement to be okay with that.
Of course that "keeping up with the joneses" is on par with avoiding famines and access to education and medical care.
Who cares if everyone is living better than ever, and has access to all luxuries in the world. I mean, my neighbor earns more than me! Down with the system, comrade.
Yeah..no. Those same poor neighbours have access to clean water and basic medicine. Even America's "working poor" have access to untold quantities of food compared to people a few centuries ago.
Are things perfect? No. But are people, on average, waaaay better off than they've ever been? Yes.
Capitalism is very simple. Capitalism as an economic system is essentially defined as the process of private expropriation of public wealth. Technically, the Earth is every creature’s inheritance but we in our late modern wisdom have conceded that only a select handful of people will get to profit from its resources while the rest are forced by either gunpoint or starvation to serve them forever or die.
Yeah, no.
Look, I'm not a rah-rah capitalism guy, but the fact is that the vast majority of wealth is based on human labor, the labor of individuals, applied to nature. While the latter certainly has a strong claim on being public wealth (a commons) the wealth produced by a human's labor belongs rightly to that person. (Economic rents then tend to concentrate that wealth, but that's a separate topic.)
There is an economic third way alternative to capitalist rent seeking and socialist totalitarianism: distributism. For a modern introduction to this idea, this is a good book:
Some people will be put off by the catholic moral basis, others by the term "Social Justice", but it's a good read for a different way to look at both the history of economics and the economic situation we find ourselves in today.
> There is an economic third way alternative to capitalist rent seeking and socialist totalitarianism: distributism.
It should be noted that Milton Friedman, who was as capitalist as it gets, advocated for guaranteed basic income, which is at its source an income redistribution scheme.
Whether the income is financed by taxes (taking cash out of the rich to distribute it to the poor) or through monetary policy schemes (printing away cash) the end result is that such a scheme results in redistributing wealth around the whole society.
This article has too many depressingly correct statements. I am all for receiving just and proportionate reward for your efforts, and rewards for innovation and risk. I am also for UBI, and a brand of socialism where we all look after the weak, ill, and incapable. Also, nobody telling what to do. As long as I not harming anyone, leave me alone. I guess I am an anarchistic social capitalist.
2. Capitalism as an economic system is essentially defined as the process of private expropriation of public wealth.
My economics textbook defined capitalism as "A system for reallocating scarce resources from low-value uses to high-value uses". I don't like either definition, honestly.
3. Technically, the Earth is every creature’s inheritance ...
Technically, adverb. 1. according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.
So what you're about to say is true, because you say it's true? Technically, this is where I stopped reading.
40 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadLibertarians and classical economists often use data to support capitalism, so a scientific look at it is warranted.
This isn't a particularly scientific article, though. It's more like "let's cut through all the cynical rhetoric that capitalists use to make it seem like capitalism is good for everyone and not just the wealthy/powerful."
There's tons of examples of the failure of overly centralized, planned economies: USSR, N. Korea, China, Venezuela, Greece. I don't need to test a science report. I just need to have lived for the last 40 years.
That, in spite of the repeated spectacular failures that were caused by communism.
Conflating economic with government / ideological constructs is a common trap. Centralised & planned economies are common everywhere, I think, but in 'the west' they're just masked a bit more creatively -- and, of course, they're not planned by the state.
Now imagine state monopoly on everything, and you're close to understanding what a Soviet-style centralized planning looked like.
capitalism isn't a ideology at all. Capitalism is just an economic system, and one which works orthogonally to any ideology or political system.
Well, except communism, as their ideology is based on the idea that a totalitarian state dominates all aspects of society, including what people can and cannot do with their professional skills and where any resource can and cannot be used.
That's the main reason why communists are so hell bent on attacking capitalism, as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living and how to spend their resources in a manner which is totallly independent of the communist elites' control and the policies that they dictate.
There are no arguments. There is only economic actors that have their own resources and decide where to use them, and these economic actors interact between themselves.
Even communist dictatorships that impose castratingdegree of control on their citizens do trade with other nations, and the degree to which they demand access to some goods and services combined with what they are able to supply o other nations influences how they exchange and use resources.
That's capitalism as well.
The basic inner workings of any economy don't simply vanish just because a communist dictator decides it's a good idea to hold entire nations hostage.
It doesn't require a lot of googling to find out that Socialism is not just a synonym for Bolshevism. I've found that the usual "No true Scotsman" reply to the former is just a cop-out to be able to ignore this historical fact. The reality is that apart from the rare tankie, most socialist are looking to radically extend democracy.
> as it's an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living
You really have to come from a privileged societal background to be able to believe this. Capitalism is just a scheme to create artificial scarcity. Hence, it's exactly the opposite of that.
You're conflating socialism with communism. Socialism and capitalism are actually quite compatible. In fact, all of europe is profoundly socialist and their economy is as capitalist as it gets.
Socialism only starts to become incompatible with capitalism when venturing into the realm of communist orthodoxy, where people are denied the fruit of their labor and instead are held hostage by the state as indentured servants.
Well, you clearly are, and in the process you're showing that you are completely clueless, and resorting to veiled personal attacks to try to hide the fact that you know nothing.
> But even Communism is not synonymous with Bolshevism.
This wouldn't be a standard communist revisionism discussion without the tired and old "no true scotsman" arguments.
I already tried to guard against the "no true scotsman" reflexive replies in my answer above, but to no avail. That there were many different socialist faction, and among them many non-authoritarian, is not revisionism, but available to read about for anyone that want to learn about the history of the Russian revolution. Alexander Berkman even published a diary in 1922 after fleeing Russia detailing the early years of the revolution and the totalitarian betrayal of the Bolsheviks.
This is the last few paragraphs to illustrate the point:
"Gray are the passing days. One by one the embers of hope have died out. Terror and despotism have crushed the life born in October. The slogans of the Revolution are foresworn, its ideals stifled in the blood of the people. The breath of yesterday is dooming millions to death; the shadow of today hangs like a black pall over the country. Dictatorship is trampling the masses under foot. The Revolution is dead; its spirit cries in the wilderness.
High time the truth about the Bolsheviki were told. The whited sepulcher must be unmasked, the clay feet of the fetish beguiling the international proletariat to fatal will o’ the wisps exposed. The Bolshevik myth must be destroyed.
I have decided to leave, Russia."
And yet it always seems to be the Venezuelas and the Soviet Unions where people have to wait in line for days to buy a loaf of bread, and it always seems to be the "artificial scarcity" capitalist countries where you can find 30 different kinds of bread on the shelf at all times.
Funny, that.
As Venezuela demonstrates, it's more a case of the communist regime destroying the economy to the point that it fails to even provide the most basic goods and services to keep society from collapsing, even when the country is standing on one of the world's largest oil reserves.
ideology, noun 1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
[capitalism is] an economic system that enables people to choose how to earn their living and how to spend their resources
The God of my religion is God, but the god of your cult is not. My system for resource allocation isn't an ideology, but yours is.
Ideology is a pretty loaded term I guess.
Of course that "keeping up with the joneses" is on par with avoiding famines and access to education and medical care.
Who cares if everyone is living better than ever, and has access to all luxuries in the world. I mean, my neighbor earns more than me! Down with the system, comrade.
"my neighbors spending most of their days driving to a job that I know pays them less than they need to feed their kids"
This doesn't sound like someone who has access to all luxuries in the world.
Are things perfect? No. But are people, on average, waaaay better off than they've ever been? Yes.
This is not the best timeline.
Yeah, no.
Look, I'm not a rah-rah capitalism guy, but the fact is that the vast majority of wealth is based on human labor, the labor of individuals, applied to nature. While the latter certainly has a strong claim on being public wealth (a commons) the wealth produced by a human's labor belongs rightly to that person. (Economic rents then tend to concentrate that wealth, but that's a separate topic.)
There is an economic third way alternative to capitalist rent seeking and socialist totalitarianism: distributism. For a modern introduction to this idea, this is a good book:
https://www.amazon.com/Vocation-Business-Social-Justice-Mark...
Some people will be put off by the catholic moral basis, others by the term "Social Justice", but it's a good read for a different way to look at both the history of economics and the economic situation we find ourselves in today.
It should be noted that Milton Friedman, who was as capitalist as it gets, advocated for guaranteed basic income, which is at its source an income redistribution scheme.
Whether the income is financed by taxes (taking cash out of the rich to distribute it to the poor) or through monetary policy schemes (printing away cash) the end result is that such a scheme results in redistributing wealth around the whole society.
Friedman also implemented income tax withholding. So, despite what he wrote, he was no friend of practical liberty.
Okay ...?
2. Capitalism as an economic system is essentially defined as the process of private expropriation of public wealth.
My economics textbook defined capitalism as "A system for reallocating scarce resources from low-value uses to high-value uses". I don't like either definition, honestly.
3. Technically, the Earth is every creature’s inheritance ...
Technically, adverb. 1. according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.
So what you're about to say is true, because you say it's true? Technically, this is where I stopped reading.