Subj : Re: Recession to Depressi
To : Kaelon
From : Boraxman
Date : Sun Jul 24 2022 12:44 pm
Re: Re: Recession to Depressi
By: Kaelon to Boraxman on Sat Jul 23 2022 10:24 am
> First of all, I would never advance dogma as part of a central truth.
> Truths have factual elements born from observation and experimentation to
> establish their systems of tautology. Dogma would advance absolutes
> regardless of facts, and the idea that "Capitalism must look exactly like
> this in order for it to be qualified as capitalism," is misguided zealotry,
> at best.
>
> Capitalism's central tautological tenets, therefore, have been borne out
> through history, and I understand them to be as follows, at their "core":
>
> 1. Free Markets, open to easy and unencumbered entrance by new players, to
> spur genuine competition so that customers have comparable choices and
> companies have incentives to innovate.
>
> 2. Anti-Trust, so that large companies do not consolidate the marketplace to
> eliminate the possibility of new entrants from competing or limit the
> choices that consumers have when determining what to purchase.
>
> 3. Transparency, in understanding the way in which companies are managing
> their businesses so that shareholders can make informed decisions about
> where to invest and how to cast votes.
>
> 4. Accountability, in ensuring that for every reward gained there is a
> proportional and real risk endured in the marketplace by its actors, and
> that success is rewarded and failure accordingly punished.
>
> 5. Openness, in ensuring that government does not interfere in the
> participation in its market by creating favored winners or losers, but whose
> only laws and regulations exist to enforce the above characteristics.
>
> Those are my views. What do you think? Capitalism shouldn't be a religion.
> It should be a constant civic virtue to make the system work through
> freedom, anti-trust, transparency, risk-and-reward, and institutional
> openness.
> _____
I think those are the ideals, and I agree with these ideals except for perhaps the details in #4. I do not subsribe to the idea of "reward" or "punishment" at all. This implies that we should make judgements based on actions, not results. I would prefer to say that you are entitled to what you contribute, and are liable for what you consume and use. If you fail, its on you. If you succeed, its on you. You should not have wealth transferred to you for any other reason than a voluntary transfer of goods/services (except for welfare) and you should not escape liabilities either because you just stuffed up and have to bear the consequences.
In practice, Capitalism is to defined by the following
1: Private ownership of the means of production, or more specifically, the creation of a property right that allows you to "own" a company, as distinct to simply owning the factory and equipment.
2: Capital being the 'residual claimant'. That means that in a productive activity, it is Capital that holds ownership of the final product. This isn't always true, but is a feature.
3: Employment. This is not limited to Capitalism, as Communism also had a system of employment. But I would argue that no one would recognise a system without Employment as Capitalism.
4: A cultural elevation of Capital holders and a heirarchy of values that prioritises the needs of owners of capital. That is to say, socio-economic values which generate consent and understanding of the arrangements.
5: Somewhat free markets.
6: Somewhat free enterprise.
7: Your #1, #3, #4 and maybe #5.
These are things, that I think if the system didn't have it, people would not recognise it as Capitalism. It would 'technically' be Capitalism, and fit all your ideas, but would be, by most, not accepted as such.
The reason I ask is that usually when I discuss another system, which ticks ALL your 5 boxes, people say it is "Socialist", because it misses some of the items I raised. I do not consider the points I made to all be necessary, and that is why I am called "Socialist".
You see, most people would only really list "free markets" and "free enterprise" and not having the state run everything, but in reality, that alone is insufficient.
We can at least understand each other on the basis that we both generally
support human freedom, openness, economic fairness (what is rightfully yours is what you produce), the ability for people to respond to markets and be in charge of their own economic affairs.
Paradoxically, my beef with "Capitalism" as it is today, is it is not Capitalist ENOUGH. It does not adequately give human beings self governance. It does not adequately give human beings responsibility for their own economic decisions. It does not adequately acknowledge fundamental property rights of the individual. What gets me, is people say I'm a Socialist/Communist/Collectivist, when my problem with the current system is that it still retains Communist/Collectivist systems!!! We STILL apply the debunked and silly Marxian "LAbour theory of value" and still have Communist structures in the form of the modern corporation, which is, internally, basically a Communist state.
