Does Pure Capitalism Invariably And Inevitably Lead To "Crony Capitalism" And Corporatism?

[Domingo Halliburton]

Does socialism inevitably and invariably lead to communism and tyranny?

 

[mbewane]

How? Is that not what has to happen?

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that those with more at stake have more to say GENERALLY. Not on all issues and i'm not issuing a blanket statement. A billionaire doesn't get to talk about sentencing of murders the same way he does about how much he thinks his company should pay for on behalf of his employees.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I said that there are more ways than not to get your message across, but saying money doesn't or should never matter is flat out wrong. Politicians respond to things that are mutually beneficial. You can't always rely on moralizing and emotional arguments to come to back you up.

I don't know what you were getting at his. Kinda rambled.

I'm ALL for education reform. All for it. In fact, i don't really think the private industry should have as much control over education as it currently does.

We obviously have different views on democracy. If you consider that the way it works now is ok, good for you

 

[mbewane]

Capitalism isn't meant to increase the quality of life for all. Capitalism is meant to make profit, period. If there is a profit to be made in a product that improves someone's life, capitalists will make the product. If there's no profit, then the product dies.

The mixed economy / safety net, should be used to ensure that most people get to partake of the life-improving items that capital produces. I don't think myself, or anyone else in this thread advocated for true state socialism.

Since we're throwing out wild statements...
Do you think our current economic system is actually the worst possible blend of capitalism and socialism possible? I don't think a more capitalist system would be good for most people [especially coming from the perspective of a person on a site that caters to the racial group with the least capital], but at least it lets failures fail. And I don't think a more socialist system requires more taxes to work, it requires us taxing people fairly across the board, and a shift away from the wasteful spending we've done.

Right now it seems like we have the worst of both worlds, high tax - low return.

Actually it doesn't let "failure fail". See the banks "bail-outs" (= subsidies) and big companies supported by various governments. Lest we forget, for example, how United Fruits Company/Chiquita got big.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Nope. It doesn't have to at least. Capitalism exists in a system. The system, if strong enough, should be able to resist capitalism. I think it's more apt to say that capitalism will always TRY to devolve into corporatism unless it is checked.

Can you imagine if people actually gave a fuk? THAT would counter that croney capitalism real quick.

I would argue the reverse: capitalism is the material base/system, upon and around which everything else is constructed, including government. Not to say that there isn't a two-way relationship, but systems do not "resist" capital. The struggle democracy we see in the liberal capitalist states provides space for some limited checks on capital through democratic procedures, but those can be rolled back at any time, none of those checks are permanent. Capital shapes everything around it more than anything shapes it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

We obviously have different views on democracy. If you consider that the way it works now is ok, good for you

Im ok with campaign finance reform.

But i'm saying that money is NOT a bad thing. If those with less money value something, they can't just magically appeal to others' interests without addressing them too.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Does socialism inevitably and invariably lead to communism and tyranny?

Are straw men innately lacking brains and flammable?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Actually it doesn't let "failure fail". See the banks "bail-outs" (= subsidies) and big companies supported by various governments. Lest we forget, for example, how United Fruits Company/Chiquita got big.

I truly believe letting the banks fail would have ruined the country. It was such a unique situation that not doing it...would have led to catastrophe.

 

[mbewane]

I truly believe letting the banks fail would have ruined the country. It was such a unique situation that not doing it...would have led to catastrophe.

I don't doubt you do. It's funny though that the very symbol of capitalism was subsidized by the governement (socialist practice) to cover up their failures.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I don't doubt you do. It's funny though that the very symbol of capitalism was subsidized by the governement (socialist practice) to cover up their failures.

Part of governing means making decisions which benefit everyone. We live in mixed economies, so thats why i'm so annoyed with these extremist talking points.

 

[mbewane]

Part of governing means making decisions which benefit everyone. We live in mixed economies, so thats why i'm so annoyed with these extremist talking points.

Tell that to those who believe the US is not socialist at all. Once they're done protesting against minimum wage and healthcare.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Tell that to those who believe the US is not socialist at all. Once they're done protesting against minimum wage and healthcare.

I don't protest against a MW...I protest against exorbitant MW increases. WRT to healthcare, I guess I'm just going to accept universal if/when/however it comes.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I would argue the reverse: capitalism is the material base/system, upon and around which everything else is constructed, including government. Not to say that there isn't a two-way relationship, but systems do not "resist" capital. The struggle democracy we see in the liberal capitalist states provides space for some limited checks on capital through democratic procedures, but those can be rolled back at any time, none of those checks are permanent. Capital shapes everything around it more than anything shapes it.

Can you be communist and democratic? Of course you can. One is a political system and on is an economic system.
I think your perspective is colored by your experience and quite honestly propaganda. If today congress & the pres & the courts decided to do the right thing and no longer allow money from corporations to be funneled into politics guess what, capitalist would cry but ultimately they'd be confined to operate in this new systems. Had the founding fathers of this country included in our constitution this idea we'd not be having this discussion right now.

There is money in power and power lends itself to influence though so the the idea that capitalism influences the world around it is 100% accurate.

Essentially what i'm saying is capitalism doesn't HAVE TO end up in corporatism, but it usually does.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Can you be communist and democratic? Of course you can. One is a political system and on is an economic system.
I think your perspective is colored by your experience and quite honestly propaganda. If today congress & the pres & the courts decided to do the right thing and no longer allow money from corporations to be funneled into politics guess what, capitalist would cry but ultimately they'd be confined to operate in this new systems. Had the founding fathers of this country included in our constitution this idea we'd not be having this discussion right now.

There is money in power and power lends itself to influence though so the the idea that capitalism influences the world around it is 100% accurate.

Essentially what i'm saying is capitalism doesn't HAVE TO end up in corporatism, but it usually does.

I disagree that there is such a clean cut between the economic and political. I do not think that the political is independent of the economic to any meaningful degree.

"If the pres & courts & congress" did this or that... That sums up a big part of the problem, you rely on good will of individuals to "do the right thing." Meanwhile these people need capital to even run an election, and get re-elected, they have no reason to limit money in politics like that. Even if you were able to get a preponderance of politicians to agree to such a program, it would just be a matter of time before it would be undone (this is true even if it were a mass movement that force concessions from capital, which is a much stronger force than the good will of politicians you believe is the mechanism for change).

 

[Brown_Pride]

I disagree that there is such a clean cut between the economic and political. I do not think that the political is independent of the economic to any meaningful degree.

"If the pres & courts & congress" did this or that... That sums up a big part of the problem, you rely on good will of individuals to "do the right thing." Meanwhile these people need capital to even run an election, and get re-elected, they have no reason to limit money in politics like that. Even if you were able to get a preponderance of politicians to agree to such a program, it would just be a matter of time before it would be undone (this is true even if it were a mass movement that force concessions from capital, which is a much stronger force than the good will of politicians you believe is the mechanism for change).

the distinction is mostly academic, particularly given that there really hasn't existed a model where the two have been separate to the degree they should/could be. So as I said your perspective of the two separate institutions has been skewed by them having traditionally been so closely tied. Never the less they are two separate things.

 

[Drip Bayless]

Of course it does it has no moral basis.

What does that mean?