Why do you think so many people are freaked out by the concept of capitalism?

Most political and economic models sound good on paper.

There’s a similar question by kwso today. You wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?

The difference between the two questions is that the other one can be taken at face value and answered with a variety of arguments, whereas yours is absurd. Hardly anybody on this site is “freaked out by the concept of capitalism”, for the simple reason that most flutherers are American, and even those that aren’t, live in Western countries with capitalist economies. People who lived in the USSR in the 70s are either too old to read this or simply don’t care anymore.

But the very fact that this question seems absurd and the opposite doesn’t, is interesting in itself. It would be nice if you could have asked the right people, 30–40 years ago. Today, even those that ought to be freaked out, aren’t.

Which people are freaked out? Seems to be pretty widely accepted (at least in Western cultures) to me. Are you making a statement about current economic policy changes?

Ah, now I see, this is a call-and-response question

Gee, I thought folks keep freaking out about socialism, not capitalism.

I don’t have any brilliant answer for your question, but I’m just curious why your font looks so different from everyone else’s.
The only answer I have is that Capitalism, like Communism , like socialism, like any ism, relies on people who are corruptable. If they all worked the way they were planned they would be great. Also, pure Capitalism leaves no safety net for the weakest among us. Sort of a survival of the fittest mentality and hopefully a desire to protect the weakest among us is one thing that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom.

I find this question very relevnt today as people seem to be trying to pervert the word and make it a bad thing to fend for yourself. Those that oppose capitalism are usually lazy and weak and prefer handouts. I give to charity but not when thr person demands I do so, it then is no longer charity but robbing.

I think capitalism is a good system when it works under the premise that if you work hard you will be rewarded. Yet the jails are full. The homeless walk the streets and too many children will never see a college campus or receive a high school diploma. I’m not sure we can blame capitalism on this because that would take away some individual responsibility.

I have been raised with the hard line ”you don’t work you don’t eat” and therefore I have never missed a meal and my hands have always been busy.

Capitalism isn’t really a political system, it’s apparatus and it’s administration is often identified as Political, when in fact it merely masquerades as such, the rhetorical devices employed by the agents of capitalism, in order to garner public support, is heavily dependant upon the insistent and dogmatic promise of freedom, liberation, and the dollar (the carrot) AND instilling fear into the opponents, by way of economic and military threats (the stick). Capitalist countries have, without any statistical doubt, successfully meted out more carnage/devastation, than it has sustained, upon other non capitalist countries, either through direct military conflict, or by proxy. This may help to explain why people may find Capitalism deeply objectionable, not withstanding it’s rapacious implementation of global consumerism, with out any regard to the impact upon local customs, culture, traditions, craft work and religious practices.

@giltesque i’m alright jack, to hell with everyone else that hasn’t the motivation to live a meaningless, high octane, vacuously consumerist, existence right?

“Capitalism” and “socialism” both exist on a spectrum. No countries* are entirely capitalistic or socialist. For example, even before the recent economic unpleasantness, America had socialized roads, a socialized army and fire and police force, social security, etc. “Communist China” has many elements of free-market capitalism.

*except for, of course, Somalia. There’s your free-market paradise.

@mammal Maybe you say that in your heart and therefore need to be mandated to give away. I do not! I give for reasons much higher than any political/legal obligation. I give becuase I appreciate what I have and where I come from and how I got here. I do not need anyone telling me to. People have hearts and are compassionate and giving as demonstrated worldwide. When you force people to take responsibility for others they have nothing to do with you callous those hearts and create a class warfare and mindset that destroys the fabric of charity and helping. I beleive in people to lend a hand not our lame government, regardless whose in charge.

Well, personally, I don’t see any economic model in which people “own their own labor” as automatically capitalist. Market socialism for example, is not capitalism. Also “protected by the rule of law” means protected with the threat of violence. That’s not really a positive thing, IMO.

The problem that most people have with capitalism, if they have a problem with capitalism, is the exploitation of the workers by property owners.

Also that last part (that the economic freedom of competitive capitalism is a requisite of political freedom) is an opinion, that most of the people who have a problem with capitalism probably disagree with.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey wrote, ‘Also “protected by the rule of law” means protected with the threat of violence.’

Um, no, it doesn’t.

@robmandu

So, if say, a bunch of people won’t get off your property, and you call the police, and the police tell them to get off of your property, and they don’t.

The police aren’t going to resort to violence?

Are you kidding me?

@Lefty_the_space_monkey, okay… it doesn’t necessarily mean threat of violence. There are plenty of civil actions that can take place.

For example, you the homeowner could sue the trespassers for damaging your property.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey I’ll chime in with my stereotypical response as an “evil capitalist”. I would not need to call the police, I’d shoot them with my Glock, done deal:) lol

@robmandu

But in the end, it is a threat of violence. If you don’t do as the law dictates, violence will follow.

Just follow that thought through to the logical conclusion. You sue them. So they have to pay damages. Let’s say they don’t. So the government tries to lock them up. They decide they don’t want to do as the law dictates. Now we’re back to violence. (Alternatively, they just don’t show up to court when you sue them. They makes it jump directly to “The police try to lock them up.” Correct?)

@giltesque

Lulz. That was pretty funny. :)

I would be freaked out by the idea of a society that left fire protection, national defense, law enforcement and some other functions up to the private sector, which is what complete “economic freedom of competitive capitalism” would require. And I am freaked out that we’ve left health care at the tender mercies of the market.

Capitalism relies on the principle that letting everyone seek their own best interests competitively will lead to the best results. While that works well for some functions of society, it fails at others, particularly those that deal with needs so fundamental that everyone merits unfettered and equal access to them.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey, I guess I just don’t equalize the concept of imprisonment with violence.

@robmandu

Well, that’s not what I meant exactly.

I mean that if someone resists imprisonment, then violence will be used on them to put them into prison, regardless.

Whether or not you see that violence as justified is irrelevant. It’s there.

@robmandu & @Lefty_the_space_monkey – Pardon my intrusion, don’t shoot!, but what I think the disconnect is here is Robmandu expects the Bill of rights to apply and that the government will not just beat the shit out of you for breaking the law or disagreeing with the law but rather go through the process and protecting individual rights we have…Crap, I cant word this as I want. bye

I a true capitalist society, who pays for the prisons?

@giltesque

I’m not claiming that the first thing that will be done to enforce laws is violence. Just that in the end, all of the governments actual authority comes from the fact that if you don’t accept their authority, they can and will use violence to make that irrelevant.

I’m not even making a moral judgment about it. (I’m not a pacifist.)

Just pointing out, that, ultimately, laws are enforced through the implicit threat of violence. If you don’t comply with the laws, they will physically force you to.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey I kinda get it but I’m having a hard time trying to write what I’m thinking, which is rare. thanks for the challenge, maybe Im just too lazy to invest more energy… I am hungry too. peace!

@giltesque

I understand the feeling.

Have a good nom. :)

Capitalism is like chain smoking on a crowded school bus,
it’s satisfying for the smoker, unhealthy for everyone else
but hey…who the fuck is going to tell me to put that cigarette out? not you kiddo…it’s my goddam, God given human right.

Because it’s hard for the people at the bottom (read – your average you-and-me bods) to see how it benefits, affects and involves them.

All governments, socialist/communist/capitalist, depend on commerce and revenue in order to maintain liquidity. Purity of political form is theoretical.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes.

Because unrestrained capitalism and free-market fundamentalism can cause a lot of damage and suffering. Free markets are the most efficient system ever invented but it needs rules and social components. Political leaders and managers in a free market society need a spirit of shared responsibility. Wealth is a right, but it’s also a responsibility. Greed is dangerous and it creates financial and economic crises.

In Germany we have implemented a model of the so-called social market economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

So in a way you could say that most German politicians and citizens get freaked out by a concept of unrestrained capitalism. Hardly anybody wants socialism either. Right next door, we’ve seen it didn’t work. The east German experiment had been a huge failure. It had brought misery and great suffering.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey

Hey Just wanted to chime in on your violence-by-the-state conversation. I agree with what you say—that when it comes down to it either the baton or pain-compliance is going to be coming out—but it makes sense. Violence in nature seems to be the most basic of functions. Over the last thousands of years we’ve been working towards peaceful resolution but for each of us when it comes to getting what we want out of life , and we’ve exhausted other means, we either fight for it or forget it.

@mattbrowne Socialism as expressed by various states in history have been distorted by the irrational hostility of the remaining, usually dominant, Capitalist entities, so we have really yet to experience a truly uninhibited Socialist Political Scenario.

@mammal – Interesting view. What was the capitalist entity within the Soviet Union when it existed?

@mattbrowne America exerts so much political, economic & military pressure upon socialist states, that the Socialist states are forced into implementing draconian measures upon their own people in order to protect their sovereign interests and their choice of government. These measures are to a large part a direct cause of American/British meddling.

@mammal – I still believe a system which allows private property and offers incentives and rewards is the more efficient system. When complemented with the spirit of shared responsibility it can accomplish great things. Remember the movie Wall Street? Gordon Gekko saying “Greed is Good”. He couldn’t have been more wrong. It was greed that created the current financial crisis followed by a severe economic crisis. We need to need keep greed in check. A social market economy is the approach I favor most.

@mattbrowne a system that allows private property, what does that mean? every political system that i am aware of, allows for and respects/preserves the sanctity of private pocessions, however the difference may be as to what may be considered a personal pocession and what, in material terms belongs to the state.

@mammal – In East Germany all farmers had to give their land to the state. They lost their status of being self employed. Same in the Soviet Union.

@mattbrowne most sensible communist regimes allow some latitude with farmers, if the farmers place the requirements of the people first and their own private interests second.