what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver)

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Having fun? That's because we're free in a nearly capitalist economy. Not every action or transaction within a framework of capitalism involves money, and not every transaction involving money is necessarily
legal or economic. The fact you are not free to purchase or own uranium is not a diminution of your
freedom, it is protection of everyone else's.

Once more, I ask you to provide your definition of economic activity because it clearly differs in important respects from that used by many others.

As to your final statement, my view is that the prohibition is both a diminution of my freedom and a protection of (some) others.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by xilman

Once more, I ask you to provide your definition of economic activity because it clearly differs in important respects from that used by many others.

As to your final statement, my view is that the prohibition is both a diminution of my freedom and a protection of (some) others.

I agree wholeheartedly. Anarchy is 100% freedom, 0% rights; totalitarianism, depending on who you're talking about is 0% freedom and 100% rights.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

The fact you are not free to purchase or own uranium is not a diminution of your freedom, it is protection of everyone else's.

But you are free to have more uranium delivered to you at faster than the speed of sound even if your attempts to buy uranium were only a rumor:
Why is the A-10 Thunderbolt's Gatling gun use depleted Uranium for ammunition?

The Air Force doesn't love the A-10 the way the ground troops do.
Air Force To Hold Close Air Support Summit; May Need New Weapon

[S485122]

Originally Posted by jasong

I agree wholeheartedly. Anarchy is 100% freedom, 0% rights; totalitarianism, depending on who you're talking about is 0% freedom and 100% rights.

100 % freedom and 0 % rights is not anarchy but libertarianism. Go and lookup anarchism...

Jacob

[jasong]

Originally Posted by S485122

100 % freedom and 0 % rights is not anarchy but libertarianism. Go and lookup anarchism...

Jacob

It's 100% freedom because since there are no laws nothing is illegal. But you have no rights because everyone else is just as free as you are.

I think the reason there are so many misunderstandings about things is that no one starts with basic concepts, they have their own notion of what things are and what they mean and so when people argue it can simply be because of broken meanings. Like with socialism and communism, the difference can be subtle if it isn't explained.

And, yes, I am ignorant about a lot of stuff involved in this, sometimes I don't view things the way most people do and sometimes I'm dead wrong. But sometimes I'm so right that people can't comprehend it and assume I'm simply an idiot.

[ewmayer]

NC has a lengthy book review Comments on David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism", which is most germane to this thread. The snip below quotes Harvey on the subject of The Neoliberal State:

[The Neoliberal State] appears to be either a transitional or an unstable political form. At the heart of the problem lies a burgeoning disparity between the declared public aims of neoliberalism––the well-being of all––and its actual consequences––the restoration of class power. But beyond this there lies a whole series of more specific contradictions that need to be highlighted.

1. On the one hand the neoliberal state is expected to take a back seat and simply set the stage for market functions, but on the other it is supposed to be activist in creating a good business climate and to behave as a competitive entity in global politics. In its latter role it has to work as a collective corporation, and this poses the problem of how to ensure citizen loyalty. Nationalism is an obvious answer, but this is profoundly antagonistic to the neoliberal agenda. …

2. Authoritarianism in market enforcement sits uneasily with ideals of individual freedoms. The more neoliberalism veers towards the former, the harder it becomes to maintain its legitimacy with respect to the latter and the more it has to reveal its anti-democratic colours. This contradiction is paralleled by a growing lack of symmetry in the power relation between corporations and individuals such as you and me. …

3. While it may be crucial to preserve the integrity of the financial system, the irresponsible and self-aggrandizing individualism of operators within it produces speculative volatility, financial scandals, and chronic instability. ….

4. While the virtues of competition are placed up front, the reality is the increasing consolidation of oligopolistic, monopoly, and transnational power within a few centralized multinational corporations: the world of soft-drinks competition is reduced to Coca Cola versus Pepsi, the energy industry is reduced to five huge transnational corporations, and a few media magnates control most of the flow of news, much of which then becomes pure propaganda.

5. At the popular level, the drive towards market freedoms and the commodification of everything can all too easily run amok and produce social incoherence. … The reduction of ‘freedom’ to ‘freedom of enterprise’ unleashes all those ‘negative freedoms’ that Polanyi saw as inextricably tied in with the positive freedoms.

Most of that precisely describes the current state of affairs in the 'developed democratic' world. My only added comment relates to the contradiction mentioned in item [1], that of gaining citizen loyalty by resorting to nationalism as "profoundly antagonistic to the neoliberal agenda". As the US continues to illustrate (e.g. with the massive corporate/state power grab known as the Global War on Terror), nationalism - both in its "we are the greatest" and "they want what we have and hate us for it" aspects - remains an overridingly potent weapon of mass distraction and thought control. The resolution of this particular paradox, as with most of the others, resides in the word 'agenda'. With all political ideologies one one must continually contrast the stated agenda, that which is preached, with the actual agenda, as revealed by that which is practiced. Various naïve pronouncements made by the starter of this thread appear largely to coincide with the preachings. Taking the preachings as gospel while blinding oneself to the practices was ever the mark of the dupes and zealots, whether one is speaking of classical religions or of secular political and economic dogmas.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

NC has a lengthy book review Comments on David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism", which is most germane to this thread. The snip below quotes Harvey on the subject of The Neoliberal State: ...
Most of that precisely describes the current state of affairs in the 'developed democratic' world. My only added comment relates to the contradiction mentioned in item [1], that of gaining citizen loyalty by resorting to nationalism as "profoundly antagonistic to the neoliberal agenda". As the US continues to illustrate (e.g. with the massive corporate/state power grab known as the Global War on Terror), nationalism - both in its "we are the greatest" and "they want what we have and hate us for it" aspects - remains an overridingly potent weapon of mass distraction and thought control. The resolution of this particular paradox, as with most of the others, resides in the word 'agenda'. With all political ideologies one one must continually contrast the stated agenda, that which is preached, with the actual agenda, as revealed by that which is practiced. Various naïve pronouncements made by the starter of this thread appear largely to coincide with the preachings. Taking the preachings as gospel while blinding oneself to the practices was ever the mark of the dupes and zealots, whether one is speaking of classical religions or of secular political and economic dogmas.

1. I did not actually start this thread, it was thrust upon me.
2. I do not claim to be an economics expert, but
3. I do know non-capitalism when I see it, and I'm not impressed with either
4. its economic prowess nor
5. its attention to economic or political freedoms.
6. question: is neo-liberalism supposed to be pro-capitalism or non-pro-capitalism or just another name for something else?
7. question: so what is Your agenda? not what you don't like but what you support?
8. If you consider my "pronouncements" naive, perhaps they were intended to be simplifications. please be specific.
and lastly,
9. I agree that actual practice within an imperfect implementation of capitalism (imperfect by legal insufficiency and the lack of
a fully accepted philosophically defined basis for it) has produced "bad behaviorr" on occasion, but
10. The past and even present practice of it does not change the fact that capitalism is right.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

10. The past and even present practice of it does not change the fact that capitalism is right.

10. The past and even present practice of it does not change my sincere belief that capitalism is right.

Thought I'd do some proof reading for you.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

10. The past and even present practice of it does not change my sincere belief that capitalism is right.
Thought I'd do some proof reading for you.

Skipped one thru nine right to the closer, did we?

Capitalism is right if freedom is right. And freedom is right. And facts are facts.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by davar55

Skipped one thru nine right to the closer, did we?

Capitalism is right if freedom is right. And freedom is right. And facts are facts.

Why deal with the puffery and rhetorical flourishes in one through nine? Your whining about having things thrust upon you should not have needed a response, but whining it is. If you can't stand the heat.....

Then we have the old, "I'm not a scientist/economist" routine, followed by assertions of "fact" in a field in which you disclaim expertise. The blatant assertion of "occasional bad behavior" is blindly naive. The examples of deadly corporate malfeasance are legion.As to #3 though #5, a simple response is "Norway" or Scandinavia in general. I am sure, however, that you have glib assertions to discount those successes, just as you overlook the gross illegalities and murderous negligence (at best) of large corporate players. See: Deepwater Horizon, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez just for easy examples

When you come on with bald assertions, and then become both petulant and combative, all the while not substantiating your claims, you cannot be too surprised if others feel the need to confront you. It almost seems that is what you seek, and you revel in it. So lay off the victimhood already.

Your final attempt at logic, "capitalism is right if freedom is right" is entirely founded on your circular arguments and private definitions of things. While "facts are facts" may be true in some circumstances, such tautologies convey no real information.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Skipped one thru nine right to the closer, did we?

Capitalism is right if freedom is right. And freedom is right. And facts are facts.

Not at all.

As for your second paragraph, I will make these statements.

Slavery is right if capitalism is right. And capitalism is right. And flaky arguments are flaky arguments.