Why are people so misguided by the meaning of Capitalism?
Somehow greed is associated with capitalism, because the definition has the word has "profit" right at the end. People have been greedy since the beginning of time, you can not blame a system of trade for the negative attributes and actions of people. That would be like blaming an inanimate object instead of the person when it comes to murder. Oh wait... guns, let's not get into that now.
Unfortunately this is a misguided or misunderstood perspective of what capitalism truly is. The fundamental part of capitalism is not profit, it's actually ownership, the ownership of yourself, your labor and your property. Which you are freely able to trade for profit, if you so choose. Human rights are based on this basic fundamental principle of ownership. Many people completely ignore this very vital part of the definition and only focus on the "for profit" part, then conflate it with greed.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. - Ayn Rand
Capitalism is choice and is the freedom of that choice, no one forces you to buy an iPhone, you choose to buy one. If there were 3 of us and 2 decide, by way of vote, to take what the one owns, that's socialism and also theft. Which is also how slavery came about. The problem is not a means of trade, it is and always will be the state.
When people use words like fairness, equality and democracy I sometimes wonder if they truly understand the meaning. Why do people think they are entitled to the property and labour of others?
The short answer is, they are not.
Thanks for reading, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
People are confused because "capitalism" may mean more than one thing. Often, free market or laissez faire capitalism is conflated with state capitalism aka corporatism or crony capitalism. The former is about free exchange and free enterprise while the latter is about big business in cahoots with big government. One can only speculate how much time has been wasted by people arguing for or against "capitalism" with these very different understandings of the term in mind and thus not realising that they are not really disagreeing but only talking past each other. To have a genuine and meaningful disagreement we first must make it clear what we mean by our terms. Labels such as "free market anti-capitalism" or "anarcho-capitalism" will come out as contradictory if we use one or the other definition. Here, the principle of charity comes into play: If you want to have a constructive debate it is essential that you apply the principle of charity in interpreting the claims of others. To assume from the start that the person you are discussing with is committed to a contradiction is not a charitable interpretation. It might of course turn out in the end that your opponent is inherently confused, but that is not something that ever should be assume at the outset before asking what he or she really means. A more charitable assumption in this case is simply that he or she means something other than you by the terms in the discussing such as the term "capitalism". Once, we are clear on what we mean the debate can sometimes shift to being about the true or correct definition of a term. Such a meta-debate is usually not very constructive. And in the case of capitalism, I'm not sure there is one true or correct definition.
You address a very important point, words and definitions do matter, and is best to set those parameters from the get go. The assumption is when discussing a topic the general understanding of the meaning and practical implementation.
Capitalism by its general definition requires no state to function along with it's subsets like free market or laissez faire capitalism, the principal is based on ownership. Crony capitalism or corporatism can not exist without the state, it is fundamentally based on force and technically falls under socialism.
If you tell me you live in a house, the assumption is generally the same, 4 walls, roof, front door, windows, a kitchen, a place where you sleep. What I don't assume is the opposite of that like a field or a cave or underwater. To conflate capitalism with crony capitalism would be like conflating a house with deep house, on the basis of principles.
How does one enforce 'ownership' without a state? One cannot own more than one can physically defend without outsourcing this defense to a state element. Capitalism (ownership of property, and assets) inherently requires a state in order to defend said ownership. (there are other more barbaric and violent means sure; but that would be a devolution in society, not a proposed evolution.)
Capitalism (ownership, Private property in any present form is faulty. The idea or notion of Owning resources or land or any other material thing outside of our own labor is built on a crime (that is at one point in time someone decided to own something that was never owned before.) That land has been here for billions of years longer than any one man can claim ownership of. This is a problem with capitalism and this is the central point in which it is failing. Too few people claiming too much ownership over things they inherently have no right to own (outside of what a state says they do)...
Ownership can be enforced (insofar as it needs to be) by private organisations, security firms or protection agencies, selling their services on the free market. No state is inherently required.
Why is coming to own something that was not owned before a crime? If you take something that is already owned by someone else, that's a crime. But if it was previously unowned, then whom did you take it from?
The question of the ages... Some could call it god, some could call it nature some say that it belonged to all living beings, while others say it belonged to all mankind. There are many versions of this, however. NONE of them say that it belonged to that sole individual. So yes it is a crime it was taken without a legitimate transfer (therefore it is a crime). If I don't recognize your ownership of your T.V. and I come and take it, is that any less of a crime because I don't recognize you?
No, it's still a crime. Why is it a crime, because we have a state to enforce equitable laws.
There's plenty of movies describing this system. None of them are great.
Further, just for fun. How does the wealthy capitalists organize this large body of private soldiers to defend 'their property'. In what system is this wealthy soldier living in? Are their laws? Who dictated these laws? (the ones with the most money?)
I'm not saying what you're suggesting isn't a viable system. Just not a system I would ever want for myself or anyone I loved.
I think that what you said earlier about everything being initially unowned is the right view. I don't think that any of the other proposals are plausible. Nature cannot own itself and bringing in god is a non-starter.
When a person, A, starts to use and invest his labour in something that was previously unowned, nobody's rights are being violated. This is how legitimate first ownership arises. If a second person, B, comes along and takes it away from A by force, A's rights are being violated. The labour and resources that A had invested in the thing would then be taken away from him or her against his will. A committed no crime, only B. And A has a right to defend his property against B.
I'm glad you agree that what I am suggesting is at least a viable system. There is a large literature where answers to all of your questions can be found. Here's a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
If the suggestion is that prior to Capitalism, concept of private property did not exist, it is a false assumption. To what do the modern capitalists trace their legitimacy of ownership? From what legitimate authority did the modern capitalists acquire their possessions? What makes the modern capitalists assume that they own a piece of land, minerals, water, or air?
The legitimacy of ownership hinges upon the seller of a property to have the authority to distribute the property. The idea that authority of ownership occurs in the absence of government or the Crown is erroneous concept. The Western property legitimacy traces its origin only as far as the Medieval France. The Capetians stole France from their predecessors, who stole it from their predecessors and so forth till the beginning of human history. All legitimacy of ownership necessitates central authority and enforcement through arms. The modern assumption of economic activity in the absence of government enforcement is a dream at best, a farce at worst.
Exactly!
This is 'the misunderstanding of capitalism'
Not some false dichotomy that the only 2 perceivable forms of economic systems are capitalism or socialism. Though I often see people using both those terms with no general understanding of either.
Side thought. I was in the U.S. military for a number of years and many in the military would be prepared to fight you over their hatred of "communism" and defense of "capitalism" all the while completely enthralled by the system of being in the military. I remember my captain explaining to me when I got out how
"difficult the real world is, and how much better and more secure the military was"
This is when I asked him if he liked communism. He got a bit angry and instantly replied he did not.
I said, sir, the U.S. military is communism.
(it's actually not entirely communism in how communism was envisioned. However, and most ironically, it is entirely the embodiment of what people, especially in the military, believe communism to be)
Thank you for your reply. I agree completely. The real world is, and never has been, the digital formulation of the fanatic: black vs white, right vs left, capitalism vs socialism, freedom vs authoritarianism, etc. All societies have elements of all ideologies in varying degrees. Reality is analogue, but ideas are digital. We need to adjust our ideals to reality, rather than attempt change reality to our ideals.
Beautifully put! You just went a bit deeper to the root of the problem :). I completely agree about shifting ideals! It seems though our economic systems of present have supplanted our religious systems of old. Full of dogma, unreason, and emotional attachment to beliefs. I have been trying for years to find the appropriate response. Sometimes I try logical appeals (as the party is purporting to use logic to defend their position) this is usually met with fallacies or anger. Then I try emotional appeals (while describing the benefits to them and their family an alternative systems would provide). Ironically I haven't met anyone who doesn't like what I describe, but they get 'logically' ridiculed and called "utopic". So, I'm not sure why I continue attempting when I see posts like this. As if this time would be different (we may see)...
I think the realm of discussion needs to constantly return to the complexity of reality. Oftentimes, the discussions solely remain in the realm of pure ideals or specific anecdotes in modern arguments.
When I was a young, impudent, callous ideologue, I would never consider practicality of my zealotry in establishing an idealistic system. It is far too easy to be lost in the realm of ideas because ideas are like mathematics: with enough foundational assumptions, I can logically prove any situation and solve any problems. Similarly, there are those who solely focus on specific, anecdotal cases to justify their arguments. Unfortunately, anecdotes may serve as an objection to an argument, but are poor vehicles in establishing a general perspective.
I think man has a tendency to consider himself infallible. Observation of reality does not provide such assumption, and the systems a fallible being creates will also be fallible. I am surprised that many would prefer a mechanical system to rule over them, rather than fellow human beings. Those who want an immutable system, whether capitalist or communist, would balk at the idea of settling disputes in front of a computer, rather than a human judge. Ideologic arguments reduce life to a set of rules and devitalizes man to a logic machine.
Do we throw the stone at the adulteress? Who among us is sinless? I think man needs to consider his own fallibility and the complexity of reality. Mathematics are simple, life is complex. For the most part, libertarians and capitalists are ethical people; it is their grounded ethics that leave them blind to failures in their ideology and flaws in others. They impute their values onto others who may or may not share their moral suppositions. In their perception bias, they fail to observe the negative character of reality and flaws in men.
Beautiful!
I absolutely agree, there is a term in organizational theory now that is called "deliberately developmental" Which highlights this fallibility and deliberately designs systems to evolve with new information. Also, a system called Holocracy which builds this fundamental lacking in human ideology into the system to compensate for our imperfections, and using our differences, diversity and unknowing as tools to design yet better systems for ourselves and our world.
It is slightly absurd to think that a system designed hundreds of years ago in a paradigm so vastly different than the one we are in today still dominates our societies. Capitalism will soon fall to the history books and remote locations of our world. That, or we'll soon become extinct... Either way, capitalism won't last!
Completely agree. In fact, I would say that most all people (possibly everyone) are ethical people, generally nice as well (as long as their needs are met). People only resort to aggressive and violent behaviours when certain needs are not being met...
A fascinating discussion, with a dash of Underwood for flavour. The ownership debate in particular is one unlikely to be resolved through simple discussion. If you've seen the Six Capitals framework, you've seen that it's a construct to help see the trade between the stocks of Six Capitals, currently mainly facilitated through Financial Capital. Discussions on modifying the global financial architecture to accommodate trade in stocks of Capitals (or Value), or at the other end introducing a Universal Basic Income, could help in taking the conversation beyond ownership and rather to value - creating it, destroying it, sustaining it.
"Six Capitals framework". Excellent addition! I'm going to be checking that out more in detail. Do you have any references you prefer?
I have a framework designed for the human-scale for defining capital. It incorporates 10 forms of capital (any of these forms can be traded for the other). I believe it adds more value to the picture on helping me to identify forms of capital to better meet my needs!
Love it! I posted about the Six Capitals last year, and the articles have a couple of references in them - the focus was mainly on how corporate governance can positively contribute to sustainability...if a company has a clear strategy to create value and can make the shift to forward-looking integrated management, then they start to look differently at their role in their community and in society. So it's less about "personal capital" - I like your breakdown :-) - and more about how companies can better understand how they're creating and (we hope not, but) destroying value.
Anyway, the posts are here:
https://steemit.com/business/@kiligirl/steem-corporate-governance-and-value-a-new-way-of-thinking https://steemit.com/business/@kiligirl/natural-capital-1-of-3-in-a-series-on-the-capitals https://steemit.com/business/@kiligirl/human-capital-social-and-relationship-capital-and-intellectual-capital-2-of-3-in-a-series-of-posts-on-the-six-capitals https://steemit.com/business/@kiligirl/manufactured-and-financial-capital-3-of-3-in-a-series-of-posts-on-the-six-capitals
Man, this is so true. I hate how people distort or misunderstand the meaning of capitalism. I was actually just recently thinking about how capitalism is basically about ownership, and socialism means that you don't own anything.
Yeah pretty much, socialism is basically the community owning you, your labor or your property. The people who are then elected to oversee the community i.e. government then has control of your property, kinda like most countries. So do we live in a capitalist society or socialist one?
I completely agree...it is rather unfortunate and I feel the root of this issue is the lack of economic instruction in schools or even a basic rudimentary understanding.
Very true, the government is basically running schools, and god forbid they each the next generation that less government is actually better.
i cant wait for the day the we return to a true capitalistic society, our politicians are rapidly setting themselves up as our lords and masters and the pursuing of socialism is the fastest most effecient to remove our freedoms and line their pockets as we go scraping and bowing and begging them to put their boots on our necks, we are so ridiculously stupid and uneducated on our responsibilites and our guarantees under the constitution it is frightening ! ever wonder why they stopped teaching economics and civics back in the 60s.
Haha very true, the more I think about it the more I realize we are actually for the most part living in a socialist society, we just have noticed it yet.
I've heard a phrase that is similar to your statement. Which is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor! Wealthy get more government subsidies than unwealthy bar-none!
I have essentially been commenting like mad on your post. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and why we are so inept at creating any meaningful change in the U.S.
People don't understand capitalism, ironically you sought to address this issue while only promoting the failed system and further entrenching destructive beliefs. Capitalism is the reason for crony-capitalism. capitalism is the reason for big government, capitalism requires a government to support it! The further we go down the path of capitalism the larger the government will get (it may change names) however the power over us will continue to concentrate.
When was this?
This may be true. But, what are they?
The system the founders of the U.S. created led to the by-product of what we have today. It was not an aberration. Merely an evolution. If we revert back to any previous system we have seen, it will result in bringing about the same problems we are seeing today.
Simple, if someone can own more than he could ever use, he would need a state to defend this ownership. Further, if you can accumulate more than you could ever use, and you could leverage this ownership to own more, that would concentrate wealth. When power gets concentrated this power gets used to subjugate others, whether this power is called a state or a corporation (is there a difference -_-) is of no matter. So, to have "smaller government" like every pro-capitalist preaches you would be dismantling the protections of capitalism.
Who has bought our governments?
Wealthy capitalists of course.
Who makes capitalism "crony"?
The ones who succeeded in the game of capitalism.
Without limits to ownership, this will continue to repeat itself. (as it has, time and time again, revolution after revolution)...
in a truly capitalistic the market doenst need protection there are of course gonna be speed bumps but our government turns every speed bump into another useless prohibitive law, GM should have been forced to file bankruptcy, this too big to fail bullshit is socialism. there will be failure and pain but that is what makes for better business, our forefathers never imagined a gov that was this intrusive but knew that we would forsake what was provided to us that is why many of them made statements like this"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years.”
— Benjamin Franklin
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If a system is so broken that every 200 years it needs to be reset, it is a broken system. Period. Let's not keep replaying the same broken tune!
give me an example of a better one ?
Typically this question usually results in the deterioration of the conversation. As many people are only versed in pseudo-capitalism and the false dichotomy of pseudo-socialism. So, people go on pretending that capitalism is the 'best we got'. Fortunately for you, I'm not one of those people and I have actually described a system in detail that would be able to transition out of our current economic paradigm (without the need to overhaul the dominant system). It's a system that doesn't ask for sacrifice!
It's a community level design called "Our NeighbourGood"(https://steemit.com/libertarian/@rieki/introducing-exclusively-on-steem-our-neighbourgood-on-intentionally-creating-societies-designed-for-the-21st-century-and-beyond)
what you are describing is unrealistic and so overly controlled that the slightest upset would send the whole thing chrashing down , those system are fantastic until you throw in the key and most important ingredient , human nature, you cant and should not try to control it nor should you be foolish enough to ignore it, we are hard wired for certain things and have been since recorded history there will always be those whose quest for power in any form will be greater than others, and it is a neccesity, trying to over manage a system and make everyone a winner will fail every time , the poor have always been with us and in turn the wealthy have also somehow there is a cosmic balance to that we dont really understand.
by the way that was a very good post and i appreciate the time spent although we man not agree on all of it i think we agree on some of it, and you have no idea how much i appreciate having on intelligent conversation that doesnt turn into an all out stupid fest , that is one of the reasons i appreciate steem so much , our conversation would never have gotten to this level on facebook without a whole bunch of negativity cratering it , thank you .
GM bailout is prime example of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. However, it is Only because capitalism that our government is corrupt. It is only because our system allows such concentration of power that people are able to wield that power to gain more power!
what you are describing is crony capitalism not pure capitalism and that is what i was reeferring to, gm is an example of crony capitalism driven by greedy unions and corrupt politicians, the whole lot of them needs to be thrown out on their asses so this country can flourish again.
Who do you think makes capitalism crony? Seriously, who? It's wealthy capitalists utilizing their power for self-interest? How do you imagine this scenario going any other way?
You keep talking about this fairy tale of "pure capitalism" what is to stop successful capitalists of "pure capitalism" from abusing their power?
Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by morkrock from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
I would like to be able to resteem this now - it's still as relevant as it was two years ago.