Curious, How Many Consider Themselves Capitalists

This is inspired by a recent post on how many consider themselves socialists. In contrast, I wonder how many now consider themselves capitalists--although not necessarily in the same sense as Republicans.

I t hink that the Democrats now encompass a wide variety of ecnomic views. This includes the far left, but I also see a growing number who do not share this background.

Our last Presidential candidate was clearly not a socialist, despite all the claims from the right. The front runner before Kerry won the nomination, and most likely new DNC chair, Howard Dean is also a fiscal conservative (despite all the attempts from the right to label Dean as a leftist).

By capitalist I don't mean agreeing with Republicans. Democrats might be more open to government involvement where it is worthwhile. Democrats are also more likely to support efforts to go after those who abuse the system. (Spitzer is a great example of someone who both supports such government activism, but also expresses support for the free market system).

On the other hand, Republicans often vary from laissez faire capitalism in using the government to promote certain businesses --typically big business interests which contribute heavily to them. Democrats certainly differ here.

And proud of it. In truth I think there about as many capitalists here as Socailists--maybe more.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

which is different from the now so called conservatives. You can be a capitalist and believe in income redistribution or government programs to help the poor, elderly, infrastructure, environmental laws and the like. You don't have to be a tax cut ideologue, believe or support imperialism, or things such as that.

I started the Socialism thread by the way. I was inspired by a thread where someone was complaining because there are wealthy people and corporations. Everyone agreed on the thread. I was just curious how this board leans...

and proud of it.

There's a difference between capitalist and conservative.

but i liek to think of myself as a socially responsible capitalist.

I make money, I spend money, I like it when my investments grow. Guilty as charged.

Or is that division a RW wedge?

I'd say I'm degrees of each.

:)

I guess laissez-fair capitalism would be the opposite of socialism, while capitalism as more generally used is a somewhere in between. I don't see things in between as being socialist when private ownership is continued, although those on the right sometimes label any government regulation of the economy as socialism. Of course they are inconsistent as they only label intervention by Democrats as socialism, ignoring all the interrrlationship between Republicans and big business. Of couse, if we accept Democratic programs as socialistic, then by the same logic Republican policies would technically be fascist.

I'm guessing that too many here and even more elsewhere are not capitalists but just like to talk about it.

For too many, capitalism is a great system for the other guy.

Unfortunately, being forced into practical capitalism, as a self-employed person of over 2 decades standing, I have lost all respect for the talkers.

People who buy a few stocks and think they are taking a risk on a par with me risking my entire life are just...please...they are not capitalists. They are bystanders who know little or nothing whereof they speak. It's amazing how everyone assumes once they get laid off of their old job, they are just going to waltz right over and start their own business and be successful. But for some reason they're too busy to prove their superiority at the moment.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

... that in order to maintain your capitalism you've
relied on socialist infrastructure.

It was the whole point of the second Constitutional Convention.

I'm all for everybody making a buck and supporting themselves.

Just don't forget there's 5,999,999,999 other people out there
who are trying to do the same.

As I would guess about 99.9% of DU is, despite these pesky attempts to label everyone.

For instance, I believe heavily in the maintenance of "commons" for the general population to be collectively cared for shared equally. Fresh water is a commons. So is clean air. Open space and parks are a commons. IMHO, health care SHOULD be a commons -- it pretty much was in the majority of the 20th century, before it was completely turned over to corporate interests.

I believe that we should strive, as a society, to seriously help those among us who are struggling, and if the means from this result in the rich giving more than everyone else, then it's a reasonable price to pay.

However, I'm also a proponent of regulated markets for many goods and services. I fully recognize that not everything can be publicly-managed, nor is privatization the cure for our ills. It all lies somewhere in between, around the hazy line dividing democratic socialism and social democracy.

It seems that a lot of Europe figured this out. Funny thing is, the most left-wing politicians in the US (i.e. Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, etc.) would probably be considered centrist to center-right in Western Europe. That right there should tell us how completely wacked these labels are from an American definition.

.... a business owner who believes in progressive taxation policies, socially responsible government regulation, socially responsible redistribution of wealth, socially responsible corporate action (and corporate prosecution, if needed), and a "Buy American where Possible" policy.

I also believe in corporate subsidies when they are in our social and national best interests. For example, our steel industry. I believe it is in our best interests, as a nation, to be capable of a hunkered down independence from foreign suppliers (I am **not** an isolationist, I am a realist). If we have a whole industry, particularly a fundamental, strategically critical industry, in jeopardy of vanishing due to cheap imports, we have an obligation to support that industry by either policy management or taxation/tariffs.

There is no such thing as sound pure capitalism just as there is no such thing as sound pure socialism.

I believe every citizen - including corporate citizens - has a moral obligation to support the least of us from the wealth of the best of us.

So yeah, I'm a capitalist ..... but within reason.

Capitalism is such a huge engine for growth and for benefiting the lives of so many people it's almost essential for a prosperous country. Capitalism can also be a force for social and political reform. Business is by nature practical, forward-looking and tends to break down walls of class, privilege, religion, and ethnic distinctions and to subvert nationalism. And as Marx observed, capitalism smashed the power of the monarchies.

At the same time, you have to look at the problems in capitalistic societies. These tend to happen most when capitalists become the dominant political power and when they ignore the common good for the sake of profit, resulting in environmental destruction, unemployment, and a host of other problems. It's an engine of creative destruction that cannot be allowed to run unchecked.

For that reason, it's essential that capitalist societies have a strong democratic central government to provide for the welfare of all its people. Strong environmental and labor laws are needed to control the destructive effects of economic Darwinism. Some type of social security and health care should be provided. But without capitalism, countries are not likely to have the resources to fund those programs.

Business is the draft horse that provides the horsepower to plow the fields and make the farm productive. The farm is not run for the benefit of the horse, but the farmer and his family would starve without it.

I believe corporations need to be responsible for any damage they cause to the environment, the general public, or their consumers.

In other words, I don't believe it's true capitalism if people who don't own the company are forced to pay the expenses.

As part of that philosophy, I also believe that companies need to pay their employees a living wage. If a corporation's health care plan includes me paying taxes for their full-time employees' health care, for example, they are forcing me to pay their operating expenses.

Of course, I do favor some governmental rules and regulations, but I'm much more a capitalist than many here.

To have a modern economy you need to be able to accumulate money to build infrastructure. No accumulation, no steel plants, no Microsoft, no Ford. All manufacturing is domestic, cottage industry.

Makes for a nice Hobbit-like, utopian situation, but you get little more than home weavers, home millers, and rope makers. And luthiers :-) This we call a "developing country" these days ... at the beginning stages of it.

Of course, there's the Soviet version of it: government-controlled, but then you have the huge conflict of interest: do you run the enterprise for the people you represent, or for the government?

Make it responsible.

Yep capitalist here, believe that:

1. Government's role should be to remove those obstacles that allow capital growth and production and such, yet not engage in corporate welfare (ex. the airline industry), nor price controlling or subsidizing, nor wage mandates (I think that a min. wage is needed, but lower than most of its advocates). It should also protect employees from discrimination where needed and consumers as well.

2. Income redistribution won't work. People won't work for something they won't recieve benefit or compensation from. Also, it stifles innovation. Our self-interest produce better than otherwise.

3. Massive profits are good, as long as ethically obtained.

4. Private industry is better at government in nearly everything. They actively seek to keep costs down and build a better product, all because of profit motive.

5. Free trade. Protectionism is bad, and hurts third world industry in particular (France and old Europe are guilty of this with Africa, if I read right).

6. Free education with standards. Good public education is the great equalizer, but having standards for students to meet (and rewards for exceeding them) is a necessity.

:hi:

The point may be that we are seeing a realignment. With voting now so much along moral/religious issues, and with the Republicans demanding such a high degree of loyalty to their current positions, such economic issues may no longer be the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats may become the home for those who support religious tolerance, separation of church and state, and separation of powers in government, while allowing for a variety of views on economic issues (which still differ from the crony capitalism practiced by current Republicans).

markets, but we see what disaster their free markets wreak for working people. Unabashed capitalism is anti-worker at heart. I don't see how you can be a capitalist and pro-worker at the same time.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily have to be anti-worker. The problem is that conservatives use support for capitalism as an excuse to uniformily take the anti-worker positions.

because labor = cost, and capitalism is all about profit.

PS: Capitalists don't "give" workers there jobs, if they're serious about being capitalists. They don't give anything for nothing, and they always try to get more than they give.

In the service and consulting industries labor=revenue. Labor is the product. In other industries, it is true, labor is overhead, but a competitive labor market creates a situation where business must do more to keep good workers, otherwise they'll switch jobs.

Because Indian labor = revenue? ;)

Not labor being the product.

Depends on what you mean by "pro-worker." The divide between owners and workers IS too far skewed in some places, but there needs to be several realizations:

Workers need to be paid a fair wage, but the owners (or whoever) need to make enough money to pay them - and make it worth their while to own a business. Otherwise, why do anything? Would that more companies (such as Saturn in its early days) seek to start with a balance in mind (my grandfather - a union construction worker who often found himself as a sort of arbitrator between management and workers - knew this balance).

There are TONS of investment opportunities for the modern "worker." The stock market is not the domain of the rich, and hasn't been since at least the 1980s if not before - when there was a massive increase in the number of the middle class population.

For example, I'm not blaming unions completely here, but France has double-digit unemployment and a 35 hour work week. Also, a VERY protectionist anti-free-trade policy. It's biting them in the rear end, and will continue to until they realize that they are holding both themselves and other countries back.

A THIRTY-FIVE hour work week. To me, that's INSANE, especially for a modern production line. Not only is it hard to make money, it's hard to produce anything with all the man-hours lost in the difference.

Have you ever spent any time in France? They have a pretty high standard of living. Most of Europe does. We also import more from them (EU as a whole) than we export to them, despite all of our extra hours of labor.

Here's an interesting article, originally in the Economist, comparing standards of living, productivity, personal wealth, etc., between the US and EU:

http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20040621/004872.html

...Perhaps Europeans choose to work fewer hours because of high taxes. Marginal tax rates have indeed risen by more in Europe than in America over the past 30 years. Taxes reduce the incentive to work an extra hour rather than go home, once a reasonable standard of living has been reached.

This is a hotly debated issue. A study** by Edward Prescott, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, claims that virtually all of the fall in hours worked in the euro area can be blamed on higher taxes. But the flaw in this theory, says Mr Blanchard, is that within Europe there is little correlation between the fall in hours worked and the increase in taxes. Ireland has seen a 25% fall in average hours worked since 1970, despite an even smaller increase in tax rates than in America. Other studies have found that taxes have played a more modest role, accounting for about one-third of the fall in hours worked per person.

Mr Blanchard concludes that most, but not all, of the fall in hours worked over the past 30 years is due to a preference for more leisure as incomes have increased. Europeans simply enjoy leisure more. Americans seem more obsessed with keeping up with the Jones's in terms of their consumption of material goods. As a result, they may work too hard and consume too little leisure. Their GDP figures look good, but perhaps at a cost to their overall economic welfare.

Robert Gordon., an economist at Northwestern University, agrees that GDP comparisons overstate America's living standards, but he goes even further. America has to spend more than Europe, he says, on both heating and air conditioning because of its more extreme climate. This boosts GDP, but does not enhance welfare. America's higher crime rate means that more of its GDP is spent on home and business security. The cost of keeping 2m people in prison, a far bigger percentage of its population than in Europe, boosts America's GDP, but not its welfare. The convenience of Europe's public transport also does not show up in GDP figures. Taking account of all these factors and adding in the value of extra leisure time, Mr Gordon reckons that Europe's living standards are now less than 10% behind America's.

:D

If you read my initial post on this board, I stated that I was primarily conservative with a couple "progressive" views (relatively speaking on education and disability), and that I'm here to listen, learn, and try and voice without "trolling."

Trust me, I've been restraining myself on quite a few threads.

I'm with you on every point, except maybe education. I'm not convinced that privatizing education is the right thing to do, but it is a monopoly and needs competition. Possibly that could be done within the current system. Vouchers is an interesting idea though as long as money didn't go to religious schools.

Basically I vote for democrats because of the social issues (civil liberties) and because although they tax and regulate way too much, I just can't stomach voting for Republicans with the religious nuts having so much influence. If the libertarian party got their act together and ran someone that seemed reasonable and had a chance to do at least fairly well, I may vote for them.

So 'capitalist' for me too, hell yes.

I work for myself and am willing to take the risk. All I ask is that everyone play by the same rules which, in a lot of cases, is not the reality.
I also believe you can run a company, make money and still be honest to your customers and decent to your employees. (when I get some).

we all live in an economy that is organized according to capitalist principles. So, in practice we are all capitalists in some concrete sense.

However, does that mean we think that capitalism is

1) the best way to organize the economy

2) eternal?

Here's my take:

1) Capitalism is the best way, so far.

2) No institution can make a claim to being eternal. Capitalism will be superceded, perhaps sooner than we think.

Browsing Project Gutenberg one day I came across Jack London's "The Iron Heel". It's quite a remarkable book, written during the progressive era at the turn of the 19th/20th century. The thing that really struck me was chapter 9: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/IronHeel/chapter9.html

I had always heard about the falling rate of profit, but had never quite understood the reason for it. London's explanation is magnificent, and I have since confirmed with economists that it is right on the mark.

All this is simply to say that the concrete reason that capitalism is doomed to a finite existence is, of course, imbedded in its fundamental prinicples. As capitalist expansion succeeds, which it is doing magnificently well, it undermines the future possibility to provide a ROI. The rate of profit tend toward zero. Of course, there are ways to get around this in the short term.

One way is to loot the workforce, expropriating that part of national wealth necessary to reproduce workers vigorous enough and well enough trained for the next cycle of production. Hmm. How might you do that?

1) Drive down wages
2) Export jobs to where there are cheaper labor pools
3) Shut down social security
4) Shut down funding for education
5) Shut down health care options
6) Break up workers organizations

Do any of these sound familiar?

7) Herd workers into slave labor camps and work them to death

We've been there, too.

I suspect that we are coming up against the limits to further expansion of capitalism. The mass of capital that demands a return has outstripped what can be brought in from non-capitalist markets (read the linked chapter to see what I mean).

We may spiral down into lower and lower circles of Hell and enter some sort of dark age. Then again, we might be able to work out a new way to organize social/economic relations. There are some positive signs in some countries and regions that are actively resisting further expansion of neo-liberal capitalism. At some point even "benevolent" capitalism will no longer be sustainable, and something will likely give. In which direction, noone can say for now.

So, I guess I'm a capitalist in practice, although I don't have any faith that capitalism has much more to offer us.

I have to be because I'm unemployable in a conventional job. Most self-employed people who really do have to dance to the tune of the market are miserably poor because of the ups and downs of your income, which prevent you from ever accummulating anything unless you're really really lucky. "Big" capitalist corporations are, ironically, insulated from the free market by gov't bailouts. The world turned upside-down.

Now if you are asking who is philosophically a capitalist rather than an actual person who has to struggle with market forces every day...at this point I tend to think...who cares. Talk is cheap. The loudest Ayn Rand freepers tend to be in jobs insulated from the market like the police or other secure jobs that don't go away. They get a steady paycheck every month and a steady pension when they retire. Apparently being a capitalist is just a spectator sport in their protected little world. It's easy to talk big about market forces that you never have to contend with.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

are immune to market forces because Freeper's got a job from mommy or daddy. Cons crack me up, especially Bush, because Cons are always talking about working hard but in reality Daddy or Daddy's friend supplied a chushy job.

I love capitalism, but I detest the fat-gat greedsters like Ken Lay, Larry Kudlow, and the Bush family.

How many here who like to think of themselves as "capitalists" employ at least a few hundred people? I also wonder if these "capitalists" have a unionized work force and what kinds of relations they have with "their" workers.

When it comes to roads, I'm a dyed in the wool Socialist. For automobiles, I'm a rabid capitalist.

They are not capitalists. Look at the Bushes. They make money by getting it from public taxes in then buying the politicians to provide them more and more of the taxpayer money.

They don't "build" anything. They don't "create" anything. They don't want to compete in the free market.

They come up with schemes like Halliburton, a publicly financed bseball park, a company that provides testing software for students in Florida where Jeb passed the legislation requiring it.

Look at the Golden Age when the railroads were built. Cronies to a man.

Look at the Boston Tea Party. Our boys dumped the British East India Company's tea in the harbor because Parliament gave the BEIC a tax break that was putting local tea merchants out of business. Think Walmart.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism in the sense that you seem to have some nostalgia for. The game is always fixed. Free enterprise never existed and never could exist.

Sorry, but I'm about $200,000 a year too-fucking-light in the chequebook to even THINK about considering myself a "Capitalist"....

I'm LABOUR! Sure, I don't have a Union (too many fucking Dildo-Monkeys around here to try and organize) but I'm LABOUR, just the same...

I think Capitalists would taste pretty good, if they were cooked properly....

and a short time to get there...

Here's my quickly reasoned two cents.

Captitalism is an economic system marked by open competition in a free market. (according to my dictionary)

My objections to capitalism stem from it's basis of motivation. I believe in the potential for complete, reasoned cooperation amongst humans. Cooperation and competition are worlds apart.

By reasoned cooperation I mean that humans are capable of viewing their particular self as but one part of the whole, neither more nor less than others, dependant physically and psychologically on the health of the whole.

Competition on the other hand encourages us to think first of ourselves and second of the whole, if at all. This is a fundamental flaw of capitalism. We can't all be winners and nobody wants to be a loser; so those that strive to become winners are creating the losers.

I respect but do not worship market mechanisms -- it is not difficult to produce a better economic outcome than market forces alone would allow. In particular there is ample room for guidance from the state on economic matters, whether it is public investment in R&D or the support of new industries.

I think there are too few regulations on big corps and I do not support caps on lawsuits.

I also support cutting corporate welfare to companies that outsource and cutting back on it to companies that don't. I simply don't see the logic in giving a company, whose CEOs make multi million dollar salaries, welfare, when our social programs are underfunded.

We have a real estate investment and development small business. I appreciate the free market and have benefited from it.

It's about who owns the means of production. Self-employed people are not capitalists because they own their own means of production. Capitalists receive profits from other peoples' work, regardless of the extent to which they themselves work at their business--that ranges from zero time to pretty long work weeks.

Personally, I don't think it should be legal to own anybody else's means of production, nor should anybody be able to own natural capital, as in Let it be known there is a fountain That was not made by the hands of men. Natural capital should be part of the commons, and people can own things which were made by the hands of men, that is, be in business for themselves as individuals or as part of a collective. How big the collective should be is another issue--partnerships, family, neighborhood, city, state, nation? I'd say that the last two are probably too big, but there is lots of room for argument.

More on this later, but socialism in it's pure state has never worked.

Capitalism is fine when it embraces social programs and is made to be responsible. That only happens when it is regulated by the populace, or those that the people elect to represent them.

Nuff for now...later.

Can one "be" both a socialist and a capitalist? seems like an odd idea.

I think "being" a capitalist carries the frame of being opposed to socialism - and vice versa.

"Being" also implies that one strongly identifies with the concept, much like "being" a dem or "being" a repub. Often this identification is extended to leading political individuals; as in "being a Deaniac" or "being a Clarky".

I'd rather say both socialism and capitalism have merit.

I'd rather say i support a certain party and certain political leaders because of their stance on issues.

I am for Capitalism, regulation, and Government intervention. Corporations do good work, but good works do not always get reported. Understandable though considering the news lately regarding corruption.