You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Capitalism, Harvard And Goldman Sachs
It is a contradiction to claim that someone went to all the right schools where they teach nothing but capitalism, which they don't. In order to have a capitalist system one has to have a free market. Never have had that all through history.
What they are teaching is confusion and feudalism. That is and always has been what capitalism is without a free market. This is the ole trick of renaming a thing so that people don't recognize it.
Thanks for the support and the comment, @commonlaw, I appreciate that a lot :-)
So, what does a "free market" look like? And can you point to any time in human history in which markets have been "free"? I have to agree with @k9disc; a "free market" is a contradiction in terms. It cannot exist. The simplest way to understand why markets can never be free and have never been free, is to define for yourself the term "ownership". How do we determine what's mine and what's yours?
What you describe is a plutocracy, which is the end result of all capitalist experiments throughout our history. The crony capitalism @lucylin mentions is the practice of the highly mutilated capitalist ideology, just as communism is the practice of the highly mutilated Marxist ideology.
Well said.
I've never had a an argument with a marxist who recognizes (or refuses to recognize) the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
To do so would blow all models out of the water, and even more - the self realization that they are, actually, control freaks! lol
Low IQ arguments are the only ones they can make.
Like it or not, markets are governed and regulated by man. Someone will always be "the crony", be it the worker, the manager, or the owner. "Someone" will always be structurally weak or strong.
I think the same kind of ideological myopathy happens with proponents of lassiez faire in regards to a properly "free" market.
It doesn't exist, and cannot exist, as it is a construct and institution of man.
No they are regulated by supply, demand and scarcity - whether you like it or not.
The tr to be governed by the narcissist believes otherwise.
Correct, but conflating 'crony' to this dynamic (in context of crony capitalism is incorrect.
'Crony' in this context refers to corruption, price fixing etc.
Free market capitalism occurred naturally - 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.'
It is not an ideology. It is a natural system.
No it's not.
Ask the ant and the aphid..is that a construct of man also?
It is a dynamic present throughout nature..
Thinking of capitalism in money terms is myopic.
Money and markets are man made, artificial constructs dependent upon the whims, fears, and feelings of man and the mob. To cite the "free market" as some kind of natural law is absurd. Money and markets are of man, for man, and by man, and as such go well beyond the laws of nature.
And notice that I accept the distinction between crony capitalism and capitalism. I just understand that capitalism requires rules and those rules are written and interpreted by men with all of our hopes, fears, feelings, and future wrapped up in it.
Like a natural system of water rights. Or a natural system of real estate. Absurd.
Money is, markets aren't. The sexual market in every sexually reproducing species, for example?
Conflating the two is absurd, as a principle.
Have you never swapped anything? lol
Philosophically speaking, you are delineating 'man' from nature? How does that work? That's absurd, mate
Philosophically speaking - if we are a part of nature , then there isn't a single thing that we can ever do that is not an extension of that same nature.
Ergo it does not go beyond the laws of nature.
That's philosophically impossible.
just sayin'...
Conflating water rights with property rights is absurd.
You don't believe in property rights?
Is your body not your property?
If you don't believe in property rights, but you keep your own wealth, that's either just hypocritical or you don't really believe that to be true...
???
I believe that property rights, like water rights, money and markets, are concepts created and negotiated by men. The end.
Those concepts do not function under any kind of "natural law" because they are governed by the rules of men.
The only time the rules and concepts of men can be boiled down to natural law is when might makes right.
No not the end...far from.
Does a lion have property rights with its territory?
Or ants with their nest...
Hardly man made...?
Animal borders...mmmmm..the construct argument fall apart there a little..?
So you are positing that humans are not natural?
Anything that is a product of nature, is by definition, also a product of nature.
How separate do you see our biological units different than other animal. Why separate?
If you don't believe property is real, send me your steem- none of it's real, right?
Or it's not real but you compromise your principles and whore your soul within the system?
If you don't believe in property rights (starting with the self), you have no problems with your wife/daughter husband or son, being sexually assaulted? - there is no natural property, it's just a construct, right?
I'll wait for your steem.....cheers! lol
Can you sell children?
If so, we're done here.
If not, why not?
If you can't buy children or sell or pay in children it is a regulated market. We're just haggling over price.
If you and I claim rights to the property, who wins? Why?
Courts? That's not natural law. Natural law would be might makes right.
Humans are natural creatures, and we are defined and governed by natural law. But our institutions are not.
Treating man made concepts and constructs as products of nature governed by natural law are how we get eugenics, perpetual war, and other stupid shit.
The creations of man are not natural and do not run on some innate natural law.