The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
As liberals, I assume you support capitalism, it's literary in the definition. You also support democracy and enlightenment values such as freedom and equality, to some degree or another. So how can you both support freedom and equality together with an authoritarian economic system that is actively antithetical to those values?
Do you believe that allowing authoritarian control of the economy and the ability of those economical leaders to affect the liberal state creates the freest society? Or could you please explain to me how you solve this contradiction?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why do you support capitalism, if you are for democracy and freedom?
>As liberals, I assume you support capitalism...You also support democracy and enlightenment values such as freedom and equality, to some degree or another.
Capitalism -- as I and most pro-capitalism people see it -- is something like:
1. Allowing the free exchange of goods and services,
2. Using the law to protect private property rights and the right to contract, and...
3. Allowing people the freedom to choose their own path.
We don't view it as "authoritarian".
----------
Nevertheless...
* We tend not to support completely hands-off, laissex-faire capitalism. We prefer something of a 'mixed economy' in which the government has a role in regulating economic activity, and assuring competition.
* We accept that it produces inequality, but we believe that can be improved-upon by taxing the rich and spending the revenue on the betterment of society.
* Furthermore, capitalism is an *incredible* engine for creating wealth. So, by accepting that the government has a role in redistributing wealth for the greater good, and believing that that is for the best, we are interested in *optimizing the total amount of wealth* in addition to re-allocating it.
----------
...and lastly, *I'm not aware of a better alternative*.
I'm not even completely clear on what 'anti-capitalists' would prefer.
That response is a failing of the imagination and a locking in of swallowed ideological pills starting from early education. We are taught to think there's no better way, that allowing the means of production to be owned by a select few is a necessary evil, and that only the best of us are capable of getting there.
It's a horrible system and the only reason we dont have a better one is because people repeat this mantra for it's preeminence
People who are down voting this comment, why? I am genuinely curious why you think I'm wrong. I'm not a combative arguer so feel free
>People who are down voting this comment, why? I am genuinely curious why you think I'm wrong. I'm not a combative arguer so feel free
Because whatever the content of your argument, it's completely offset by the condescending "you're brainwashed" nature of your commentary.
Sorry about that but I think capitalism apologists ARE brainwashed to an extent. So if that necessarily destroys my argument then I guess we have to really walk on eggshells to make any difference
I didn't downvote you, but I would wager you get downvoted because you characterize the top comment negatively without offering anything in the way of critique or counterargument.
I thought it was a constructive critique that
1) this bromide that we don't know of a better alternative is heavily repeated because we dare not imagine alternatives seriously
2) that this comes from early education and from our elders.
3) that to support or be sympathetic to capitalism is to support a bourgeoisie that we trick ourselves into thinking is a product of social natural selection
To go into more detail I would probably need a specific response, otherwise I would recreate Alain Badiou's "In Praise of Politics" through reddit comments, into the void without any other apparently engaged people involved
So your critique is that no pro-capitalist can imagine anything different? You really think no one here at AskALiberal has ever imagined any other system?
Because, at least to me, that doesn't really seem to engage with the point, that's mostly just dismissing the person's claim. That'd be like if I used the claim "socialists are just mad capitalism isn't working out for them" to dismiss arguments in favor of socialism; it's not really engaging with socialist argument, merely dismissing the people making those arguments.
I think socialists tend to be a little too optimistic about how much of the exploitation that occurs under capitalism is the fault of capitalism, rather than the fault of human nature.
That said, I think I'm a little more sympathetic to /u/LexLextr's perspective than most people here seem to be.
It's unquestionable that, in the current system, most private businesses are not democratic institutions. They are run like dictatorships, where the owner(s) or the highest levels of management are the dictators.
As for freedom, let's not overstate how much freedom people in our society have to "choose their own path."
Your ability to pay your rent, to buy food, to access healthcare, is all held hostage by your boss, who very often seeks to exploit the power that they wield over you. In many states they have the power to fire you for no reason.
Workers right now are lucky enough to find themselves in a labor shortage, so it's not difficult to find another job if you need to, but that hasn't always been the case and it likely won't always be the case in the future.
>...and lastly, *I'm not aware of a better alternative.*
The alternative I would propose is not all that different: an expansion in the number of worker co-operatives, both private and public.
In a private worker co-op, you'd still have all the benefits of capitalism you describe (free exchange of goods and services, private property rights and right to contract, freedom to choose your own path) but workplaces would be more democratized than they are now, and ideally that would mean less worker exploitation.
But I'd also want to expand public co-ops, in which services are provided at cost, rather than having costs unnecessarily inflated for the sole purpose of generating profits. My county gets its electricity from a public energy worker co-op. It works great and our monthly electricity bills are low and consistent from month to month. Everyone's happy with it, even though 2/3s of the people here are Republicans.
After the last few years, I think Texans in particular would benefit from having their electric grid controlled by public co-ops rather than by private enterprise.
>It's unquestionable that, in the current system, most private businesses are not democratic institutions. They are run like dictatorships, where the owner(s) or the highest levels of management are the dictators.
Capitalism never implies that private business are run democratically.
There is some interesting theory on when economist predict a firm versus a market. Firms are more authoritarian in that there is a boss, and org structure -- a hierarchy. These do not exist in a market. The short story is economist predict firms will exist where that structure more efficiently produces results than a market will -- and vice versa.
Here is a famous econ paper from the days when some economists where good writers: [The Nature of the Firm (Coase)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x)
As somebody who studied evolutionary biology the phrase "human nature" always gives me goosebumps. The only human nature is to be able to adapt to the society we live in. Judging human nature, by how humans live under capitalism is like saying human nature is to cough when you only look at coal miners.
Thank you for understanding where I am coming from, I just wanted to here liberals praising coops :) as that would be natural progression of the ideology in my opinion.
> The only human nature is to be able to adapt to the society we live in.
I think it's human nature to be inherently self-interested. That's to be expected considering we're individualistic biological beings who need certain resources to survive. I'm naturally going to care about my own kids' well-being before I think about anyone else's.
>I think it's human nature to be inherently self-interested.
I disagree, although there's always a necessary self-interest component. Below a certain threshold of self interest, one would not survive. It's doesn't have to be a dominant interest though.
I think it's actually the foundational nature of humans to be tribal. To bond strongly with those "inside the tribe" and to conflict strongly with those "outside the tribe." This is why tribal communities are so... well... communal.
The catch is that the definition of inside and outside are variable, and change with culture. It could be family, or city, or nation, etc. For example, I find that the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is how big they consider their own tribe to be. Some people can't include different races, some people only include direct family. Some people even expand their sense of tribe so far that it includes other species. It's extremely variable, but the core behavior remains constant. Those seen as on the inside are to be helped, those seen as on the outside are competition.
Sort of. At an evolutionary or population wide level, sure. At an individual level though, the actions of any given person are very frequently genuinely altruistic. It's instinctive, which reduces the amount of personal agency involved. So it's not a choice to be self-interested and thus to invest in community, it's just how people are. You know, human nature. :)
It sounds like you’re describing free markets liberal law enforcement as capitalism. This isn’t capitalism as I understand it. Both markets at laws protecting property can exist without capitalism. Capitalism as I understand it is the model in which the people that are entitled to the excess wealth generated by labor are owners of a company, as opposed to the people that generate the value.
> It sounds like you’re describing free markets liberal law enforcement as capitalism. This isn’t capitalism as I understand it. Both markets at laws protecting property can exist without capitalism. Capitalism as I understand it is the model in which the people that are entitled to the excess wealth generated by labor are owners of a company, as opposed to the people that generate the value.
What is the alternative? (Ideally, the *best* alternative, and one that still includes "markets" and "laws protecting property".)
> Workers owning the means of production in a market system.
How would you shift ownership to the workers while still having "laws protecting property"?
It would require the same way that laws were created protecting property when we moved from feudalism to capitalism. It does require removing property from people who unjustly hold it under the current system.
> It does require removing property from people who unjustly hold it under the current system.
I think I get it.
Under the current system -- a capitalist system -- we use "law to protect private property rights"; no one may have their property seized outside of taxation, legal judgements, and eminent domain (which requires compensation, equal in value).
Under an alternate system -- a non-capitalist system -- they would use "law to protect private property rights" similarly, but their "private property rights" would be deemed null-and-void if they were determined to hold the property "unjustly".
Is that correct?
In your view where workers capture excess value, you are really saying that we can't use markets for wages. Ironically that also weakens what it means to own something. Specifically your ownership of either your business or your time is fundamentally weaker in this structure.
I basically agree much. Great response. I wouldn’t say re-distribute by taxing. I would say constrain and steer the whole economic system with a series of taxes and incentives and regulations…. Largely the same in the long run.
>I'm not aware of a better alternative.
I'd say that social democracy and democratic socialism are both better alternatives with a proven track record.
Democracy was born in non democratic situations, even in places with a Supreme ruler, people still voted on some things, even in place with non capitalistic economies there were some people who had power via their ownership of capital and used that power for personal profit
Capitalism has it's uses, but it should be heavily constrained and not relied upon as a foundational element of society.
I'd rather see capitalism exist within a social framework. Going the other way around leaves society vulnerable to authoritarian takeover via the wealth>power conversion (see: Trumpism, monopolies, dark money, etc).
Actually (if we removed the word heavily) I think we could get broad agreement on that statement:
> Capitalism has it's uses, but it should be ~~heavily~~ constrained and not relied upon as a foundational element of society.
*I* certainly agree with that.
I agree that it's mostly a difference of scale. I'd also like to see explicit legal barriers preventing capitalism from becoming dominant over social processes. There is a lot of overlap though.
Thats free markets not capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy and take action based motivated by personal profit.
A system where more control of the economy is vested in the people, especially labor, and actions are motivated by public as well as personal benefit
>Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy...
Not the same guy, but I'd argue this is actually true. Not by definition, but by result. Because wealth can be exchanged (at varying rates) for power, the accumulation of wealth gives the power to grant oneself more privilege, and thus the accumulation of even more wealth, and so on, until monopoly exists.
Thus, *in the absence of a more powerful regulating force,* capitalism necessarily results in the concentration of both wealth and power amongst a few private entities.
That italicized conditional is very important though.
The power of that regulating force is directly correlated with the degree of accumulation. More regulation = less accumulation and less inequity of both wealth and power. Less regulation = more inequity. Ultimately, in the complete absence of regulation, capitalism becomes self consuming and will not exist for long.
I know you don't disagree on the fundamentals I just like discussing these things. :)
> ...this is actually true. Not by definition, but by result.
Yep; and there is a place for that discussion, but not when we are seeking definitions.
Debates over capitalism will be unproductive if the participants are using different definitions.
> > Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy...
> It's literally the first definition when you Google it
When I [Google it,](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Capitalism) I get:
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
...and in the sidebar:
>Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit...
If I [Google your definition, in quotes,](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Capitalism+is+an+economic+system+where+a+small+number+of+private+entities+have+a+large+amount+of+control+over+the+economy%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AJOqlzXjVRaDgfPiYNmey3du7MXCFZteYA%3A1679600300979&ei=rKocZPa1O8_EkPIPgteduAU&ved=0ahUKEwj2u7fa5vL9AhVPIkQIHYJrB1cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Capitalism+is+an+economic+system+where+a+small+number+of+private+entities+have+a+large+amount+of+control+over+the+economy%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFDQB1j0EmDIFGgBcAF4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) I get:
>No results found for "Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy".
Are you saying that:
> A system where more control of the economy is vested in the people, especially labor, and actions are motivated by public as well as personal benefit
...would *not* qualify as capitalism?
Well, it's authoritarian by definition since on your private property you have the authoritarian rule as the owner. With rules created by the government of course, but that doesn't change the inner workings of private property. This is also not the only way in which it is authoritarian, as it creates a different class of people with different incentives, that has more power then the rest and as a minority with more power is a type of authoritarian control (plutocracy, oligarchy and such). Also, this can translate to it controlling the supposed democratic state.
I understand that many people believe markets = capitalism but that is actually not true, you can have state capitalism or market socialism. Markets existed before capitalism, that is specific in its view of property and contracts.
A better alternative is a democracy, right? So people can have control over decisions that affect them and not be forced by the system to allow some authority to decide for them.
There are many anti-capitalists, and they do not agree with each other (you have both right and left critique of it) I just wanted to see how people here can work around this obvious contradiction
An economic system in which the means of production are owned privately and used to produce goods to be sold on the market for profit. Something like that.
And why is that NECESSARILY authoritarian and against freedom and Democracy?
(An important note, Capitalism does NOT mean "government doesn't do anything.")
Because the owners make decisions about their property even though it's the workers who do what they say. So owners decide for workers.
This economical power also grants them power over the government but also generally over their communities as they gatekeep resources people need to survive etc.
> > And why is that NECESSARILY authoritarian...?
> Because the owners make decisions about their property...
Isn't it also (or *more*) authoritarian if others make decisions about the owners' property?
---------
Also:
'I own this so I make the decisions about it' does not seem particularly authoritarian to me.
Well that is the point, you are putting ownership over the freedom of the people. Its like saying that the king owns his kingdom and to deny him this right is authoritarian
Should *everything* produced be decided democratically?
The whole point of capitalism is that if you don't want to do business with a company you can go elsewhere. Obviously there need to be rails on that, but that's why virtually no one is seriously arguing for it to be unregulated.
Many people (myself included) consider capitalism to be the voluntary exchange of goods and services in which there is no restriction on who owns the means of production.
If you want to sell your labor to company A you're free to do so. If you think company A is run by scumbags then sell your labor to company B.
No, however places of production should be operated democratically, the point is that collective decisions are controled democratically and individual decisions individually.
You're more than free to get together with like-minded people and form a co-op under capitalism.
Isn't it more authoritarian to say that all businesses should function how you want, rather than how they want? The whole premise of capitalism is that if you don't like a particular workplace you can go elsewhere. That's not the case with countries and citizenship so the whole authoritarian analog isn't really applicable.
We could also make slavery and feudalism legal, to make society even less authoritarian. After all banning authoritarian institutions is in itself authoritarian. But in alls seriousness no, allowing capitalism and forcing people to respect private property is more authoterian
> ...you are putting ownership over the freedom of the people.
No, we aren't.
We are recognizing a right to property. Or, phrased another way, "the freedom of the people" to own and control their own property.
Freedom is this context is the freedom to starve or to be homeless or to go bankrupt or die because you can't afford medical care. I've had enough of this sort of freedom.
Well, kingship was claimed by force or divine mandate, but if I raised money to start a business I feel like that *does* give me ownership of it (combined with any of my investors). People are welcome to work for me (or not) for ownership shares (or not) based on our private agreement.
The first kings conquered areas and did a lot of work. Still i agree to a point, investment should be rewarded, for sure. Not by absolute control over the production unit. That only creates anti-democratic problems.
I think you’re underestimating the work that founders put in or overestimating the work that later employees put in (proportionally). In my company, for example, the two founders designed and created the technology and were the only workers for years before they first hired extra help. Those hires freely came on board under negotiated conditions and compensation (up to and including ownership shares). However, after several years the meaningfulness of that ownership has been pretty diluted by investors, expenses (that is, debt to creditors), and other employees. By then most people would just prefer a salary to the hoped-for value of some fractional percent ownership. And my company is only like 10 years old!
Well, there is a difference between simple creating a company and investing in it and inventing new technologies. Both should be rewarded and there are some niche examples where democratic ownership doesn't make sense, like if one person is an essential worker, like a model or an actor for example. But those are all still workers and you can have worker ownership with some workers having more power. I am not dogmatic about this, however working there is one condition, rent is not.
And if I point to all communist countries (China, USSR, Argentina) and point out how they too had people who made decisions for workers and workers had little to no power to resist. Would the counter be "that's not communism"?
If I point out that every communist country has had powerful people control the government and gatekeep resources people needed to survive, the argument again, would be "those weren't communism"?
I am not a "communism is evil" person. I am not a "Capitalism is perfect " person. I am a "we have a real world in front of us, what decisions can we realistically make to help improve the lives of the people?" Kind of person.
I believe corruption and greed are part of our societies, and corruption and greed will exist in capitalism, communism, socialism, or any other system. So minimizing the harm that comes from corruption and greed should be the goal.
Conflating capitalism with the problems caused by corruption and greed is exactly as near sited as conflating the failures of the USSR with communism.
If you ask me to explain to you the system and then give me an example of the different system by your own admission, then yeah...those are not the same system.
Well, the argument is that whatever that is, I don't want it. It sounds similar to capitalism.
Well, communism a a type of anarchism, and all these societies called themselves socialist and followed Marxist Leninism, not because of it being worker ownership, but hyper industrialization and defense from being exploited by capitalistic nations.
Well the best way handle corruption is to not have a small minorty of people with different incentives like in capitalism or marxist leninism.
No need for revolution, just support democracy in the woekrplace
I don't really feel like we have a discussion here.
As far as I can tell, most who support communism want to use magic to get us from here to there.
I'll happily switch over to communism after they wave the wand. But the only route to communism I see is through a pretty nasty revolution that is 90% certain to kill my wife (she needs medication every month. There is no world where supply chains are not disrupted when all factories are sized from it's owners and taken over.)
Because I don't think they have a plan, I spend my time and energy focusing on how to improve the current system.
So, that's more of less the root of the disagreement. They dismiss all real world examples of communism, and provide no real world examples of how it works, and provide no pathway to achieve it beyond "if everyone would just decide to be communist, we would be communist."
In order to convince people, a communist has to do more than sit on a moral high horse and criticize me for not being on that horse too.
Not only that. But equally important, is that the workers are the ones generating value.
The worst thing that can happen to a business owner is that they become a "worker". This is especially telling and related to capitalism, because our entire culture is structured around "being your own boss" and speaks about workers and labor as if its a "negative" thing.
No, value is generated by a variety of factors. Workers in a factory can make all the chairs they want, but if none of those chairs are ever bought by consumers, then they have no value.
>No, value is generated by a variety of factors. Workers in a factory can make all the chairs they want, but if none of those chairs are ever bought by consumers, then they have no value.
The issue is that not that labor has inherent value. It's entirely possible for much labor to be expended to create a product with no value; the workers share for their labor would, in this case, be zero.
The issue is that value is not possible without labor, as without labor there would be no product.
>Air is valuable, sunlight is valuable.
Gather some up and sell it then :P
No, the value is not in it's inherent existance. I'm not arguing that and never have. It's value is in the labor necessary to harness it and direct it where it's needed. Air may have zero value to most people, but to a scuba diver, it's valuable indeed. Why? Because labor must be expended to harvest the air, package it, and deliver to the diver in a form they can use.
But that value needs more than labor to exist. It depends also on the consumer being willing to pay for said product. This is why most Economists say that the Labor Theory of Value is way too reductive.
No. Those chairs were made by workers who labored over the creation of that commodity. Their time, and their labor have value. Their labor generated a commodity that can be sold for a value at an amount to generate profit.
If the business owner can't find consumers then that isn't the fault of the worker. And that doesn't negate the value of the worker or what they created. It means their boss isn't good at running a chair business.
I suppose the thing is that we don't view capitalism as authoritarian economic system; a command economy would seem to fit that description much better.
Those two thinks are not opposites. Opposite to capitalism is socialism. The command economy is in opposition to the market system. Two different axes.
You can have market socialism and state capitalism.
So you're saying that both non-authoritarian (market) capitalism and authoritarian (command) socialism are both among the possible options, yes? I'll take the former, then.
How about non-authoterian market system (libertarian/democratic socialism)? Why would you ignore that option so you can pick authoritarian market system (capitalism) xD interesting choice.
If I wasn’t clear, my point was that market capitalism *isn’t* authoritarian. Just the opposite, really.
Interestingly, democratic socialism can exist within a capitalist economy, it just isn’t mandated. I’m fine with that - if people want to organize and conduct business in that way (e.g. worker co-ops), they’re welcome to do so.
I know, that is the joke. You think authoritarian control is less authoritarian than democratic control. Because you think banning authoterian control is too authoterian. Well maybe we should allow slavery and feudalism do unleash true freedom :D
As I said many times. Private ownership gives the owner all the decision power over the property. Socialistic worker ownership gives democratic power to all equally. Thus one is authoterian and the other democratic. Both can have markets.
It literally is though.
Capitalism: An economic system where the owner of an asset has sole control over that asset.
Authoritarianism: A governmental system where the leader of the system has sole control over that system.
>Capitalism: An economic system where the owner of an asset has sole control over that asset.
Um, are you talking about the system that is centered around public access to shared ownership of business through stock purchases?
No, because companies enter that arrangement voluntarily and not necessarily. It's not an arrangement that's inherent to capitalism. Privately held companies are equally common.
No, it's self-authority. The ultimate foundational freedom. There is no rational nor moral framework for another person to have bodily authority over you (without your consent, eg military service).
> What about bits that...my body is used to create?
No, Comrade. Your urine is needed by the party.
We will process it into saltpeter to fight The Great Patriotic War and phosphorous to fertilize our crops.
/s
I certainly do. Your life and all it's choices are dictated by capitalistic forces. Even the laws you obey are subjected to them. They shape our politics in every area
But in the workplace, the owner has literary authoritarian control over the property. That is literary authoritarian by definition. There is no democracy.
Also, the system creates a special group of people with proportionally more power than the rest, which is unelected and makes decisions that affect a lot of people without their representation.
Also, the system incentives destroy democracy in the state to benefit the unelected authoritarian minority.
> ...in the workplace, the owner has literary authoritarian control over the property.
If a woman tells you she is pro-choice, and phrases that by saying:
>My body, my choice
...does that mean she is claiming literal "authoritarian control over" her body?
If not, why?
----------
Generally, we don't use the word "authoritarian" to describe people having authority over what belongs to them.
This:
>favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
...is the [Google/OED](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=define%3A+authoritarian) definition of "authoritarian".
You already can do that. In fact you are encouraged in most companies to help own the means of production through stock purchases (literally purchasing a stake and part of the company) whereby you can vote on leadership and direction.
Landscapers also don't give a say in family decisions, they are simply hired help without any ownership or stake in the family.
In government sure. But not in the workplace. If I’m directing a film, I don’t want people to vote me out mid-production. They’re free to quit and leave.
No it isn’t. I’m not forcing anybody to work for me and I make sure everyone is fairly compensated. They make the choice to work for me of their volition and they can quit whenever they so choose.
Because we already have it, and I think more freedoms would get lost trying to overthrow our capitalist system than in well-regulated capitalism.
And I don’t buy arguments that capitalism is authoritarian. I think calling it such is crying wolf in the worst way.
Why should someone not get sole control over their property? If you own stock in a company and are voting on who should be elected to the board, why should someone who doesnt own stock in the company get a vote? The system seems pretty democratic to me.
>Why should someone not get sole control over their property?
It's more a question about what we allow to be considered property in the first place.
For example we can ask why someone should be allowed to have exclusionary control over a piece of land indefinitely.
Look at reasons we don't allow people to own rivers or air, a lot of that could be applied to other natural resources.
Why should people that participate in the generation of an asset (eg, employees of a company) be denied the same freedom? They have a reasonable stake in that company as well, proportional to their contribution. Same as an investor. Yet capitalism denies them that right.
Because it’s not their company. They didn’t contribute the same amount of capitol as the owner and the investors. If you want control of a business, you have to buy in with your own capitol.
No. Labor generates wealth. Consumers accumulate wealth (via their labor) and then transfer it to another party of their choice (eg, make a purchase).
The wealth spent by the consumer must still be generated via labor first.
Nobody is denying them anything. Employees are free to negotiate how they would like to be paid and they are also free to use their salaries to buy stock if they so choose. They are free to join unions and negotiate collectively as well. You are acting like there are rules against stock options or something.
I'm not gonna defend big capitalism like Walmart or Google...
...but how does a dude running a restaurant or a dudette running a bookstore limit your democracy or freedom?
Entrepreneurship is not capitalism. Capitalism is deriving income from SOMEONE ELSE'S labor, purely through the ownership of the tools, land, etc. A person who runs a store isn't a capitalist. A person who owns the building they rent to the person running a store is a capitalist.
Because capitalism is freedom. Even countries the Republicans like to call socialist pay for all of those "socialist" programs by taxing a thriving capitalist economy.
Well its some kind of freedom, but there are obvious ways in which it is authoritarian. But I get your answer to this contradiction is simply..."Too bad, we cannot do better, economy has to be authoritarian and not democratic, that would bring less freedom,"
Capitalism is the opposite of authoritarian. It develops naturally among any free group where property rights are recognized. Historically it has required authoritarian force, including mass government murder, to impose socialist economies.
Communism lends itself to authoritarianism to a much greater degree than capitalism. Once you get past a certain number of people, a few hundred or so, you need a strong authoritarian state apparatus to decide what “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” actually means in practice.
I support capitalism with respect to goods and services where markets work well—where competition has a low barrier to entry, where lots of participants are able to produce a wide range of goods, where there isn’t some immense negative consequence being imposed elsewhere in the economy, and where consumers have a lot of realistic and understandable choice and flexibility as to what they buy and when.
I support heavy regulation or nationalization where markets don’t work well. Ex. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, banking, etc.
I don’t need some government bureaucrat telling me how many shoes I’ll buy, or what I’m going to have for dinner—but I do want a government bureaucrat making sure electricity is available at a price I can afford, or that I can get clean drinking water from the tap.
That said, for things which should be governed by markets, I’m very much in favor of the idea that you take your chances with the risks—if gains are privatized, the losses should be as well.
The government should focus on assuring a baseline quality of life for everyone—regardless of its impact on markets—and business should be allowed to fill in the rest more or less as it will.
I am a progressive who absolutely believes in capitalism.
I think it’s inaccurate & a disservice to characterize it as an “authoritarian economic system”. Certainly not automatically & necessarily. The devil is in the details and the implementation.
Maybe academically speaking. But I live in the real world. And I want to make the world a better place. And the adage, “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good“ comes to mind.
I don’t see a viable alternative model. I prefer the nationalization of key industries, an expansion of the welfare state, increased unionization, and codetermination so workers have representatives on the board of directors.
Capital allotment and risk are the main issues with a coop based economy. Look up Econoboi’s videos on the subject. Coops are cool, but an economy they do not make
The freedom to contract is emphasised and strong property rights are also emphasised in many liberal political theories, such as by Locke. That is the philosophical basis for capitalism.
In the end however. Many liberals are committed to capitalism because they believe it is practical.
Show me an actual, tangible alternative that doesn't rely on fantasy in order to work, and will work better, and I'm on board.
In the meantime, I have to deal with the real world where putting in strong social safety nets and reigning in the worst parts of capitalism is the least bad way forward.
I don’t support Capitalism. The Capitalist class is a malignant tumor on our society. I support Capitalism only to the extent that I participate in existing in a Capitalist society with no alternative.
Both can be bad for democracy actually... after all the problem is precisely the lack of democracy in capitalism that I am critiquing and I wonder how many liberals actually understand that their economical system is inherently anti-democratic.
How are you making your decisions in a private company? The decisions about the company are done by the owner. The state is not the only option, come and join me even further left my centrist friend :)
“Those in glass houses should not throw stones” comes to mind here. Someone disagreed with you and you put “Uh-huh.” You really aren’t an authority on maturity.
Capitalism is literally economic freedom in action. Imposing restrictions on property rights, trade, and employment necessarily limits economic liberty.
Do you have a better plan? One with an actual proven track record? If not, then run some tests and prove your system is better with at least some small scale results.
So wait, you can only replace a system with something that has "proven track record" but the only way to have a proven track record is to implement something....
Because economics is far to complex to be described by one word
The market economy works extremely well in many areas where competition is fair and abundant and is a result of thousands of years of evolution and refinement. The excesses come when mega corps distort the market and use political power to distort the playing field
The USSR attempted to implement a centrally planned economy. It failed catastrophically
The best we have come up with so far is a mix of the market economy with government intervention applied as needed. No country has found the perfect balance and no economy is perfect
First of all it didn't fail catastrophically, it was bad but not *that bad* in comparison to capitalist history.
Second of all, I am not talking about an authoritarian state replacing a minority of unelected authoritarian owners, that sounds stupid to me. I am just arguing over democracy, as I understand liberals like democracy. But I guess only little bit in the state...
Your confusion with regards to equality can be rectified with the following understanding: we are not equal. We're legally equal, which is as close as we can get. And if you want to argue that we're not 100% legally equal, fair enough, but we're just about as close as we've ever been, and continuing to make progress towards that goal.
ITT: liberals proving that they are basically just conservatives who are more tolerant of LGBTQ and minorities. Their obsession with propping up the monied classes is exactly the same as conservatives. It's no wonder liberals are so much more willing to side with conservatives than progressives. They care more about the same thing. Ensuring billionaire oligarchs have the freedom to continue to suck up all of our societies wealth. They can't even begin to comprehend alternative economic systems because they have the same delusions as conservatives on communism and socialism. So many of these "arguments" could be lifted directly from /r/askconservatives just with better spelling. "But what about China?! HAHA check mate. CAPITALISM RULES!"
I don’t support capitalism, but I don’t think economic systems are inherently authoritarian or free for the most part. You can have authoritarianism under capitalism just like you can under socialism, and vice versa.
I don’t know that there’s really any perfect system, we can only strive towards something more egalitarian, free and equal.
Because I think socialism is a more egalitarian system that would lead to a more just, equitable and equal outcome with fewer hierarchies. I don’t think my way is the only way, or even necessarily absolutely correct. But I certainly hope we can move away from capitalism at some point.
I think it can be. In my view it’s political systems rather than economic ones that determine authoritarianism. Socialism vs capitalism is more an issue of equity/equality rather than freedom/authoritarianism to my mind.
I don't support capitalism, so much as I'm skeptical of there being a better system. If I could Thanos Snap my fingers and replace capitalism with a system that's more fair, more just and humane, kinder to the people in the system, I would do it. But I can't.
Every other alternative to capitalism that people have tried to implement has led to massive human rights abuses, and has been less effective than capitalism at distributing goods to those who need them. If someone can come up with a better system I'll be the first one pushing for it but until that happens I'm going to spend my energy trying to mitigate capitalism's harms. It seems a much more practical use of my time.
I am 90% with you on that. Just the 10% of maybe considering that trying to fight a small minority of unelected authoritarian rulers is an uphill battle and should be done by democratizing the workplace, so we get rid of this small minority and hups accidentally made it more democratic.
>, it's literary in the definition.
It is?
I'll just quote Phillip Blond on this one:
*Socialism dispossesses the ordinary worker for the sake of the general good while capitalism dispossesses the ordinary worker for the sake of the monopolizing capitalist. So in effect, these are two economic models of dispossession*
In capitalism, the worker has to listen to the owner. In socialism, the worker has to listen to the democracy which he is part of. Clearly one is more authoterian
I don't support it. I hope some day we will have enough people with the analytical courage to support a reimagination of the economy. Too easy to think it's the only thing possible. Too easy to point to false starts of communism as narration for socialistic impossibility
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. As liberals, I assume you support capitalism, it's literary in the definition. You also support democracy and enlightenment values such as freedom and equality, to some degree or another. So how can you both support freedom and equality together with an authoritarian economic system that is actively antithetical to those values? Do you believe that allowing authoritarian control of the economy and the ability of those economical leaders to affect the liberal state creates the freest society? Or could you please explain to me how you solve this contradiction? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why do you support capitalism, if you are for democracy and freedom? >As liberals, I assume you support capitalism...You also support democracy and enlightenment values such as freedom and equality, to some degree or another. Capitalism -- as I and most pro-capitalism people see it -- is something like: 1. Allowing the free exchange of goods and services, 2. Using the law to protect private property rights and the right to contract, and... 3. Allowing people the freedom to choose their own path. We don't view it as "authoritarian". ---------- Nevertheless... * We tend not to support completely hands-off, laissex-faire capitalism. We prefer something of a 'mixed economy' in which the government has a role in regulating economic activity, and assuring competition. * We accept that it produces inequality, but we believe that can be improved-upon by taxing the rich and spending the revenue on the betterment of society. * Furthermore, capitalism is an *incredible* engine for creating wealth. So, by accepting that the government has a role in redistributing wealth for the greater good, and believing that that is for the best, we are interested in *optimizing the total amount of wealth* in addition to re-allocating it. ---------- ...and lastly, *I'm not aware of a better alternative*. I'm not even completely clear on what 'anti-capitalists' would prefer.
Started typing a response, then saw this comment, and figured nothing else to add. Sums it up for me about perfectly.
That response is a failing of the imagination and a locking in of swallowed ideological pills starting from early education. We are taught to think there's no better way, that allowing the means of production to be owned by a select few is a necessary evil, and that only the best of us are capable of getting there. It's a horrible system and the only reason we dont have a better one is because people repeat this mantra for it's preeminence People who are down voting this comment, why? I am genuinely curious why you think I'm wrong. I'm not a combative arguer so feel free
>People who are down voting this comment, why? I am genuinely curious why you think I'm wrong. I'm not a combative arguer so feel free Because whatever the content of your argument, it's completely offset by the condescending "you're brainwashed" nature of your commentary.
Sorry about that but I think capitalism apologists ARE brainwashed to an extent. So if that necessarily destroys my argument then I guess we have to really walk on eggshells to make any difference
I didn't downvote you, but I would wager you get downvoted because you characterize the top comment negatively without offering anything in the way of critique or counterargument.
I thought it was a constructive critique that 1) this bromide that we don't know of a better alternative is heavily repeated because we dare not imagine alternatives seriously 2) that this comes from early education and from our elders. 3) that to support or be sympathetic to capitalism is to support a bourgeoisie that we trick ourselves into thinking is a product of social natural selection To go into more detail I would probably need a specific response, otherwise I would recreate Alain Badiou's "In Praise of Politics" through reddit comments, into the void without any other apparently engaged people involved
So your critique is that no pro-capitalist can imagine anything different? You really think no one here at AskALiberal has ever imagined any other system? Because, at least to me, that doesn't really seem to engage with the point, that's mostly just dismissing the person's claim. That'd be like if I used the claim "socialists are just mad capitalism isn't working out for them" to dismiss arguments in favor of socialism; it's not really engaging with socialist argument, merely dismissing the people making those arguments.
ok
I think socialists tend to be a little too optimistic about how much of the exploitation that occurs under capitalism is the fault of capitalism, rather than the fault of human nature. That said, I think I'm a little more sympathetic to /u/LexLextr's perspective than most people here seem to be. It's unquestionable that, in the current system, most private businesses are not democratic institutions. They are run like dictatorships, where the owner(s) or the highest levels of management are the dictators. As for freedom, let's not overstate how much freedom people in our society have to "choose their own path." Your ability to pay your rent, to buy food, to access healthcare, is all held hostage by your boss, who very often seeks to exploit the power that they wield over you. In many states they have the power to fire you for no reason. Workers right now are lucky enough to find themselves in a labor shortage, so it's not difficult to find another job if you need to, but that hasn't always been the case and it likely won't always be the case in the future. >...and lastly, *I'm not aware of a better alternative.* The alternative I would propose is not all that different: an expansion in the number of worker co-operatives, both private and public. In a private worker co-op, you'd still have all the benefits of capitalism you describe (free exchange of goods and services, private property rights and right to contract, freedom to choose your own path) but workplaces would be more democratized than they are now, and ideally that would mean less worker exploitation. But I'd also want to expand public co-ops, in which services are provided at cost, rather than having costs unnecessarily inflated for the sole purpose of generating profits. My county gets its electricity from a public energy worker co-op. It works great and our monthly electricity bills are low and consistent from month to month. Everyone's happy with it, even though 2/3s of the people here are Republicans. After the last few years, I think Texans in particular would benefit from having their electric grid controlled by public co-ops rather than by private enterprise.
>It's unquestionable that, in the current system, most private businesses are not democratic institutions. They are run like dictatorships, where the owner(s) or the highest levels of management are the dictators. Capitalism never implies that private business are run democratically. There is some interesting theory on when economist predict a firm versus a market. Firms are more authoritarian in that there is a boss, and org structure -- a hierarchy. These do not exist in a market. The short story is economist predict firms will exist where that structure more efficiently produces results than a market will -- and vice versa. Here is a famous econ paper from the days when some economists where good writers: [The Nature of the Firm (Coase)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x)
As somebody who studied evolutionary biology the phrase "human nature" always gives me goosebumps. The only human nature is to be able to adapt to the society we live in. Judging human nature, by how humans live under capitalism is like saying human nature is to cough when you only look at coal miners. Thank you for understanding where I am coming from, I just wanted to here liberals praising coops :) as that would be natural progression of the ideology in my opinion.
> The only human nature is to be able to adapt to the society we live in. I think it's human nature to be inherently self-interested. That's to be expected considering we're individualistic biological beings who need certain resources to survive. I'm naturally going to care about my own kids' well-being before I think about anyone else's.
>I think it's human nature to be inherently self-interested. I disagree, although there's always a necessary self-interest component. Below a certain threshold of self interest, one would not survive. It's doesn't have to be a dominant interest though. I think it's actually the foundational nature of humans to be tribal. To bond strongly with those "inside the tribe" and to conflict strongly with those "outside the tribe." This is why tribal communities are so... well... communal. The catch is that the definition of inside and outside are variable, and change with culture. It could be family, or city, or nation, etc. For example, I find that the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is how big they consider their own tribe to be. Some people can't include different races, some people only include direct family. Some people even expand their sense of tribe so far that it includes other species. It's extremely variable, but the core behavior remains constant. Those seen as on the inside are to be helped, those seen as on the outside are competition.
> I think it's actually the foundational nature of humans to be tribal. And that too is motivated by self-interest.
Sort of. At an evolutionary or population wide level, sure. At an individual level though, the actions of any given person are very frequently genuinely altruistic. It's instinctive, which reduces the amount of personal agency involved. So it's not a choice to be self-interested and thus to invest in community, it's just how people are. You know, human nature. :)
I'd say that capitalism brings out the worst in human nature.
Incentivizes and rewards it, even.
It sounds like you’re describing free markets liberal law enforcement as capitalism. This isn’t capitalism as I understand it. Both markets at laws protecting property can exist without capitalism. Capitalism as I understand it is the model in which the people that are entitled to the excess wealth generated by labor are owners of a company, as opposed to the people that generate the value.
> It sounds like you’re describing free markets liberal law enforcement as capitalism. This isn’t capitalism as I understand it. Both markets at laws protecting property can exist without capitalism. Capitalism as I understand it is the model in which the people that are entitled to the excess wealth generated by labor are owners of a company, as opposed to the people that generate the value. What is the alternative? (Ideally, the *best* alternative, and one that still includes "markets" and "laws protecting property".)
Workers owning the means of production in a market system.
> Workers owning the means of production in a market system. How would you shift ownership to the workers while still having "laws protecting property"?
It would require the same way that laws were created protecting property when we moved from feudalism to capitalism. It does require removing property from people who unjustly hold it under the current system.
> It does require removing property from people who unjustly hold it under the current system. I think I get it. Under the current system -- a capitalist system -- we use "law to protect private property rights"; no one may have their property seized outside of taxation, legal judgements, and eminent domain (which requires compensation, equal in value). Under an alternate system -- a non-capitalist system -- they would use "law to protect private property rights" similarly, but their "private property rights" would be deemed null-and-void if they were determined to hold the property "unjustly". Is that correct?
In your view where workers capture excess value, you are really saying that we can't use markets for wages. Ironically that also weakens what it means to own something. Specifically your ownership of either your business or your time is fundamentally weaker in this structure.
I basically agree much. Great response. I wouldn’t say re-distribute by taxing. I would say constrain and steer the whole economic system with a series of taxes and incentives and regulations…. Largely the same in the long run.
>I'm not aware of a better alternative. I'd say that social democracy and democratic socialism are both better alternatives with a proven track record.
I support both of them, but both have so far only ever existing within a capitalistic framework.
Yeah, just like democracy and capitalism did, before they didn't...
Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here.
Democracy was born in non democratic situations, even in places with a Supreme ruler, people still voted on some things, even in place with non capitalistic economies there were some people who had power via their ownership of capital and used that power for personal profit
Capitalism has it's uses, but it should be heavily constrained and not relied upon as a foundational element of society. I'd rather see capitalism exist within a social framework. Going the other way around leaves society vulnerable to authoritarian takeover via the wealth>power conversion (see: Trumpism, monopolies, dark money, etc).
You do know I agree with you, right?
Sorry. Hard to keep track the thread is moving fast :P
Actually (if we removed the word heavily) I think we could get broad agreement on that statement: > Capitalism has it's uses, but it should be ~~heavily~~ constrained and not relied upon as a foundational element of society. *I* certainly agree with that.
I agree that it's mostly a difference of scale. I'd also like to see explicit legal barriers preventing capitalism from becoming dominant over social processes. There is a lot of overlap though.
This is a logical fallacy, really
Thats free markets not capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy and take action based motivated by personal profit. A system where more control of the economy is vested in the people, especially labor, and actions are motivated by public as well as personal benefit
> Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy... [Citation Needed]
>Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy... Not the same guy, but I'd argue this is actually true. Not by definition, but by result. Because wealth can be exchanged (at varying rates) for power, the accumulation of wealth gives the power to grant oneself more privilege, and thus the accumulation of even more wealth, and so on, until monopoly exists. Thus, *in the absence of a more powerful regulating force,* capitalism necessarily results in the concentration of both wealth and power amongst a few private entities. That italicized conditional is very important though. The power of that regulating force is directly correlated with the degree of accumulation. More regulation = less accumulation and less inequity of both wealth and power. Less regulation = more inequity. Ultimately, in the complete absence of regulation, capitalism becomes self consuming and will not exist for long. I know you don't disagree on the fundamentals I just like discussing these things. :)
> ...this is actually true. Not by definition, but by result. Yep; and there is a place for that discussion, but not when we are seeking definitions. Debates over capitalism will be unproductive if the participants are using different definitions.
Fair enough.
It's literally the first definition when you Google it
> > Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy... > It's literally the first definition when you Google it When I [Google it,](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Capitalism) I get: >an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. ...and in the sidebar: >Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit... If I [Google your definition, in quotes,](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Capitalism+is+an+economic+system+where+a+small+number+of+private+entities+have+a+large+amount+of+control+over+the+economy%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AJOqlzXjVRaDgfPiYNmey3du7MXCFZteYA%3A1679600300979&ei=rKocZPa1O8_EkPIPgteduAU&ved=0ahUKEwj2u7fa5vL9AhVPIkQIHYJrB1cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Capitalism+is+an+economic+system+where+a+small+number+of+private+entities+have+a+large+amount+of+control+over+the+economy%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFDQB1j0EmDIFGgBcAF4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) I get: >No results found for "Capitalism is an economic system where a small number of private entities have a large amount of control over the economy".
Are you saying that: > A system where more control of the economy is vested in the people, especially labor, and actions are motivated by public as well as personal benefit ...would *not* qualify as capitalism?
Well, it's authoritarian by definition since on your private property you have the authoritarian rule as the owner. With rules created by the government of course, but that doesn't change the inner workings of private property. This is also not the only way in which it is authoritarian, as it creates a different class of people with different incentives, that has more power then the rest and as a minority with more power is a type of authoritarian control (plutocracy, oligarchy and such). Also, this can translate to it controlling the supposed democratic state. I understand that many people believe markets = capitalism but that is actually not true, you can have state capitalism or market socialism. Markets existed before capitalism, that is specific in its view of property and contracts. A better alternative is a democracy, right? So people can have control over decisions that affect them and not be forced by the system to allow some authority to decide for them. There are many anti-capitalists, and they do not agree with each other (you have both right and left critique of it) I just wanted to see how people here can work around this obvious contradiction
You have rule over your own body, is that authoritarian?
so according to OP, does this mean "conservatives" want to conserve things? Like rainforests and wildlife and the environment?
Define: Capitalism
An economic system in which the means of production are owned privately and used to produce goods to be sold on the market for profit. Something like that.
And why is that NECESSARILY authoritarian and against freedom and Democracy? (An important note, Capitalism does NOT mean "government doesn't do anything.")
Because the owners make decisions about their property even though it's the workers who do what they say. So owners decide for workers. This economical power also grants them power over the government but also generally over their communities as they gatekeep resources people need to survive etc.
> > And why is that NECESSARILY authoritarian...? > Because the owners make decisions about their property... Isn't it also (or *more*) authoritarian if others make decisions about the owners' property? --------- Also: 'I own this so I make the decisions about it' does not seem particularly authoritarian to me.
Well that is the point, you are putting ownership over the freedom of the people. Its like saying that the king owns his kingdom and to deny him this right is authoritarian
Should *everything* produced be decided democratically? The whole point of capitalism is that if you don't want to do business with a company you can go elsewhere. Obviously there need to be rails on that, but that's why virtually no one is seriously arguing for it to be unregulated.
Where are you getting that that is the point of capitalism?
Many people (myself included) consider capitalism to be the voluntary exchange of goods and services in which there is no restriction on who owns the means of production. If you want to sell your labor to company A you're free to do so. If you think company A is run by scumbags then sell your labor to company B.
No, however places of production should be operated democratically, the point is that collective decisions are controled democratically and individual decisions individually.
You're more than free to get together with like-minded people and form a co-op under capitalism. Isn't it more authoritarian to say that all businesses should function how you want, rather than how they want? The whole premise of capitalism is that if you don't like a particular workplace you can go elsewhere. That's not the case with countries and citizenship so the whole authoritarian analog isn't really applicable.
We could also make slavery and feudalism legal, to make society even less authoritarian. After all banning authoritarian institutions is in itself authoritarian. But in alls seriousness no, allowing capitalism and forcing people to respect private property is more authoterian
> ...you are putting ownership over the freedom of the people. No, we aren't. We are recognizing a right to property. Or, phrased another way, "the freedom of the people" to own and control their own property.
Yeah, exactly. Freedom for property first and then the freedom to act later.
> Freedom for property The property isn't free; the people are.
The people with the property are freer and people without have to submit themselves to those who have.
Freedom is this context is the freedom to starve or to be homeless or to go bankrupt or die because you can't afford medical care. I've had enough of this sort of freedom.
Well, kingship was claimed by force or divine mandate, but if I raised money to start a business I feel like that *does* give me ownership of it (combined with any of my investors). People are welcome to work for me (or not) for ownership shares (or not) based on our private agreement.
The first kings conquered areas and did a lot of work. Still i agree to a point, investment should be rewarded, for sure. Not by absolute control over the production unit. That only creates anti-democratic problems.
I think you’re underestimating the work that founders put in or overestimating the work that later employees put in (proportionally). In my company, for example, the two founders designed and created the technology and were the only workers for years before they first hired extra help. Those hires freely came on board under negotiated conditions and compensation (up to and including ownership shares). However, after several years the meaningfulness of that ownership has been pretty diluted by investors, expenses (that is, debt to creditors), and other employees. By then most people would just prefer a salary to the hoped-for value of some fractional percent ownership. And my company is only like 10 years old!
Well, there is a difference between simple creating a company and investing in it and inventing new technologies. Both should be rewarded and there are some niche examples where democratic ownership doesn't make sense, like if one person is an essential worker, like a model or an actor for example. But those are all still workers and you can have worker ownership with some workers having more power. I am not dogmatic about this, however working there is one condition, rent is not.
And if I point to all communist countries (China, USSR, Argentina) and point out how they too had people who made decisions for workers and workers had little to no power to resist. Would the counter be "that's not communism"? If I point out that every communist country has had powerful people control the government and gatekeep resources people needed to survive, the argument again, would be "those weren't communism"? I am not a "communism is evil" person. I am not a "Capitalism is perfect " person. I am a "we have a real world in front of us, what decisions can we realistically make to help improve the lives of the people?" Kind of person. I believe corruption and greed are part of our societies, and corruption and greed will exist in capitalism, communism, socialism, or any other system. So minimizing the harm that comes from corruption and greed should be the goal. Conflating capitalism with the problems caused by corruption and greed is exactly as near sited as conflating the failures of the USSR with communism.
If you ask me to explain to you the system and then give me an example of the different system by your own admission, then yeah...those are not the same system. Well, the argument is that whatever that is, I don't want it. It sounds similar to capitalism. Well, communism a a type of anarchism, and all these societies called themselves socialist and followed Marxist Leninism, not because of it being worker ownership, but hyper industrialization and defense from being exploited by capitalistic nations. Well the best way handle corruption is to not have a small minorty of people with different incentives like in capitalism or marxist leninism. No need for revolution, just support democracy in the woekrplace
I don't really feel like we have a discussion here. As far as I can tell, most who support communism want to use magic to get us from here to there. I'll happily switch over to communism after they wave the wand. But the only route to communism I see is through a pretty nasty revolution that is 90% certain to kill my wife (she needs medication every month. There is no world where supply chains are not disrupted when all factories are sized from it's owners and taken over.) Because I don't think they have a plan, I spend my time and energy focusing on how to improve the current system. So, that's more of less the root of the disagreement. They dismiss all real world examples of communism, and provide no real world examples of how it works, and provide no pathway to achieve it beyond "if everyone would just decide to be communist, we would be communist." In order to convince people, a communist has to do more than sit on a moral high horse and criticize me for not being on that horse too.
Not only that. But equally important, is that the workers are the ones generating value. The worst thing that can happen to a business owner is that they become a "worker". This is especially telling and related to capitalism, because our entire culture is structured around "being your own boss" and speaks about workers and labor as if its a "negative" thing.
No, value is generated by a variety of factors. Workers in a factory can make all the chairs they want, but if none of those chairs are ever bought by consumers, then they have no value.
>No, value is generated by a variety of factors. Workers in a factory can make all the chairs they want, but if none of those chairs are ever bought by consumers, then they have no value. The issue is that not that labor has inherent value. It's entirely possible for much labor to be expended to create a product with no value; the workers share for their labor would, in this case, be zero. The issue is that value is not possible without labor, as without labor there would be no product.
Of course value is possible with labour. Air is valuable, sunlight is valuable. No human labor was involved in the creation of either.
>Air is valuable, sunlight is valuable. Gather some up and sell it then :P No, the value is not in it's inherent existance. I'm not arguing that and never have. It's value is in the labor necessary to harness it and direct it where it's needed. Air may have zero value to most people, but to a scuba diver, it's valuable indeed. Why? Because labor must be expended to harvest the air, package it, and deliver to the diver in a form they can use.
But that value needs more than labor to exist. It depends also on the consumer being willing to pay for said product. This is why most Economists say that the Labor Theory of Value is way too reductive.
No. Those chairs were made by workers who labored over the creation of that commodity. Their time, and their labor have value. Their labor generated a commodity that can be sold for a value at an amount to generate profit. If the business owner can't find consumers then that isn't the fault of the worker. And that doesn't negate the value of the worker or what they created. It means their boss isn't good at running a chair business.
A product that nobody is willing to pay for has no value.
And a product that people are or not willing to pay for is always generated by workers.
And with capitol provided by their business owner.
How is this authoritarian. Seems like it means I am free to start most any business I want whereas socialism it would be taken by the state.
Wrong. Starting a business under a socialist system does not mean that business is taken by the state.
And yet, under the USSR, this happened to many many businesses.
Because the means of production were largely not controlled by the people. But by bureaucrats and the state.
That’s not how socialism works.
Its what happened in many socialist countries in the past. So...maybe in theory, in practice well.....not much good has come from it.
I mean there’s also socialists societies where it didn’t happen. You’re just confusing Marxist Leninism (a type of socialism) with all forms of it.
The same could be said for an absolute monarchy. You are free to set up your own kingdom on some random island.
Please explain how capitalism is antithetical to democracy and freedom instead of just assuming that this is a fact.
I suppose the thing is that we don't view capitalism as authoritarian economic system; a command economy would seem to fit that description much better.
Those two thinks are not opposites. Opposite to capitalism is socialism. The command economy is in opposition to the market system. Two different axes. You can have market socialism and state capitalism.
So you're saying that both non-authoritarian (market) capitalism and authoritarian (command) socialism are both among the possible options, yes? I'll take the former, then.
How about non-authoterian market system (libertarian/democratic socialism)? Why would you ignore that option so you can pick authoritarian market system (capitalism) xD interesting choice.
If I wasn’t clear, my point was that market capitalism *isn’t* authoritarian. Just the opposite, really. Interestingly, democratic socialism can exist within a capitalist economy, it just isn’t mandated. I’m fine with that - if people want to organize and conduct business in that way (e.g. worker co-ops), they’re welcome to do so.
I know, that is the joke. You think authoritarian control is less authoritarian than democratic control. Because you think banning authoterian control is too authoterian. Well maybe we should allow slavery and feudalism do unleash true freedom :D
A non-authoritarian market system sounds a lot like capitalism, no?
As I said many times. Private ownership gives the owner all the decision power over the property. Socialistic worker ownership gives democratic power to all equally. Thus one is authoterian and the other democratic. Both can have markets.
>As liberals, I assume you support capitalism...an authoritarian economic system... We don't consider it "an authoritarian economic system".
It literally is though. Capitalism: An economic system where the owner of an asset has sole control over that asset. Authoritarianism: A governmental system where the leader of the system has sole control over that system.
>Capitalism: An economic system where the owner of an asset has sole control over that asset. Um, are you talking about the system that is centered around public access to shared ownership of business through stock purchases?
No, because companies enter that arrangement voluntarily and not necessarily. It's not an arrangement that's inherent to capitalism. Privately held companies are equally common.
Authoritarian countries also usually enter such arrangement voluntarily. Hitler, after all, was democratically elected.
The great Achilles heel of democracy - it contains within it the path to it's own destruction. A regrettable but necessary flaw.
That's not what authoritarianism is though. By that definition, literally every system of government is authoritarian, and that's just not true.
So is bodily autonomy authoritarian too since it implies someone has absolute ownership of something?
No, it's self-authority. The ultimate foundational freedom. There is no rational nor moral framework for another person to have bodily authority over you (without your consent, eg military service).
What about bits that fall off my body or my body is used to create?
> What about bits that...my body is used to create? No, Comrade. Your urine is needed by the party. We will process it into saltpeter to fight The Great Patriotic War and phosphorous to fertilize our crops. /s
I certainly do. Your life and all it's choices are dictated by capitalistic forces. Even the laws you obey are subjected to them. They shape our politics in every area
But in the workplace, the owner has literary authoritarian control over the property. That is literary authoritarian by definition. There is no democracy. Also, the system creates a special group of people with proportionally more power than the rest, which is unelected and makes decisions that affect a lot of people without their representation. Also, the system incentives destroy democracy in the state to benefit the unelected authoritarian minority.
> litera*r*y The word you are looking for is: >litera*ll*y ...or in this case, just: >literal (You make the same mistake in the original post, above.)
Yeah English is my second language and I respond to dozens of comments, sorry
> ...in the workplace, the owner has literary authoritarian control over the property. If a woman tells you she is pro-choice, and phrases that by saying: >My body, my choice ...does that mean she is claiming literal "authoritarian control over" her body? If not, why? ---------- Generally, we don't use the word "authoritarian" to describe people having authority over what belongs to them. This: >favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. ...is the [Google/OED](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=define%3A+authoritarian) definition of "authoritarian".
Capitalism isn’t an “authoritarian economic system.”
Say that again after you try to vote in a new boss at work.
You already can do that. In fact you are encouraged in most companies to help own the means of production through stock purchases (literally purchasing a stake and part of the company) whereby you can vote on leadership and direction. Landscapers also don't give a say in family decisions, they are simply hired help without any ownership or stake in the family.
Plutocracy is not democracy. Also its still authoritarian as people decide for other people
Every socialist system put into practice has been plutocratic to an even larger extent.
Why would I want to vote in a new boss at work? It’s not my company and I don’t want the hassle.
It's not a question of whether you want to. It's a question of whether you can. You can't. That's a freedom that capitalism does not offer.
You're more than free to vote with your feet and go find a workplace that does align with what you want.
Good.
That is literary a dictatorship. Do you not care about freedom and democracy?
In government sure. But not in the workplace. If I’m directing a film, I don’t want people to vote me out mid-production. They’re free to quit and leave.
Sounds like a feudal lord. Very authoritarian mindset.
No it isn’t. I’m not forcing anybody to work for me and I make sure everyone is fairly compensated. They make the choice to work for me of their volition and they can quit whenever they so choose.
Still authoritarian, just because they have a choice of the master doesn't fix that.
Because we already have it, and I think more freedoms would get lost trying to overthrow our capitalist system than in well-regulated capitalism. And I don’t buy arguments that capitalism is authoritarian. I think calling it such is crying wolf in the worst way.
How is capitalism authoritarian?
It grants the owner of an asset/company/etc sole control over that asset. Same as a dictator has sole control of their government.
Even if that were true, how is that authoritarian?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/11zrfuy/comment/jddyhvy/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
So it’s a failure to differentiate between power and authoritarianism.
Why should someone not get sole control over their property? If you own stock in a company and are voting on who should be elected to the board, why should someone who doesnt own stock in the company get a vote? The system seems pretty democratic to me.
>Why should someone not get sole control over their property? It's more a question about what we allow to be considered property in the first place. For example we can ask why someone should be allowed to have exclusionary control over a piece of land indefinitely. Look at reasons we don't allow people to own rivers or air, a lot of that could be applied to other natural resources.
Why should people that participate in the generation of an asset (eg, employees of a company) be denied the same freedom? They have a reasonable stake in that company as well, proportional to their contribution. Same as an investor. Yet capitalism denies them that right.
Because it’s not their company. They didn’t contribute the same amount of capitol as the owner and the investors. If you want control of a business, you have to buy in with your own capitol.
They should have stake proportional to their contribution.
I agree. They have to contribute capitol via purchasing shares or stock.
Their labor constitutes a contribution because it generates wealth.
No it doesn’t. Consumers paying for a product or service generates wealth.
No. Labor generates wealth. Consumers accumulate wealth (via their labor) and then transfer it to another party of their choice (eg, make a purchase). The wealth spent by the consumer must still be generated via labor first.
Nobody is denying them anything. Employees are free to negotiate how they would like to be paid and they are also free to use their salaries to buy stock if they so choose. They are free to join unions and negotiate collectively as well. You are acting like there are rules against stock options or something.
I'm not gonna defend big capitalism like Walmart or Google... ...but how does a dude running a restaurant or a dudette running a bookstore limit your democracy or freedom?
Entrepreneurship is not capitalism. Capitalism is deriving income from SOMEONE ELSE'S labor, purely through the ownership of the tools, land, etc. A person who runs a store isn't a capitalist. A person who owns the building they rent to the person running a store is a capitalist.
That sounds a lot like owning a business.
Because capitalism is freedom. Even countries the Republicans like to call socialist pay for all of those "socialist" programs by taxing a thriving capitalist economy.
Well its some kind of freedom, but there are obvious ways in which it is authoritarian. But I get your answer to this contradiction is simply..."Too bad, we cannot do better, economy has to be authoritarian and not democratic, that would bring less freedom,"
Capitalism is the opposite of authoritarian. It develops naturally among any free group where property rights are recognized. Historically it has required authoritarian force, including mass government murder, to impose socialist economies.
You mean command economies. They are not the same thing. Socialism requires democracy; socialism without democracy is not socialism.
Communism lends itself to authoritarianism to a much greater degree than capitalism. Once you get past a certain number of people, a few hundred or so, you need a strong authoritarian state apparatus to decide what “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” actually means in practice.
I support capitalism with respect to goods and services where markets work well—where competition has a low barrier to entry, where lots of participants are able to produce a wide range of goods, where there isn’t some immense negative consequence being imposed elsewhere in the economy, and where consumers have a lot of realistic and understandable choice and flexibility as to what they buy and when. I support heavy regulation or nationalization where markets don’t work well. Ex. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, banking, etc. I don’t need some government bureaucrat telling me how many shoes I’ll buy, or what I’m going to have for dinner—but I do want a government bureaucrat making sure electricity is available at a price I can afford, or that I can get clean drinking water from the tap. That said, for things which should be governed by markets, I’m very much in favor of the idea that you take your chances with the risks—if gains are privatized, the losses should be as well. The government should focus on assuring a baseline quality of life for everyone—regardless of its impact on markets—and business should be allowed to fill in the rest more or less as it will.
I am a progressive who absolutely believes in capitalism. I think it’s inaccurate & a disservice to characterize it as an “authoritarian economic system”. Certainly not automatically & necessarily. The devil is in the details and the implementation.
Private property, the core of capitalism is inherently antidemocratic.
No it isn’t
Who makes the decisions in the private company? The owner, others listen. No democracy.
Maybe academically speaking. But I live in the real world. And I want to make the world a better place. And the adage, “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good“ comes to mind.
I don’t see a viable alternative model. I prefer the nationalization of key industries, an expansion of the welfare state, increased unionization, and codetermination so workers have representatives on the board of directors.
What about democratically owned firms?
Capital allotment and risk are the main issues with a coop based economy. Look up Econoboi’s videos on the subject. Coops are cool, but an economy they do not make
The freedom to contract is emphasised and strong property rights are also emphasised in many liberal political theories, such as by Locke. That is the philosophical basis for capitalism. In the end however. Many liberals are committed to capitalism because they believe it is practical.
Show me an actual, tangible alternative that doesn't rely on fantasy in order to work, and will work better, and I'm on board. In the meantime, I have to deal with the real world where putting in strong social safety nets and reigning in the worst parts of capitalism is the least bad way forward.
I don’t support Capitalism. The Capitalist class is a malignant tumor on our society. I support Capitalism only to the extent that I participate in existing in a Capitalist society with no alternative.
I disagree with your fundamental premise. Command economies are the ones that are antithetical to freedom and democracy.
Both can be bad for democracy actually... after all the problem is precisely the lack of democracy in capitalism that I am critiquing and I wonder how many liberals actually understand that their economical system is inherently anti-democratic.
What’s anti-democratic about being able to make your own economic decisions as opposed to them being made by the government?
How are you making your decisions in a private company? The decisions about the company are done by the owner. The state is not the only option, come and join me even further left my centrist friend :)
Right because the owner owns the business. If I don’t like the direction the business is going in I can leave or start my own.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Those in glass houses should not throw stones” comes to mind here. Someone disagreed with you and you put “Uh-huh.” You really aren’t an authority on maturity.
The freest and most democratic countries in the world are all capitalist economies.
I support freedom and equality and the common good. I tolerate capitalism. For now. Let's do better. Somehow.
When I read this I rolled my eyes so hard they almost got stuck.
Capitalism is literally economic freedom in action. Imposing restrictions on property rights, trade, and employment necessarily limits economic liberty.
Do you have a better plan? One with an actual proven track record? If not, then run some tests and prove your system is better with at least some small scale results.
So wait, you can only replace a system with something that has "proven track record" but the only way to have a proven track record is to implement something....
Every economic system can be authoritarian. I'm not sure that any of them are authoritarian as a rule.
Because economics is far to complex to be described by one word The market economy works extremely well in many areas where competition is fair and abundant and is a result of thousands of years of evolution and refinement. The excesses come when mega corps distort the market and use political power to distort the playing field The USSR attempted to implement a centrally planned economy. It failed catastrophically The best we have come up with so far is a mix of the market economy with government intervention applied as needed. No country has found the perfect balance and no economy is perfect
First of all it didn't fail catastrophically, it was bad but not *that bad* in comparison to capitalist history. Second of all, I am not talking about an authoritarian state replacing a minority of unelected authoritarian owners, that sounds stupid to me. I am just arguing over democracy, as I understand liberals like democracy. But I guess only little bit in the state...
Your confusion with regards to equality can be rectified with the following understanding: we are not equal. We're legally equal, which is as close as we can get. And if you want to argue that we're not 100% legally equal, fair enough, but we're just about as close as we've ever been, and continuing to make progress towards that goal.
ITT: liberals proving that they are basically just conservatives who are more tolerant of LGBTQ and minorities. Their obsession with propping up the monied classes is exactly the same as conservatives. It's no wonder liberals are so much more willing to side with conservatives than progressives. They care more about the same thing. Ensuring billionaire oligarchs have the freedom to continue to suck up all of our societies wealth. They can't even begin to comprehend alternative economic systems because they have the same delusions as conservatives on communism and socialism. So many of these "arguments" could be lifted directly from /r/askconservatives just with better spelling. "But what about China?! HAHA check mate. CAPITALISM RULES!"
I don’t support capitalism, but I don’t think economic systems are inherently authoritarian or free for the most part. You can have authoritarianism under capitalism just like you can under socialism, and vice versa. I don’t know that there’s really any perfect system, we can only strive towards something more egalitarian, free and equal.
Well, why are you a socialist then? To me, the reason I am is exactly that I want more democracy in the economy.
Because I think socialism is a more egalitarian system that would lead to a more just, equitable and equal outcome with fewer hierarchies. I don’t think my way is the only way, or even necessarily absolutely correct. But I certainly hope we can move away from capitalism at some point.
Yeah, exactly its less authoritarian
I think it can be. In my view it’s political systems rather than economic ones that determine authoritarianism. Socialism vs capitalism is more an issue of equity/equality rather than freedom/authoritarianism to my mind.
I don't support capitalism, so much as I'm skeptical of there being a better system. If I could Thanos Snap my fingers and replace capitalism with a system that's more fair, more just and humane, kinder to the people in the system, I would do it. But I can't. Every other alternative to capitalism that people have tried to implement has led to massive human rights abuses, and has been less effective than capitalism at distributing goods to those who need them. If someone can come up with a better system I'll be the first one pushing for it but until that happens I'm going to spend my energy trying to mitigate capitalism's harms. It seems a much more practical use of my time.
I am 90% with you on that. Just the 10% of maybe considering that trying to fight a small minority of unelected authoritarian rulers is an uphill battle and should be done by democratizing the workplace, so we get rid of this small minority and hups accidentally made it more democratic.
I'm all for unions and co-ops, but I really don't see that as anything more than ameliorating capitalism, not somehow replacing it.
Well if you do coops everywhere, that is market socialism.
>, it's literary in the definition. It is? I'll just quote Phillip Blond on this one: *Socialism dispossesses the ordinary worker for the sake of the general good while capitalism dispossesses the ordinary worker for the sake of the monopolizing capitalist. So in effect, these are two economic models of dispossession*
In capitalism, the worker has to listen to the owner. In socialism, the worker has to listen to the democracy which he is part of. Clearly one is more authoterian
I don't support it. I hope some day we will have enough people with the analytical courage to support a reimagination of the economy. Too easy to think it's the only thing possible. Too easy to point to false starts of communism as narration for socialistic impossibility