What’s in a word? Well, often times…everything! In this case, understanding what ‘Capitalism‘ really is, and more importantly, where the term came from, can reveal a startling revelation: that ‘Capitalism‘ is not the same things as the free market!
Now, this is not going to be a short post, nor will it be exhaustive or easy to digest. And, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, I can almost guarantee this post will cause you some indigestion. However, if you will stick with me, by the time I am done, I promise you will have plenty to consider and — just maybe — sound reason to change the way you understand a great deal of the propaganda in our current culture.
Let me start by proving that ‘Capitalism’ is not the same thing as the free market. We will look at their…
View original post 1,474 more words
25 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Capitalism Is Not The Same As The Free Market”
Joe as Communist. This episodic attempt fails each time.
Sorry, but words have definitions, and definitions cannot lie.
Plus, when you argue I am a communist while I am in the middle of arguing for the FREE MARKET… Well, you sort of show your own Fascism, brother 😦
Communism IS fascism, we’ve been all over this like a cheep suit on Twiggy.
It’s good for clicks though … i get it..:- ).
LOL. I know why you say that, but Fascism and Communism are not quite the same. Even the Fascists/Communists know this. That’s why Hitler and Stalin went at each other. 🙂
They went at each other precisely BECAUSE they were the same with the same goals.
They were both playing for the same league ….. like two Bruce Gender teams playing for the pro LGBTQRST-Agenda NFL.
You are on your game with the laughs, but you and I both know that Communism is State Capitalism (State owns the means of production) whereas Fascism is Crony Capitalism (State controls the private owners of production). They are different in how they operate. Communism is what we see in China and Fascism is what we have in America today. Both are systems of State control, but one actually allows for the accumulation of wealth by private people — so long as they remain in the good side of govt.
You are thin on accuracy and loose with definition ….. not as loose or as thin as a North Korean “pleasure Girl” on her first trip to a Wal-Mart mind you…..but loose none the less.
So long as any Oligarchs stay on the good side of govt it matters not what they or the govt is called. The name game is a handicapping strategy. North Korea’s Oligarchs are the oppo-sames with Russia’s ( now) and with Germany’s ( then).
While one can make a similar argument for American Oligarchs ( as You and Bernie are currently trying to do)…..and there would be standing for some of that Argument ( Elon Musk….Zuckerberg…Tesla….GE-under Obammy….and etc..)……Nevertheless a Solyndra failure happens because of the rumblings of the Larger Free Market Capitalist system. Both with individual purchasing power and the flow of funds by many different players.
There are no Solyndra failures in the “pleasure Girls” country or even Russia today. China is trying to harness this Adam Smith market force with ventures like Alibaba. Because they know the difference between Mr Market and Madame Woo( Gang of 5 ) shall we say.
That should be Gang of 4….. I am ordinally challanged.
Bill Gates told you this nation is run by people with enough money to buy the government. But Obama has shown you that the government can still control those rich individuals. Look what he did to BP. Solindra was never meant to make money anymore than any of the other bail outs. It was all payback. Hitler did the same thing (see the book “Hitler’s Beneficiaries”).
Either way, saying we have a free market in this country is just flat out wrong! What’s more, you know it. The laws have been written such that the small company cannot get past the gatekeepers without their permission. This is EXACTLY what gates was saying: he should have hired a lobbyist to shut Jobs down before Apple ever got going. And THAT, Don, is fascism — and BY DEFINITION! Not mine, Mussolini’s (but then, what would the inventor know about the definition, right?).
On the other hand, under Communism, none of this happens because the State owns everything and leaves Party people to run things (until they ‘disappear’). This is why Stalin didn’t have to worry about favoring Porche over Heinkel. He just said “DO!” and if they didn’t, they ‘disappeared.’ That is Communism.
See, there IS a difference. But then, as I said at the outset, this post will cause heartburn for those who cannot accept definitions.
Twitter then or MySpace ….. and the Solar and Windmill “Sector” at large. Mr. Free Market operates outside of govts and in all but the most extreme cases of Oligarchiness ( North Korea…Cuba…Venezuela….Detroit..), he intervenes in much the same manner as in Freer countries. China as example…..and Russia scrambling for relevence in the wake of the WTI/ Brent downdraft, show his reach.
Your last clause is vaguely reminiscent of the phrase “climate Change Deniers”, assuming disagreement to be due to non-acceptance of your definitions.
The “definitions” as you interpret them are not reflective of reality….that’s where the disagreement lies.
Sorry, but I use Mussolini’s definition of Fascism (and since he coined it, there is no higher authority). And I use the dictionary definition of Communism. So, unless I have misunderstood the definition of definition, I do not see where I am the one who is misusing the words — especially since I linked to the definitions. But, hey, feel free to keep telling me that you and not the inventor or dictionary are the final arbiter of meaning. After all, we live in the age of “living meanings.’ 😉
Now you are falling back on the Litany of definition as defined by academics and ” the vested interest” as they say in the Christmas Carol.
Skipping along that path Communism is the highest achievement of man…towards…man. And so forth. I think the phrase Liberty vs Tyranny sums it pretty precisely …. without having to resort to ” depends what the meaning of is…is”. Especially wrt political life as experienced in the last 120 years or so.. Thus I’ll go with the bard….. “A rose by any other name….”.
And upon reflection, given the long history of justification for confiscation of peoples rights, property and dignity, as evidenced by Il Duce’s self-definition, I rather think the age of ‘living meaning’ is a longer one than we have cared to admit. :- ).
I’m glad you finally admitted I am correct. Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
(See, without the dictionary definition, all I understood just now was you said you were wrong and I am right 🙂 ).
Don, telling me that I am wrong to use the actual definition of a word rather than your personal definition is… Well, Progressive. It is of the same spirit of control as anything else you claim to oppose. Why? I am arguing FOR the free market. So why? Why are you using fallacy to argue against me? You are usually better than this, but one cannot reason with a person who rejects the dictionary definition of a word.
And please don’t give me this “in the real world” crap. That is what my paragraph about State and Crony Capitalism is all about — the real world. So, either refute m on the merits, or, well, keep trying to deny the meaning of words. It won’t change the fact that they mean what they mean. it will only place you firmly in the middle of the crowed that argues “It depends on the meaning of is.”
It is a hard thing, I know, for many to grasp that the world is not defined by dictionaries.
No, but your words sure are — and those who would reject those definitions have rejected logic. Why bother listening to such people? They are — effectively (i,e, ‘in the real world’) mad
Definitions not all logic dependent.
If you say so, but that answer would have drawn you an F in my logic classes.
Actually I was Straight A’s in logic all the way to the Graduate Boolean Algebra and other applications courses ( software creation ) that I took as an undergraduate where I got an A+.
Spelling would have been the F….and rightly earned I must say… ;- )
I never made the mistake of Formalism being mistaken for explorations about language or ITS applications.
As one example…. Il Duce’s “definition” of his political policies and eventual political party have little bearing on the reality fascism as practiced and experienced by real people in real time. Especially in relation to the stripping of their Natural Rights. A Stripping indistinguishable for many from similar under the Self-defined Communism of Joe Steel.
But then that is some of that “real world crap”….. so…….
You would still get an F for denying a definition, and you know it. It is a blatant fallacy, and an intentional use of fallacy in a rational argument would have never stood in my classes. But then, since you’re arguing Wilson, maybe your logic was… ‘fungible?’
A definition in mathematical logic is not the same as one in practical politics….even Saul Kripke would disagree with you.
Mussolini defined fascism as ‘corporatism,’ in that, the State organizes, controls and directs the various interests and industries in society while allowing them to remain in private hands — SO LONG AS THEY OBEY! This is why the original symbol of Fascism was the facine: a single stick made from many sticks bound together. The binding was the government, and together, they became a weapon — represented by the blade in the facine. In many ways, this is what “community organizers” are: fascists.
This is not Communism, where the State is all there is.
That you are using the “in the real world” argument to brush away the meaning of words is very interesting to me. It smacks of Wilson and the ‘Living Document’ argument. But then, that’s real world crap, too — isn’t it?
I’m a bit surprised you don’t see the circular reasoning and fallacy you are repeating.
Because I’m not. If a definition has no meaning, then words have no meaning. If words have no meaning, they stand for whatever the reader/listener decides they do and THAT is post-modern BS that leads to the ‘Living Document” argument. Straight line — no circular reasoning at all. Those who argue otherwise — like you — are looking to get around the consequences that flow from admitting the definition.
But then, you are correct: we are a free nation. I mean, I do not have to pay taxes, get a license or ask permission from the govt. to do anything. And there are DEFINITELY no laws the benefit large corporations such that they can afford to pay the fines and fees that put smaller start ups out of business. And there is NO WAY that corproations have to bow to the government without trial — like BP did. I mean, NONE of that happens in a free society, and since NONE of this has happened here, you must be correct.
On second thought, let’s talk about the real world. Since I just listed a FEW of the REAL WORLD examples that prove we are not what you argue we are, let me ask you something:
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?!
“..(See, without the dictionary definition, all I understood just now was you said you were wrong and I am right:-) ”
You have understood incorrectly.