4 ms·

Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism. Capitalism has enough of a history to counter the claim that it (if by 'it' you mean 'free-enterprise econ

Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism. Capitalism has enough of a history to counter the claim that it (if by 'it' you mean 'free-enterprise economics') is a force for 'human liberation'. It appears that perhaps you are talking about ideas, instead of actual implementations of free-market capitalism. If so, then let's limit criticism of opposing economic policy to their ideas, as well. And by that measure, capitalism cannot hardly offer 'human liberation all over the world' to compete with socialism and communism. If rulers are the worry (and, still talking in the realm of ideas), then capitalism fails at providing the greatest possible equitable division of rulership. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. If you want to discuss implementations, on the other hand, then that is the point where we get to bring up history and the facts, and we can draw out a nice chart of pros and cons with all the various competing economic ideologies for the purpose of determining which one offers the most 'human liberation'. When we're done with that, then let's factor that back into the discussion of ideas, pinpoint where the implementations fail the ideas, and figure out how to correct the implementation deficits in whichever idea was found to possess the highest 'human liberation' factor.

tokenadult 13y ago
Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism You are welcome to define the terms, with references to show that your definitions are mainstream, if you like. On my part, I will simply squarely disagree with you. For one thing, capitalism is not an ism. There was never an influential Capitalist Manifesto to serve as a foil or point of departure for Marx's Communist Manifesto as a statement of an ideology. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. This statement is contradicted by worldwide immigration patterns and by the comparison between systems I could observe with my own eyes when I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China beginning in 1982. More freedom and more ownership and more desirable aspects of daily life occur in places that practice free trade and free enterprise, and immigration lawyers are well aware of this. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States? A concrete answer to that question might be a start on making this discussion more informative. AFTER EDIT: Replying to the kind reply below, I notice that it is even less concrete than the previous comment from the same commenter, and as I type this edit to my comment, the question "What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States?" has yet to be answered. I refer to immigration statistics, of course, because they are a response by actual living human beings to where the trade-offs for living are best. As an American who has lived overseas for six years of my life, I know it is never easy for anyone to leave the country of birth to go to a new country, possibly a country with a different language, a different climate, a different cuisine, different laws and customs, and separation from childhood friends and relatives. But when people make the hard decision to emigrate from the country of birth and immigrate to a new country, they often move to the United States. To be sure, throughout this discussion no discussant has even made the explicit claim the United States exemplifies a "free-market capitalism" approach to economics, but suggesting that for the sake of discussion, it occurs to me that people who have considered the trade-offs like free-market capitalism just fine, and are more eager to leave the other systems than to endorse them.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  You're all over the map in your comments. First, capitalism need not have a Capitalist Manifesto, and it is, for all intents and purposes, an -ism. The word has been around for about 260 years, as an -ism. Or do you mean something more by your use of -ism? Moreover, 'free enterprise' as a synonym for capitalism is a recent PR move of the last century. Free markets are not inherently the domain of capitalism. When someone, like the grandparent to whom you're replying, picks out 'free market capitalism' they typically are not assigning total blame to the operations of free enterprises in total, but to the abuses that are inherent to capitalist economics. Moreover, there are more writings than one can easily count, and a thoroughgoing cultural narrative with hegemonic force surrounding the idea of capitalism in the US, that more than serves as a 'foil or point of departure' for the Communist Manifesto. Additionally, if you're going to make a shallow trumpeting for capitalism against socialism or communism, you really ought not limit yourself to the young Marx's Communist Manifesto. That's a bit like referring to the Federalist Papers as a your defense of free-enterprise capitalism. If you haven't read the mature Marx's works on economic theory, or the multitude of socialist and Marxist thinkers who have followed, then I am at a loss as to how you can prove your case. A concrete answer on what exactly you mean by 'human liberation' would be the better starting point for making this discussion more informative. If you're going to discuss economic systems as forces for 'human liberation', then let's define what is meant by 'human liberation'. I already offered up a potential starting point based on defining the 'human liberation' factor found in the respective economic ideas vs 'human liberation' factor realized in their implementation. You've not offered any significant rejoinder on either count, except to mention personal anecdotes, 'more freedom', 'more ownership', and the wholly undefined 'more desirable aspects of daily life'. You're offering up words that have no concrete meaning (except perhaps in your mind, which I cannot read). Your prior criticism included 'economic rulers', and capitalism has the fewest systemic 'rulers' of the other two systems you criticized. Or perhaps you should define what you mean by 'rulers' so we're not talking past each other. My statement of the facts of socialist or communist economic ownership elicited statements about immigration patterns, anecdote, and ill-defined phrases? What, specifically, do worldwide immigration patterns have to do with 'human liberation'? Is immigration a requirement or feature of liberation? Your inclusion of this as a response to statements I made on the principles of economic ownership found in socialist and/or communist economic principles belie understanding what I wrote. And how exactly does economic regulation figure into discussing the merits of capitalism as a force for 'human liberation' contra socialism or communism?

tokenadult 13y ago

Free-enterprise economics != free-market capitalism You are welcome to define the terms, with references to show that your definitions are mainstream, if you like. On my part, I will simply squarely disagree with you. For one thing, capitalism is not an ism. There was never an influential Capitalist Manifesto to serve as a foil or point of departure for Marx's Communist Manifesto as a statement of an ideology. Communism and socialism both offer a far more expansive systemic build of ownership of the means of production and the exercise of that power. This statement is contradicted by worldwide immigration patterns and by the comparison between systems I could observe with my own eyes when I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China beginning in 1982. More freedom and more ownership and more desirable aspects of daily life occur in places that practice free trade and free enterprise, and immigration lawyers are well aware of this. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-drea... What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States? A concrete answer to that question might be a start on making this discussion more informative. AFTER EDIT: Replying to the kind reply below, I notice that it is even less concrete than the previous comment from the same commenter, and as I type this edit to my comment, the question "What is your example place where economic regulation is done much better than it is done here in the United States?" has yet to be answered. I refer to immigration statistics, of course, because they are a response by actual living human beings to where the trade-offs for living are best. As an American who has lived overseas for six years of my life, I know it is never easy for anyone to leave the country of birth to go to a new country, possibly a country with a different language, a different climate, a different cuisine, different laws and customs, and separation from childhood friends and relatives. But when people make the hard decision to emigrate from the country of birth and immigrate to a new country, they often move to the United States. To be sure, throughout this discussion no discussant has even made the explicit claim the United States exemplifies a "free-market capitalism" approach to economics, but suggesting that for the sake of discussion, it occurs to me that people who have considered the trade-offs like free-market capitalism just fine, and are more eager to leave the other systems than to endorse them.

bobwaycott 13y ago
You're all over the map in your comments. First, capitalism need not have a Capitalist Manifesto, and it is, for all intents and purposes, an -ism. The word has been around for about 260 years, as an -ism. Or do you mean something more by your use of -ism? Moreover, 'free enterprise' as a synonym for capitalism is a recent PR move of the last century. Free markets are not inherently the domain of capitalism. When someone, like the grandparent to whom you're replying, picks out 'free market capitalism' they typically are not assigning total blame to the operations of free enterprises in total, but to the abuses that are inherent to capitalist economics. Moreover, there are more writings than one can easily count, and a thoroughgoing cultural narrative with hegemonic force surrounding the idea of capitalism in the US, that more than serves as a 'foil or point of departure' for the Communist Manifesto. Additionally, if you're going to make a shallow trumpeting for capitalism against socialism or communism, you really ought not limit yourself to the young Marx's Communist Manifesto. That's a bit like referring to the Federalist Papers as a your defense of free-enterprise capitalism. If you haven't read the mature Marx's works on economic theory, or the multitude of socialist and Marxist thinkers who have followed, then I am at a loss as to how you can prove your case. A concrete answer on what exactly you mean by 'human liberation' would be the better starting point for making this discussion more informative. If you're going to discuss economic systems as forces for 'human liberation', then let's define what is meant by 'human liberation'. I already offered up a potential starting point based on defining the 'human liberation' factor found in the respective economic ideas vs 'human liberation' factor realized in their implementation. You've not offered any significant rejoinder on either count, except to mention personal anecdotes, 'more freedom', 'more ownership', and the wholly undefined 'more desirable aspects of daily life'. You're offering up words that have no concrete meaning (except perhaps in your mind, which I cannot read). Your prior criticism included 'economic rulers', and capitalism has the fewest systemic 'rulers' of the other two systems you criticized. Or perhaps you should define what you mean by 'rulers' so we're not talking past each other. My statement of the facts of socialist or communist economic ownership elicited statements about immigration patterns, anecdote, and ill-defined phrases? What, specifically, do worldwide immigration patterns have to do with 'human liberation'? Is immigration a requirement or feature of liberation? Your inclusion of this as a response to statements I made on the principles of economic ownership found in socialist and/or communist economic principles belie understanding what I wrote. And how exactly does economic regulation figure into discussing the merits of capitalism as a force for 'human liberation' contra socialism or communism?