0 votes

Socialism is a Kind of Capitalism

Careful when using the word Capitalism to distinguish between Free Market Capitalism and Socialist Capitalism (Socialism).

Capital exists. It is just a part of nature such as resources, human energy and tools etc. How you account for flows of capital defines Capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism means total private accounting is allowed. That means interference in many markets is mostly not possible. People can trust each other and keep their own accounts (credit/debit) - or balance the account by exchanging gold and silver or other products. This is their private system of accounting for exchanges of energy.

There is nothing wrong with keeping private accounts of your capital and your exchanges. Humans should strive to channel their own energy which is the purpose of private accounting. It is the responsibility of each individual to channel their own energy. That is an integral part of living! They need to keep private accounts to do this carefully. Why shouldn't they keep their own accounts and balance them with money? An HONEST system of money is not evil.

Pure Communism is all about a society with no money - all resources are allocated by central planners so no money is required. This means keeping private accounts is made totally illegal - thats what money is for: balancing private accounts. So Communism is the opposite of Free Market Capitalism.

Socialism is not the opposite of Capitalism, it is a kind of capitalism. Socialist Capitalism uses money but does not allow total private accounting, though may allow some private accounting. By demanding transparency of private accounts to varying degrees central planners can apply interferences. Socialism is easier to enforce than Communism and serves the integration of government interference and corporations better known as Fascism - the most extreme form of Socialist Capitalism.

Socialist Capitalism is pretty much the current situation in most of the world to varying degree - including China. As opposed to this, Free Market Capitalism mostly existed in the USA from about 1800-1900 and has been smothered and allowed to work less and less since because self-sufficency makes parasites irrelevent and they hate that. So they turn to corrupting the public force to steal energy. The solution is to turn attention to your courts and fix the due process of law to ensure perfection of justice. Which is what Ron Paul and the Constitutionalists are working on! :-P



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Market Socialism

The correct term is "Market Socialism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

"Market socialism is also used to refer to an economic system that utilizes a free-market and free price system for allocation and distribution of all resources, with public ownership in at least "strategic" sectors of an economy, with the state often utilizing market mechanisms to direct economic activity such as regulation over the autonomously-operating enterprises. This allows for the public enterprises to function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other state-oriented socialist economic systems."

_______________________________________________________
"Let the good heart speak words of true peace, not inciting others to further war." -- B.I.S.

No it needs to be Socialist Capitalism

Sorry the reference you provide is a good one. But it is critical that Socialism is seen as a kind of Capitalism. That is the whole point of the post. Using the word Socialist Capitalism prevents the Establishment propagandists from leveraging the "Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism" trap. They paint businessmen as "Greedy Capitalists" and leave the implication of the solution to be the opposite: Socialism.

But if people are educated to see that Socialism is a kind of Capitalism then this propaganda ploy cannot work. And it is a big one to destroy! So using the term Socialist Capitalism is the antidote. Socialism cannot be the opposite of Capitalism if one propogates the understanding that Socialism is synonymous with Socialist Capitalism which in fact it is.

Sorry, mate, but that was painful.

Are you at uni?

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

At the most government should be umpires and referees.

Let us play the game by house rules: Eco-nomos.

Do no harm, cause no damage and voluntary trade.

Free includes debt-free!

Agreed

Fair enough. I reckon if they can't do justice right why should they be trusted with anything else?

The shame

of it is that we haven't seen Free Market Capitalism in the US for about100 years. What we have seen is Corporatism. The question is, are we humans even capable of actually maintaining a system of true Free Market Capitalism, with human nature being what it is? So far, the answer to that question has unfortunately been a resounding NO!

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

Disagree that we have corporatism.

We have a mixed economy. Some corporatism, some socialism, but mostly capitalism. Most businesses are privately owned, and most are not in alliance with government.

Support Rand Paul by donating at http://www.randpaul2010.com/ and certified non-Truthers Peter Schiff at http://schiffforsenate.com/ and John Dennis at http://www.johndennis2010.com/

"most are not in alliance with government"

No, just burdened by it.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Exactly

And that is not Free Market Capitalism it is Socialist Capitalism.

Can you give a reference for "socialist capitalism"

?

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Reference to reason?

It is epistimilogical not historical. There is an epistimilogical need to distinguish between capitalism with and without interference. Without interference the term Free Market Capitalism has become the standard. Socialism has become a standard term for governments that interfer with markets. Markets are commensurate with capital exchanges. So Socialism does not exist independant of capital markets it is a kind of capitalism hence the term Socialist Capitalism.

Specifying Socialism as Socialist Capitalism removes ambiguity and so provides an antidote against propaganda which tries to push Socialism as the opposite of the existing system which is why you see many young people who start caring about corruption turning to Socialism as a reflex.

I haven't had the need to clarify the term, sorry.

The fallback at Daily Paul is always free market capitalism when referring to capitalism.

BTW, I think you meant "epistemological".

; >

This is just my opinion but... capitalism "with" interference is no longer capitalism so there is no need to coin a term like "socialist capitalism" or "capitalism lite".

We should also then have 'fascist capitalism", "barter capitalism", "theft capitalism"...

***

"Specifying Socialism as Socialist Capitalism removes ambiguity"

Not in my neighborhood.

I was a socialist and somehow made my way here with common terms and definitions. Actual living and breathing "socialists" are not that common. They are captured by the Democrats using "feel good" and "caring" language -- never the actual word "socialism".

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Fair enough

OK fair enough I see your point. Its worked for you. Still there are A LOT of people especially outside the USA who are confused by the terms and this failure helps to lead them toward Socialism.

Propagandists leverage this ambiguity to make Capitalism a dirty word and when Free Market people use the term they do some work for these propagandists unwittingly.

I admit this is particularly a problem outside the USA since within the USA the culture is more resistant to Socialism than anywhere else.

Would it not be better then, to educate people as to the true

meaning of capitalism than to link the two words?

What "propagandists" are referring to, for the most part, when they bash capitalism is corporatism. I'd rather work to clarify that misconception.

***

"Propagandists leverage this ambiguity to make Capitalism a dirty word and when Free Market people use the term they do some work for these propagandists unwittingly."

So be it.

I'll never use the term "socialist capitalism".

It's like asking christopherX to use "Satanic Christian".

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

It is subdivision of the concept not changing the meaning

The term removes the ambiguity it doesn't change the meaning. It is not like Satanic Christian. Communist Capitalism is like Satanic Christian. If we are going to lean on the religious metaphors Socialist Capitalist would be more like using Catholic Christian instead of just using Christian or Catholic when many people are found confusing the two. Though the reigious metaphor isn't too appropriate.

"The term removes the ambiguity"

That's your opinion.

I disagree.

"Socialist capitalism" will confuse nine out of ten sheep.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

Sheep are already confused

Hence we have to teach them that Socialism is a kind of Capitalism so it cannot be the opposite of the existing system. Free Market Capitalism is the opposite. But you couldn't explain that to them if they think the existing system is Capitalism.

"But you couldn't explain that to them if they think the

existing system is Capitalism."

So "we" need to explain to them the existing system isn't capitalism.

***

There is a perceived misunderstanding and, instead of clarifying that misunderstanding, you want to create confusion by combining the two words at the crux of that misunderstanding.

Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!

It is Capitalism

The existing system is Capitalism though and so you can't convince them that it isn't.

Capital exists. It is just a part of nature such as resources, human energy and tools etc. How you account for flows of capital defines Capitalism.

But it is not Free Market Capitalism it is Socialist Capitalism i.e. Capitalism with interferences.

Fair enough but....

Yes it is a mixed economy - there are even free market pockets - though its predominately Socialist Capitalism. The term Corporatism implies government interference unfairly supporting big business and this is a kind of Socialism anyway. Socialist Capitalism and Socialism are synonymous.

When you say "mostly capitalism" - that phrase is too ambiguos to convey clear meaning. Do you mean mostly Free Market Capitalism or mostly Socialist Capitalism? There is a huge difference - intereference vs no interference.

To clarify you must distinguish whether you mean Free Market Capitalism or Socialist Capitalism. Just because businesses are privately owned doesn't mean this is Free Market Capitalism because these businesss are forced/intimidated to make their private accounts transparent. The more businessess are interferred with the more Socialist Capitalism there is and the less Free Market Capitalism there is.

Agreed

Agreed, Corporatism is a kind of Socialist Capitalism. Free Market Capitalism has not been allowed to work since between 1800-1900 is the USA. So we humans are capable of it since it was existing then in the USA and the culture of Free Market Capitalism is still alive and strong in the USA even though it has not been allowed to work. No other country has a Free Market culutre like the USA.

Read my reply post below (Subject:"That works") RE the point of the original post which is to provide an antidote to "Socialism is opposite to Capitalism" propaganda.

It's not really that simple.

The fundamental essence of corporatism is not technocratic but moral: what does government have the responsibility to do? What do people have the right to demand be done for them?

The economic Left likes corporatism for three reasons:

1. It satisfies its lust for power.

2. It makes possible attempts to redistribute income.

3. It enables them to practice #2 while remaining personally affluent.

The economic Right likes corporatism for three different reasons:

1. It enables them to realize capitalist profits while unloading some of the costs and risks onto the state.

2. The ability to intertwine government and business enables them to shape government policy to their liking.

3. They believe the corporatist state can deliver social peace and minimize costly disruptions.

Most economic arguments today are not between a socialistic ideal and a capitalistic one, as many seem to believe, but are arguments within the corporatist consensus. This consensus is incapable of gelling into a unitary consensus because it is supported by the two sides for different reasons. There is also no public, coherent ideology of corporatism because almost no-one is willing to admit they believe in it.

. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!

Sure I see your point

Not sure if your intention was to counter my point as the subject implies perhaps. I think your comment seems fair enough, just don't think the discussion was of Corporatism in the context of technocratic versus morality.

But I do agree with you that the fundamental essense of Corporatism is moral not technocratic since Corporatism is when corporations are unfairly/immorally leveraging bureaucratic connections.

It's been some time since I

It's been some time since I studied this, so check it out for yourself, but my understanding is that Marx delineated several stages through which societies progress on the road to Communism. The first stage of this progression he termed 'Capitalism.' Thus, 'Capitalism' is really a system coined by Marx as an early form of Communism. I try to avoid the use of the term. 'Free Market,' in my opinion, not 'Capitalism,' is the is the system that should be advanced by Liberty advocates.

That works

That works using the term Free Market to represent Free Market Capitalism removes any ambiguity.

The important point I was making is for people who do use the term Capitalism or Socialism because they propagate unwittingly a damaging kind of propaganda theme. This theme encourages people to see the existing system as Capitalism of which the opposite is Socialism. So if they think the current system stinks they become Socialist. It causes all these newbies who care abut the corruption to turn to Socialism. This is the trap.

As an antidote its important that Free Market people don't unwittingly propagate the ambiguity by clearly exposing Socialism as Socialist Capitalism. It is not too hard to deprogram a Socialist if you start by showing them that Socialist systems also use capital,banks,accounts,money,etc and so Socialism is NOT the opposite of the existing system. The Free Market is!

Then we don't have to see that sad spectacle of passionate protesters begging our socialist governments for more ...... socialism! LOL

:-)

austinjimm...

You may be on to something. As far as I am concerned a real free market cannot exist if a government puts restrictions on them. My big beef is with the big gamblers on Wall Street, ie..Golden Slacks who get bailed out by the American taxpayers, and then go on to make a profit off of the money they are given, and gamble with it to make profit, especially when they really don't need it in the first place. Who knows maybe they did need it to shore up some losses, but it should not be on the backs of the American people.