Recently, I’ve reading about and hearing about the anti-capitalist claim that capitalism (the system itself) thrives and grows in scope during a crisis. One example being the Wall Street Bailout, were the cream of the capitalist crop gained trillions of dollars from the (proletariat) taxpayer. However, does it make any sense for some other capitalist lose capital or go bankrupt? Wouldn’t this claim mean that the capitalists themselves (as a class) gain more power over capital, etc. Does it make any sense for the capitalists themselves to lose more wealth (percentage wise) during the crisis than the others? What sense does the claim make when it says that the system that supports the capitalist thrives and grows while the many capitalists themselves suffer? This claim seems like one huge generalization about a supposed class (the capitalists) which must benefit from pillage others (the non-capitalist) during a crisis. Note: Please, no comments about how the system we’re in now is not “capitalism.” “Capitalism” is being defined here as “the system we in now,” as commonly defined by the anti-capitalist.
I have realized that people on this issue basically view the world in only 2 ways: Profit and non-profit. So anything that is based on monetary profit is Capitalism and anything else is government. Case closed end of story!
Bailouts are about more profits to wealthy people, so this is Capitalism. The problem stems from the idea that political action is somehow a natural part of human nature, or worst, part of the natural laws of the universe. Life before the government is like life before the big bang. It is meaningless therefore to talk about how it’s mere presence is the problem. This is why it sometimes feels like you are talking to a brick wall.
Pure nonsense. The capitalists don’t gain a higher share of capital during a crises, in fact, most of them should lose a large portion of their capital. The government keeps unprofitable capitalist productions in business with inflation and destroys the real wages of laborers. Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism, and this entire statement redefines key terminology. Furthermore, the “proletariat” are heavily invested in the stock market, making them capitalists. Inflation turns everyone into a speculator because interest rates are far below the rate of inflation, making bank deposits useless.
I know, I know, I know. I was trying to defeat their claim using their own terms. The way they define the terms then use them in their claim seems contradictory to me.
Capital is destroyed during the crisis. So it’s a loss to the capitalists. As well as to the consumers. People are not poorer because capitalists are richer, but because they are also poorer.
There is, though, special class of “capitalists”, that benefited from government actions before the crisis, unjustifiably laid the hands on the capital of others and then destroyed it. And this caused the crisis. They are than bailed out.
Is it possible to defeat their claims using their own terms? The terms themselves are nonsense; I don’t think you’re going to gain any ground in a debate by fighting on their terms, but maybe that’s just me.
I find that pointing out the more root flaws of government failures (the Fed, special interests/bribes, tyranny of democracy, “state capitalism”, gov enabling of monopolies, anti-competitive interventions and regulations, government enabling of cartels, revisionist history, etc) people are much more stumped than if you stick to the language and “realities” of their fantasy world in which the New Deal “fixed the depression caused by free market capitalism”…
(Is it just me or does anyone else also get infuriated whenever they have to talk about how wrong popular opinion is regarding the Raw Deal?)
No. Only government and government-beneficiaries in a mercantilist/interventionist/fascist/socialist system as we have now grow. Such doesn’t happen in capitalism, but the anti-caps love to conflate mercantilism/etc with capitalism so they can have a tidy strawman to attack.
I was gonna disagree with you until I read the last part of your comment.
The strawman point is good - it seems you’re trying to build a shield for their fantasy strawman, when you should really be torching it. [:D]
I was trying to torch their shield using their own words.
Sometimes it’s so egregious that you just have to light fire to their words and tell them that if they can’t be bothered to learn what something actually is, they should STFU.
Here is a comment I read somewhere:
[H]owever much this crisis might be hard on the rest of us, and even for some companies and individual capitalists, the capitalist system itself lives off of this kind of thing. It eats crisis for breakfast, lunch, and dinner…"
Most of the people I know do not view capitalist as libertarians do. They view capitalist system as the rule of the small elite that has large influence on goverment to help them and protect them even if they fail. Looking at current moves by goverments all over the world, I can’t blame them. Capitalist has become a curse-word.
Isn’t what they mean by capitalism really just socialism for rich people? (could it really be any other way? ;p )
Well, yes. Socialism for rich - capitalism. That is how most of the people I know precive it. I cannot blame them, they have been living in that kind of system for decades.
Tell them to get an education.
Actually, all this shows is that the welfare-warfare state will happily cannibalize itself for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if it gets its Parasite Class a short-term reprieve from their blood-sucking. The Parasites are always the ones most stunned by the uncertainty and instability that follows their toxic manipulations of the economy.
Doesn’t the capitalist class have 100% of power over capital always, by definition?
Yes. So how capitalism thrive and grow during a crisis? Is more capital being created (then why there be a crisis)? Is the capitalist class gaining control over capital in didn’t control before the crisis?
Or are some capitalists gaining control over the capital of other capitalists?