The writer admits that his description of a capitalist economy is oversimplified, which it clearly is, but I think his major points concerning its operation are correct. However, his description of the "extreme liberal" position is seriously lacking. He conflates what should be the traditional socialist perspective with a rather tepid form of social democrat policy that is really the same as his "moderate liberal" approach, and even notes that "this approach is not nearly as effective as restraining capitalism before the profits are made." Moreover, even among genuine socialists, capitalism is not viewed as "pure evil." It is merely one system of ordering the means of production and the profits of labor; although it depends on the inherent inequality in power between capital and labor necessary to produce profit, it is (as rubato notes) essentially amoral, its only concern being the maximization of profits for the capitalist who "owns" the means of production.Lord Jim wrote:I found this interesting:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/3 ... CapitalismThere are four attitudes that can be taken toward capitalism.
First, the extreme conservative view: Capitalism is irreproachable, and to utter even a word of criticism—let alone attempt to restrain it—is apostasy. A great many people hold this view. Nonetheless, it is the most wrongheaded possible position, because it is the most at odds with the truth. Capitalism is essentially unethical, and therefore continuing criticism and restraint of it is both necessary and salutary.
Second, the extreme liberal view: Capitalism is pure evil that must be replaced with something else. There are actually only a few Americans who believe this, and they have nothing like the cultural power that people in the first group impute to them. Even those who call themselves socialists are really advocating a restrained form of capitalism that tries to redistribute part of the capitalist’s profits to the workers, and this approach is not nearly as effective as restraining capitalism before the profits are made. The manifest energy and productivity of capitalism make it impossible for many people to maintain this extreme position.
Third, the moderate conservative view: Capitalism is essentially ethical, but it can become unethical and even abusive in the hands of people of bad faith, so that it needs restraint under those aberrant circumstances. This view too is held by many Americans, and in fact by many who also believe the extreme conservative view—even though to hold both of them is self-contradictory. This conservative position is less wrongheaded than the extreme one. At least it recognizes the possibility that capitalism needs some restraint. But because it does not admit the truth that capitalism is essentially unjust, it is much too inclined to let capitalism barrel ahead without restraint—only to be surprised time after time when the consequences of its essential injustice come home to roost.
Fourth and last, the moderate liberal position: Capitalism is an indisputable engine of economic strength and prosperity that requires ongoing government regulation to restrain its inherent injustice. Of the four views, this is the only one that reflects the truth about capitalism. But because hardly any Americans understand that capitalism is essentially unjust, there are few who actually hold this position. Those who ought to be so inclined—namely, those who recognize that lifting government restraints always leads to impoverished workers and vast economic inequality—fall instead into a position that differs only in degree from the moderate conservative view. They agree with moderate conservatives that capitalism is essentially just, but corruptible. They disagree in seeing much more frequent and more dangerous aberrant behavior than moderate conservatives will admit.
Obviously the author is an adherent of position four...
But if you take away his analysis, and just focus on his description of the four points of view, I think it's gives a reasonable summation of the thinking that differentiates the rightist, conservative, liberal and leftist schools of thought.
Though I disagree with a lot of it, (it was written by a liberal after all...) I recommend the full article. It's well written and gives an interesting perspective.
The rise of capitalism in the 19th and 20th Centuries does not mean it is the only socio-politico-economic system that may be useful or even desirable; it is simply the current dominant form of exchange activity, replacing mercantilism, which supplanted feudalism, etc. etc. back into hstory. But the operation of any economic system -- and in particular, the question of whose benefit the system is operated for -- depends on societal power relationships that can be shaped by the form and operation of government.
