Why has anti-Capitalism survived as an idea, even though it is utterly discredited?

Question

About 20 years ago, the Soviet Union and the rest of the Communist countries went bankrupt. Their people lived in universal perpetual poverty for 70-some years and finally tossed their Socialist government from power. The Chinese and Vietnamese are abandoning Communism. Cuba and North Korea would abandon it if we would trade with them.

Fascism (also known as National Socialism; it is a Corporatist system in which the government benefits favored corporations and wages aggressive wars) was supposed to have been discredited back in the 40s, but has recently seen a revival.

Even 3rd Way Socialism is strongly discredited and the Social inSecurity ponzi scheme is on the verge of collapse. The minimum wage is thoroughly debunked. Price controls are exposed as causing shortages. There is even strong evidence against Central Banking (which even members of the Council of Foreign Relations realize).

Why does Anti-Capitalism persist, even though it is intellectually bankrupt?

Don't give me the absurd arguments that laissez-faire doesn't work. Even the Federal Reserve chairman now admits that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, not the policies of Herbert Hoover, which are falsely asserted as laissez-faire (Hoover actually started most of the New Deal and FDR just escalated it to a point where even Hoover was disgusted and FDR's cronies decided to claim Hoover believed in laissez-faire when he did not).

During the 1800s when pure laissez-faire was in place, the greatest economic growth in history occured. Prices deflated every year, while wages and technology kept going up. In our modern 3rd Way Socialist economies, prices go up, savings goes down, wages go up slightly less than prices, and technology improves.

The economists who have been correct on most everything have been the Austrian School ones, such as Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbard (see http://mises.org to learn their theories).

Answer 1

This is a great question and one I have often asked. My conclusion is that there are a four main reasons:.

1 - A great portion of society is swayed by overriding beliefs; things they have been taught since childhood. My friends who grew up in Poland can attest to the very anti-American and anti-capitalism that was engrained in them from parents, school teachers, etc, and likely was/is being passed from generation to generation in many parts of the world.

2 - There is another portion of society that is extremely biased politically (we all seem to be to a certain extent) but certain parties whose agenda requires more socialist movements will generally lean to the anti-capitalism side of things. When pushing to socialize medicine in the US for instance its quite common to speak out against free market economics and the private sector.

3 – A large portion of all societies are made up of what I refer to as single minded thinkers; those who think about the cause and effect relationship only considering the most obvious and top level cause and effects. For instance, one can look at the principal of raising the minimum wage as simply putting more money into the hands of workers that was being kept by employers. Obviously thinking about the issue only accounting for immediate effect without considering all the countless counter effects (such as potential rise in prices, loss of jobs, or reduced profitability/business expansion) would seem unintelligent; but sadly far too often you see many arguments being made using only top level cause and effects without considering deeper effects that often are equally if not more important.

Take tax cuts for instance; a tax cut on the outset would imply less taxes, but is this always the case? Obviously not because looking one level deeper you have to consider that a lower tax rate with a substantially higher tax basis produces far more taxes (I am not suggesting a tax cut always produces more tax revenue, merely making the point that its not cut and dry as to the outcomes). But yet again, you will find single minded thinkers who see the initial and most obvious effect and assume that is the only effect.

I want to harp on number 3 because I think it is the most prevalent. Way too often in life we encounter single minded thinkers and it is not always because of unintelligence. In many cases, people will absorb stats and opinions that in any other instance would cause them to consider the source; but in politics one generally instantly accepts propaganda as though it were fact if it supports their already made up minds. Admittedly, we are ALL susceptible to this at times, but some definitely are well more than others.

A prime example of this is right out of one of the answers in here who obviously latches on to the notion of the rich getting richer/poor getting poorer to support his/her anti-capitalist view. Considering that the poor in the US live better than the entire populations of many third world countries and significantly better than kings did 1000 years ago, it is not obviously to everyone that the “poor” getting “poorer” under capitalism is merely a subjective notion without any relativity? Certainly without doubt the poor in the US today live better than the poor in the US 100 years ago, why not choose this basis? The point is not to refute any statistics or to change any opinion, but mainly to point out that this is a classic case of taking statistics that can be viewed as either positive or negatively and choosing the view that supports an already determined perception. Thus, if I want to believe that capitalism does not work, I would view those stats as hard evidence and very negative; yet if I were moving from a third world country where even potable water was in question, I might see capitalism as distinctly different.

4 – The last reason is directly related to many people taking things for granted. Anyone who willingly discounts free market economics and the division of labor while reaping the benefits of being able to go to the grocery store and purchasing the ingredients of any conceivable meal at a cost not higher than a couple hours of minimum wage work is in dire need of large reality check (yes, high end steak and lobsters cost more than a couple hours of minimum wage work, and if this was your gut reaction you are reaching as the point was clear).

Find anyone that gripes about corporate profits and ask them about those profits in the grocery industry. Ask any one of them just how much of their time, effort, labor and knowledge would be required to simply create a breakfast of eggs, bacon, toast and a glass of orange juice if the large grocery stores did not exist (which for a single person requires less than a few dollars at the grocery store) and you discover either a liar, a simpleton, or one who actually comes around to the realization that so much of their life is built upon the benefits of capitalism.


***EDIT*** In reference to Bryce_Anderson who commented on minimum wage, I have to assume since I am currently the only post who even brought up the topic it was in reference to my comments. First, let me point out that Bryce used quotes referencing minimum wage as “thoroughly debunked” which neither I or anyone said. If the purpose is to produce a quote that no one said and refute it, then is his approach not the very definition of a straw-man argument?

My best guess would be that his intention (giving him the benefit of the doubt) was to counter my point in reference to the topic of minimum wage which I must point out is misguided. I neither presented a case for or against minimum wage; I merely used the case of a minimum wage discussion to show that most economic principals require deeper than skin deep analysis, a point which was evidently lost on Bryce.

In reference to his selective study of kings, I find it also amusing that he chooses a king form a time period that includes the plague, a life expectancy of less than 25 years of age, and an infant mortality rate at more than 60 times the current levels in the US. I would guess that if he were 24 years of age, he might actually prefer to the night shift at McDonalds and 60 years more of life than 1 more year with slaves at his feet. However, whether he does ot not is no consequence, as the point was clearly lost on Bryce yet again. Selective facts, stats and opinions used to support ones already made up mind can be construed from any situation, as I originally stated. I can look at any situation and choose only those elements that support my position and sound quite convincing in doing so, for EITHER case. So Bryce has his mind made up and chooses to look at the life of a king with a short lifespan as the “sane” option (yes his words) as though to disagree with him would be insane. How close minded does one need to be to suggest anyone offering an opposing view of the same situation is not sane? For shame!

Answer 2

To answer your question directly, the reason anti-capitalism has survived is because when you have inequality or perceived inequality there will be a call for the redistribution of wealth. It has and always will be like that.

Heres one perspective, if we had pure capitalism the rich would get richer and the poor poorer. The system would implode on itself one way or another though another great depression or rebellion.

On the other hand, if we had pure socialism/communism the system would be plagued by corruption, poverty, rationing, ect. That system would also implode as well.

Now if we take the best of both worlds and combine them you have a system that works. I believe you should have more capitalism then socialism in the mix to stay competitive in the global market. Finding the right balance is the key.

Answer 3

the only reason I could find for Anti-Capitalism to be "intellectually bankrupt" is because people have been taught that Socialism and Communism are evil and that the only way they can be happy is if they make more and more money and buy more senseless luxury goods when in fact some of the best countries in the world are the ones that have both ideas from Socialism and Capitalism combined such as the Scandinavian countries in Europe the Soviet Union was never a communist state it ceased to be a communist state when Lenin died and Stalin took over and North Korea is nothing but police state as for Cuba I think the people there would have it really nice if the U.S. would lift the embargo on them I don't really see why they would want to get rid of Socialism since they receive free health care and free education all they way up to college

Answer 4

We aren't the Soviet Union!

Ours was suppose to be a system where anyone could compete, but the reality is that conglomerates were held unchecked and they own almost everything. How do you compete withe that when the government doesn't enforce anti-trust laws, and doesn't start breaking them up again!
The rest I think you are all wet on!

Social Security works better than company's selling themselves off, stealing their workers pensions, or the 6 or more percent who will always be unemployed as that is a built-in feature of supply and demand!

Maybe if we could get you guys to keep your grubby little hands out of OUR funds that you steal every year and never pay back, Social security would do well. It is mainly in place as many people will not work long enough at any one place to get retirement benefits. Of course they aren't the rich, or those on corporate welfare!

There is very little free enterprise in this country at any significant level as 1% owns almost everything!

Answer 5

Jewish Activists Created Communism
http://www.rense.com/general76/commun.htm

America is Now Communism
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19256

The global government movement was designed by the wealthiest men in our world. It was designed to support their corporations, their foundations, their opinions, and the continuance of their family dynasties. It was designed to merge their corporate powers with and into governmental powers. It was designed to hand themselves total control of the world’s wealth, which means land.

They achieved their missions, first and foremost, by capturing financial control of research and development, and they did so by funding research and development via their corporate foundations.

They also created the United Nations. They created private clubs that could operate in secret, like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, etc., and they also created training grounds for future comrades via the secret societies inside of their Ivy League universities.

The lives and perks of such people are beyond what commoners can imagine. The power and the money at their disposal are, frankly, beyond our comprehension. It is, in fact, mostly impossible for commoners to believe. Hence, the current state of their global affairs exists. Our “freedom” is no more than a figment of our imaginations and truly an untruth. We have no freedom. It is, in fact, nonexistent.

Zionists Made Deal with the Devil
http://www.gooff.com/news/read.asp?ID=1420

Under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, only two flags were permitted in Nazi Germany. One was the swastika. The other was the blue and white banner of Zionism.

Answer 6

When has capitalism ever been vindicated? Show me a country whose government does not meddle in the economy, and I'll show you... Somalia.

The minimum wage has certainly not been "throughly debunked", though I'm not surprised that you came to that conclusion, given that you don't seem to be aware of any economic thought to the left of Milton Friedman. I took an informal poll of the University of Utah's economics professors (in response to someone who, like you, believed that minimum wage laws are economic garbage). The only respondent who didn't approve of the idea was a prof who argued that an expanded EITC would be a better solution.

Of course, such ivory tower, liberal academians don't hold a candle to the brainpower of the good folks at the CATO Institute, whom I'm sure you'll be quoting me in response. Buncha corporate shills.

If you're against minimum wage laws, you're arguing in favor of the proposition that a person who is sacrificing his/her time and energy to provide you a service doesn't deserve a respectable living in return.

Sometimes I worry that you hypercapitalists aren't even human. Look at the guy who claimed that an American poor person today lives better than any king of ancient Egypt. Clearly, the poor today have access to a wider variety of goods and services and media. But honestly, which would you prefer?

1) A life where you working the night shift at McDonalds, live in a crime-riddled neighborhood, and spend your day sitting in front of a TV that advertises all manner of luxuries that you know you'll never be able to afford?

2) A life where you have control of your life (and everyone elses'), where just about every person you meet wants to live as you do, and where you get dozens of concubines?

Any sane person would prefer a lifetime of respect and empowerment to life as a modern minimum wage slave. But not you people. You hypercapitalists take human beings and abstract away all love, hate, jealousy, and desire, until you're left with the utter sociopath we call "homo econimus". Then you go about trying to create a world where he would be happy, and make the rest of us live in it.

Unfettered capitalism is every bit as failed and simplistic a notion as pure Marxist Communism.

Final nitpick: "National Socialism" is synonymous with Nazism, not Fascism. If you can't even get that right, I'm not inclined to trust your judgments about the cause of something as complex as The Great Depression.

Answer 7

Capitalism works, but remember the Fed's keep adjusting the interest rate, and Gov. some times raise Taxes for super rich. At the same time the middle class provides 75% of the income for Gov. by taxes they pay. And occasionally they get some breaks on tax , and some benefits that helps them survive. Using these tactics help Capitalism work.

Answer 8

Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money.

It is when people make capitalism a religion believing that there should be no government regulation of it, that we have problems with it.

Some problems associated with capitalism include: seemingly unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly; imperialism, various forms of economic exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability.

There are those that even call consumer protections laws anti-capitalism.

In recent months many people have being upset that many CEOs make 400 times what the average worker in the same company makes, and that happens even when the company profits are not meeting expected targets. The capitalism defenders immediately become defensive and try to justify that situation with the same empty rhetoric they use when any body points out any problem with capitalism.

Why is it necessary to believe that capitalism is perfect and that society has no role in making corrections to it.?

Answer 9

the reason Anti-Capitalism survived is because pure capitalism doesn't work to good either ....
the most successful and richest countries in the world Canada /japan /Germany /Holland /Scandinavia/Australia/Ireland/Switzerland ,mix capitalism with socialism and are much successful then the U.S which tends more towards pure capitalism.
life expectancy is much higher ,the population is way more educated ,much less crime ,etc.

Answer 10

Probably because we are looking for the right mix. Unregulated uncontrolled laissez faire economics has hardly produced good results either.

Answer 11

If you are a bible thumping conservative that believe that money and the free market system is the only way maybe you should read the chapter of ACTS in the bible.