Re:Why Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor?
by dragonwriter on Monday February 27, 2017 @05:35PM
(#13749092)
> Your definition sounds like what I'd call "crony capitalism",
"Crony capitalism" is the only kind that has ever existed, and definitely the kind for which the term "capitalism" was coined. The idea of any other kind of "capitalism" is, well, highly implausible. To avoid cronyism, you are going to have to take out the core features that make it capitalism.
> I'd bet that I'd consider some of the "subsequent reforms" you've described as fundamental corruptions of the system.
Thing like establishing labor rights are certainly "corruptions" if you view the 19th Century system initially labelled "capitalism" as pure.
I don't see "corrupting" the purity of capitalism as a problem, though.
> For example, political donations as corporate free speech (Citizens United v FEC) doesn't make much sense in a world where shareholders aren't engaged and active participants in company behavior.
Citizens United is a move back in the direction of a pure 19th Century capitalism, and a reversal of reform efforts aimed at constraining the dominion of the capital-holding class (which is what campaign finance reform efforts that seek to limit the influence of wealth on politics to protect democracy from capitalism are.)
Whether shareholders are personally active or find it most useful to give management free reign is immaterial to this.
> In other words, corporate governance is broken, something that Reich gets right.
What Reich gets wrong is embracing the idea that capitalism is betrayed by the various failures, rather than the source of them. His idea of supporting a "share the gains" capitalism is amusing: "share the gains" is not, and has never been, capitalism (though it's occasionally a lie that capitalists use to justify capitalism, as in "trickle-down" economics.)
"Crony capitalism" is the only kind that has ever existed, and definitely the kind for which the term "capitalism" was coined. The idea of any other kind of "capitalism" is, well, highly implausible. To avoid cronyism, you are going to have to take out the core features that make it capitalism.
> I'd bet that I'd consider some of the "subsequent reforms" you've described as fundamental corruptions of the system.
Thing like establishing labor rights are certainly "corruptions" if you view the 19th Century system initially labelled "capitalism" as pure.
I don't see "corrupting" the purity of capitalism as a problem, though.
> For example, political donations as corporate free speech (Citizens United v FEC) doesn't make much sense in a world where shareholders aren't engaged and active participants in company behavior.
Citizens United is a move back in the direction of a pure 19th Century capitalism, and a reversal of reform efforts aimed at constraining the dominion of the capital-holding class (which is what campaign finance reform efforts that seek to limit the influence of wealth on politics to protect democracy from capitalism are.)
Whether shareholders are personally active or find it most useful to give management free reign is immaterial to this.
> In other words, corporate governance is broken, something that Reich gets right.
What Reich gets wrong is embracing the idea that capitalism is betrayed by the various failures, rather than the source of them. His idea of supporting a "share the gains" capitalism is amusing: "share the gains" is not, and has never been, capitalism (though it's occasionally a lie that capitalists use to justify capitalism, as in "trickle-down" economics.)