Posted on 07/05/2025 5:50:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Writing in the Wall Street Journal on June 30 (July 1 in the print edition), editorialist Matthew Hennessey advocates that “Capitalism Needs Champions.” Reacting to the victory of avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s mayoral primary, Hennessey says that the electoral result indicates that the defenders of capitalism are doing a poor job, and need to step up their game:
Let Zohran Mamdani’s victory in last week’s Democratic mayoral primary in New York serve as your periodic reminder that capitalism is in dire need of able defenders. Socialism has more cheerleaders than it deserves, considering its record of consistent failure. Markets need champions too. This is always true, especially now. . . . [T]he problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is complacency.
I don’t disagree. But there’s another problem for defenders of what its enemies call “capitalism.” The problem is that capitalism is not an “ism.”
Think about it. In every instance other than the word “capitalism,” the suffix “ism” is used to designate something as a system of beliefs. The implication of the “ism” suffix is that there are adherents who have adopted these beliefs, and who think that these beliefs are the correct and moral ones that should be adopted by everybody. Such, they think, is the way to a better world. Thus religions are clearly all “isms”: Catholicism, Protestantism, Mohammedism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, even Paganism. In the political realm, most any organized system of beliefs with advocates on its behalf gets the “ism” suffix: not just socialism and communism, but fascism, anarchism, liberalism, conservatism, environmentalism, and plenty more. Even sets of policy prescriptions associated with a particular politician can become an “ism”: think Reaganism, Obamaism, or Trumpism.
But “capitalism”? It’s just a fundamentally different thing. Capitalism is not a belief system. Nobody “believes” in capitalism per se. The word “capitalism” is better understood as a descriptive term for the natural order that arises in the presence of private property and free exchange. The natural order is full of warts and flaws, as are all human institutions. The combination of private property and free exchange could perhaps make a good case for being designated an “ism,” but it turns out that we don’t have that concept in a single word.
The system of private property and free exchange has demonstrated its ability to provide for every human want and need in remarkable abundance: necessities like food, clothing and shelter in incredible quantities and variety; refined art, music, entertainment and other culture; services to provide for every human comfort; and at the same time also every kind of dubious product and service, from drugs to the sex trade to loan sharking to cryptocurrencies to guns, and on and on. Even murder for hire! Some people achieve wild success and wealth, while others struggle to survive no matter how much abundance is created.
It’s all a jumbled mess. Who wants to advocate for this? Certainly not an idealistic young person looking for purpose in life by helping to create a perfect world.
There are no such warts and flaws in the fantasy world of socialism. In socialism we have a true belief system that offers an imaginary path to a world of perfect justice and fairness if only we will follow its creed. And the path is claimed to be an easy one — basically, just have the government take greater control of the economy and allocate all the wealth in a fair manner. Unfortunately, socialism has been proven time and again not to work. In short order, it will bring about economic decline, followed ultimately by near universal poverty and deprivation (with the exception of a few privileged persons who get to run the socialist state machinery).
So yes, we do need champions for “capitalism,” or at least for the system of private property and free exchange. But we also need to recognize what we are advocating for. We cannot claim to have a set of beliefs and prescriptions that, if followed, are the key to achieving a perfect world, or a completely fair world. Our system will always be full of warts and flaws. But it does offer the opportunity for everyone to have the freedom and the dignity to make their own decisions in life, to seek their own success in life, without need for the consent and meddling of government busybodies.
Maybe there is a large group of the “idealistic” to whom capitalism will never appeal. If that group is large enough, then the lesson of the economic failure of socialism will need to be re-learned in bitter experience in every generation from now to the end of time. But we can certainly keep pointing out that the world of perfection offered by socialism is an illusion, and that the actual world that will emerge from socialist prescriptions is far worse than the one we get from private property and free exchange. I’m actually optimistic that there can continue to be a critical mass of voters to keep the advance of socialism at bay, but it’s a much closer horse race than I ever would have thought.
Yes, socialism has far too many cheerleaders.
Flag burning America haters. The FREE STUFF crowd. Smash a Trump piñata or burn an America flag and get FREE STUFF! The new Darian Pass “american dream.” Hate the gringos and get lots of free stuff from the communists.
Every healthy society consists of three components: The family, the church and the marketplace.
Government is a parasite.
So instead of “capitalism”, “capitalist?”
True capitalism has never been tried.
Or perhaps “incentive”, or “human nature.” or “common sense?”
We need to stop calling it capitalism. That was originally a pejorative term invented by Karl Marx. A better, and more accurate term is the free market.
One reason can be found in the numerous companies/corporations where the management style unfairly exploits employees in non-management tiers. Unrealistic goals. Overly compressed timelines for tasks. Unpaid overtime (think weekend work). Theft of credit for ideas and execution. Wage compression. Malicious office politics."Old boy networking."
The enemy of capitalism is the Peter Principle. Incompetents rise to the top like poisoned creme in the milk. Those of us without management skills, and know it, try to resist this effect, with varying degrees of success. The problem? Compensation all too often is linked with how many people work for you. This creates an untenable tension.
Consider what is happening in the job market right now. Perfectly capable recent college graduates are finding that there is a brick wall between them and their first real job. Many reasons for that problem: AI, massive layoffs, death spiral of legacy companies, political meddling (think unsustainable minimum wage), and more.
The root of Socialism is "kill out the old rascals, bring in the new rascals, with me at the top." It's not about equality. And you can forget about meritocracy. It's all about ME, ME, ME and the rest of you can go hang.
I'll go and gum my soup now.
Ugh. Terrible
Capitalism supports capital. It’s not that hard.
Or: The guy with the gold makes the rules.
1. What’s mine is mine.
2. What’s yours is negotiable.
.
3. The free thinking productive people who disagree with the above must be killed.
It matters not that their efforts support all of human life.
Society is suicidal and most people are effing stupid.
People follow and serve Satan without even realizing that that is what
they are doing.
And Satan is the fount and source of all dysfunction and destruction.
So vote for your favorite murdering idiot.
Case closed. Rant Mode Off.
Sorry folks, I woke up with a blood sugar of 52 this morning.
I will eventually die of starvation or crappy food, in the medical professionals
don’t kill me first.
The food supply is utterly adulterated.
Capitalism is NOT “free market”. Capitalism allows those with more “capital” to control markets
Stop spewing ignorant nonsense. It is what it is.
And spare me your high-falutin’ indignant platitudes telling me I’m wrong. Being educated shouldn’t be condemned in an intelligent discussion.
Horse race? In the TOTALITARIAN CUP it’s Mohammed on the inside, Marx on the outside. At the wire it Mohammed by a head. They’re both a pile of horse crap. They stink too.
bttt
The principles of capitalism are like the physics of an economy.
Physics provides an understanding of the material world. You may not like the law of gravity, but at a minimum, you better recognize its existence. You can defy it (airplanes do that every day), but if you’re designing and flying airplanes, understanding and respecting the law of gravity (and the other laws of physics) is necessary if you don’t want to crash and burn.
Similarly, you may not like the law of supply and demand, but if you’re going to poke around in the world of economics, you better appreciate and take into account that law (and the other principles of the market) or things can crash and burn in that venue as well. Just ask the Venezueleans or the North Koreans.
So in that sense the bases of capitalism are just a recognition of economic reality, as opposed to the economic fantasies of socialism or communism. Those economic realities can be manipulated, perhaps for evil (as can the realities of the physical world), but they’re still hard realities.
“Capitalism” is just a label. Its meaning depends on the opinion of the person using the word. I Think of it more as personal freedom to conduct business and earn a living as one sees fit as long as they don’t violate the “natural law”, generally called out in things like the ten commandments or the two commandments called out by Jesus.
The simplest way of looking at the difference between “capitalism”and “free market” is that capitalism supports monopolies, which tend to create barriers to free markets.
In a “free markets” everyone has access to markets and materials.
That is not necessarily the case in a purely capitalistic system.
With pure capitalism, those with the most capital can create barriers to markets and restrict access to the means of production, as well as influence politics by creating regulation to starve off competition.
The simplest way of looking at the difference between “capitalism”and “free market” is that capitalism supports monopolies, which tend to create barriers to free markets.
In a “free markets” everyone has access to markets and materials.
That is not necessarily the case in a purely capitalistic system.
With pure capitalism, those with the most capital can create barriers to markets and restrict access to the means of production, as well as influence politics by creating regulation to starve off competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.