"It is not idolatry to recognize the power of markets. It is not idolatry to
highlight the tremendous creativity that capitalist organizing principles
harness or the productivity that has resulted from them. Nor is it idolatry to
point out the failures of alternative organizing principles."A
true statement. But has the writer read Marx? If so, she knows Marx
appreciates the productivity and inventiveness of capitalism. Most technology
has come out of capitalism. But Marx describes the mechanism of
capitalism's collapse - accurately IMHO. Why do I think Marx was right?
For many reasons, but consider that with our enormouse accuulation of productive
capital things should be getting better for the mass of us, but they are getting
worse. All of the benefits are going to the top. Marx predicted this with
elegant theory.Unfortunately, Marx didn't give us a roadmap for
post-captialism. He thought that was somebody else's job. We socialists
are trying to develop that roadmap, but we haven't succeeded thus far.
Meanwhile, capitalism continues its inexorable decline.
Excellent, thought provoking column.
The notion that capitalism fosters creation of wealth is questionable.
Assuming scarcity of resources, capitalism seems more to focus on capturing and
hording wealth at least in its current form in the US and internationally. I
think we might find creating a means of accessing capital that focuses on
creating jobs, instead wealth for share holders, might just lead to a better
economy. My point being that I'm perfectly happy if folks get rich
creating middle class jobs. But for the past 40 years, the US has focused its
capital resources on creating wealth by cutting employment. And that
doesn't seem to be working all that well.
Excellent editorial. The idealistic view of capitalism is what keeps the GOP
going these days. Not a realist among them. Take the notion of free markets, for
instance. There is no such thing as a free market. Totally a myth. And the most
ardent devotees of government intervention are large corporations. They know
that unfettered competition actually destroys the conditions that make
competition even possible. As the winners increase their share of the market,
the losers bail out and the cost of entrance into the market become prohibitive,
leaving essentially monopolies. So nobody in the real world really wants a free
market. And we've seen the damage that can result when government neglects
its duty of maintaining the conditions in which markets (not free) can perform
their expected function.
A superb commentary.It brought to mind President Spencer W.
Kimball's talk titled "The False Gods We Worship," wherein he
commented: "we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition
most repugnant to the Lord."
It is nice to see a balanced and reasoned editorial for a change.
"Beware of any endeavor that requires new clothes" - Henry ThoreauThe rat race get's very tiresome.
So I've watched this for a couple of days and I'm wondering where the
"conservatives" are in this discussion. Surely they read it. The title
alone would draw them. My guess is well written reasonableness is
not there thing. It's easier to twist and outright fabricate about the
less well written thoughts of some of us here who have tried to say the same
thing. My favorite idea in the article is just how well
conservatives are at framing a conversation. To originally baptize capitalism,
and then to sanctify it as a part of nature is brilliant. Read the
conservative posts on this thread every day and you will see both ideas simply
accepted as fact.
Agreed, Most excellent article.And this line: priceless -- "Today, however, some who are called conservative (but may not be)
fall into the same trap. The problem is not the successes of capitalism, but
rather its idealization; one that blinds us to reality."It's true, The fact that "poor" conservatives defend the
uber-wealthy tooth and nail is the lie that with a little hard work, the
promises of uber-wealth is theirs for the taking as well!Idol
@Deforrest "As the winners increase their share of the market, the losers
bail out and the cost of entrance into the market become prohibitive, leaving
essentially monopolies. "The late Joan Robinson, the famous
"Mrs. Robinson" of economics, said mainstream economics was wrong to
work off of an assumption of perfect competition. Rather, she said, it should
proceed from an assumption of an array of monopolies. She was right. But
economics hasn't figured this out yet.