Talking with a GOP Economist ...

[JPSartre12]

Comrades,

A close friend of mine has a step-father who is a conservative Republican and holds multiple degrees (in Economics, in Accounting, in Finance, in Business) and makes a healthy income off of playing the stock market. We debated economics for several hours the other day and he refuses to use the word "capitalism" to describe the Untied States - he prefers the word "corporatist", and he says that "fascist" isn't too much of a stretch and is quite possible in the very-near future.

He is very well-read on Das Kapital, Marxian economics, and so on. He stated to me that we need to have a massive, people-driven revolution to abolish the current corporatist system and establish a democratic "of the people, by the people, for the people" system. I did my best to tell him that a massive, anti-establishment, and pro-democracy revolution would almost certainly be socialist in nature, and he disagreed and wished to distance himself from all forms of socialism.

What do you think is an appropriate tactic to take to those that are on the fence and at least receptive enough to listen to us? As much of a 'Republican' as he is, he respectfully listened carefully to what I had to say regarding revolutions, socialism, etc. What would be an effective thing to do or say to help convey our message better?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

and he refuses to use the word "capitalism" to describe the Untied States - he prefers the word "corporatist", and he says that "fascist" isn't too much of a stretch and is quite possible in the very-near future.


Ask him what makes "corporatism" and "fascism" anything but "capitalism". If he gives you the old tirade about how "the market must be free hurrhurr", you must press on and ask how the bloody hell is he defining capitalism. He must be using one screwed up idealist definition to make that argument. Is he into Asstrian economics?

[Questionable]

We could probably use a bit more info on his views. Why does he wish to distance himself from capitalism? What does he wish to do instead? How does he envision this so-called post-corporatist society? Where does he think things went wrong?

[Rafiq]

Want to bet he's never even read a sentance from Kapital?

[cynicles]

Probably because capitalism has become an increasingly dirty word. It's the new ism that shall not be named, albeit for different reasons. They don't want to say it because then capitalism would be at fault for the issues so they invent these new concepts to divert criticism of the system. It's like those people who whined about revisionism to make excuses back in the Soviet Union.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Comrades,

A close friend of mine has a step-father who is a conservative Republican and holds multiple degrees (in Economics, in Accounting, in Finance, in Business) and makes a healthy income off of playing the stock market. We debated economics for several hours the other day and he refuses to use the word "capitalism" to describe the Untied States - he prefers the word "corporatist", and he says that "fascist" isn't too much of a stretch and is quite possible in the very-near future.

He is very well-read on Das Kapital, Marxian economics, and so on. He stated to me that we need to have a massive, people-driven revolution to abolish the current corporatist system and establish a democratic "of the people, by the people, for the people" system. I did my best to tell him that a massive, anti-establishment, and pro-democracy revolution would almost certainly be socialist in nature, and he disagreed and wished to distance himself from all forms of socialism.

What do you think is an appropriate tactic to take to those that are on the fence and at least receptive enough to listen to us? As much of a 'Republican' as he is, he respectfully listened carefully to what I had to say regarding revolutions, socialism, etc. What would be an effective thing to do or say to help convey our message better?

He sounds like a Free Market fundamentalist. Make clear to him that although this is a heavily monopolised, state-subsidised, capital-ism, that it is still a system of class domination where a minority own the means of production for the toiling majority to produce society's needs, where so long this wealthy ruling minority own the crucial necessities of production, control what happens with the workers' wealth, that so long it exists it will keep dominating society and true democracy, "rule of the masses", will be impossible.

Then remind him that inevitable growth is an impossibility, that Capital is historically limited and if he does not see this he needs to reread Das Kapital from start to finish.

[JPSartre12]

Ask him what makes "corporatism" and "fascism" anything but "capitalism". If he gives you the old tirade about how "the market must be free hurrhurr", you must press on and ask how the bloody hell is he defining capitalism. He must be using one screwed up idealist definition to make that argument. Is he into Asstrian economics?

Haha I wouldn't say that he's a fan of Austrian economics, because he understands how hopelessly romanticized it makes deregulated seem. He's just so jaded from working within the system for so long, and by seeing so many of capitalism's contradictions up close and personal, that he wants to start anew.

He consistently referred to France as "socialist", and when I tried to actually define socialism for him (economic democracy, common ownership of the means of production, and so on) and tell him why France is not, he said that people like me (implying our entire revolutionary community) see the world in black and white only.

[piet11111]

Seems to me he is most sensitive to the negative aspects of capitalism just hammer home that under capitalism a system that glorifies greed gives an incentive to corporations to corrupt governments to work in their favor against the public interest and that of a "free market" so they can game the system.

Take the Libor scandal and how the government knew this was going on but did nothing to stop it.

If you hammer home that capitalism purposefully moves towards corruption of government to maximize profits and is incompatible with a truly free market because of it.

And if he is one of those people that worry about the environment you might want to use an angle on how a system of millions of barely legislated businesses somehow need to work up the need to spew out less carbon emissions.

[JPSartre12]

Seems to me he is most sensitive to the negative aspects of capitalism just hammer home that under capitalism a system that glorifies greed gives an incentive to corporations to corrupt governments to work in their favor against the public interest and that of a "free market" so they can game the system.

Yes, I also have a very hard time understanding why people who glorify the "free market" don't understand that perfect competition is theoretical and that markets tend towards monopolization.

It's as if "free market"ers are deliberately deceiving themselves.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Free Market just sounds so much better than monopoly capitalism or imperialism. A free market is a completely idealistic notion. It is not how capitalism works -- and it really never has worked that way. It's all bullshit all the time. Most of the Freemarketeers are very happy to hand over control to corporations -- why anyone thinks this is a good idea, except for the chosen few who own the fucking corporations, escapes me. Of course, people voting or arguing against their own interests is nothing unusual, (e.g., "I don't want the government making, duh, decisions about my health care!") Okay friend, we'll leave it up to a corporation that exists only to make a profit, that usually works out well.

[Ocean Seal]

Capitalism for and by the people. What happens when the people separate into different classes? Did corporations just form out of the blue? Is statism just the captains of industry getting drunk and waking up with a stranger in their bed?