using capitalist arguements

[abbielives!]

consider the arguement that a minimum wage drives up prices ( i am assuming it is true)
this is used as an arguement against the minimum wage, but we can say yes, a minimum wage cannot be adopted into a capitalist economy, therefore we should abolish capitalism.


hope this makes sense

[LOTFW]

Average Americans (forget economists) expect and support a minimum wage of some sort. Hardly anyone will even come out against the concept of a minimum wage.

[bugsy]

A minimum wage only drives up prices because the capitalists raise them to offset any potential loss of profits. So it's not the minimum wage per se, but the unalloyed greed of the bosses. But you knew that already, didn't you?

And I've just bitten. :D :D :D

MsG

[abbielives!]

i am bit of a moron when it come to economic actually :P

[Xiao Banfa]

Doesn't Karl Marx explain how the capitalist argument that higher wages mean higher prices is myth in the pamphlet "Wages, Prices and Profit"

[ComradeR]

As far as I know only those nutter libertarians are against the minimum wage.

[piet11111]

how about pointing out that capitalist nature demands the destruction of the free market because of the want for monopoly ?
just point out microsoft as an example

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:41 am
how about pointing out that capitalist nature demands the destruction of the free market because of the want for monopoly ?
just point out microsoft as an example
Exactly why it is easy to defeat the capitalist argument that "capitalism in regards to competitive force is sustainable"- which is the argument often brought up by those who support it.

It isn't possible to sustain competition- as capitalist enterprises are monopolized to sustain themselves. As capitalism causes competition between capitalist enterprises- which can only be "resolved" through the elimination of the competitors. This is inevitable under capitalism- capitalist enterprises can't continue to exist otherwise. This is the change occuring in regards to the modes of production which Marx mentions many times throughout his work.

Capitalist enterprises end up forming a single large capitalist monopoly- which does not take a competitive role within a single nation- but outside of national boundries as a global enterprise.

Ultimately, what you have is the development of competitive imperial powers around the world seeking the same material entities; a conflict which can only be resolved through the elimination of all but one. Competition itself may not diminish completely but the way it manifests itself is altered- instead of competition between capitalist enterprises within a nation there are capitalist monopolies around the globe competing with each other.

With capitalism comes monopoly, it cannot be avoided- making it rather easy to prove an argument against "capitalism being a sustainable system". However, most who support capitalism would deny this until their death as they are often ignorant to it in the first place.

[JimFar]

Concerning the minimum wage, the usual objection that most bourgeois economists have against it is the claim that it causes increased unemployment by setting wage rates above what the market would otherwise set. However, even within the framework of bourgeois economics a quite respectable case can be made for minimum wage laws. Those bourgeois economists who argue in favor of minimum wage legislation frequently argue that low-wage labor markets are typically characterized as monopsonistic competition wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more market power than do sellers (workers). This results in workers being paid less than their marginal value. If this characterization of low-wage labor markets is correct, then an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both wages and employment, with the optimal level being equal to the marginal productivity of labor. Other arguments that have been advanced by those bourgeois economists who favor minimum wage laws include the argument that such legislation enhances work incentives for low-income workers and that it helps to reduce expenditures on government social programs for the poor.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:54 pm
Concerning the minimum wage, the usual objection that most bourgeois economists have against it is the claim that it causes increased unemployment by setting wage rates above what the market would otherwise set. However, even within the framework of bourgeois economics a quite respectable case can be made for minimum wage laws. Those bourgeois economists who argue in favor of minimum wage legislation frequently argue that low-wage labor markets are typically characterized as monopsonistic competition wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more market power than do sellers (workers). This results in workers being paid less than their marginal value. If this characterization of low-wage labor markets is correct, then an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both wages and employment, with the optimal level being equal to the marginal productivity of labor. Other arguments that have been advanced by those bourgeois economists who favor minimum wage laws include the argument that such legislation enhances work incentives for low-income workers and that it helps to reduce expenditures on government social programs for the poor.
The bourgeoisie is generally in favor of anything that reduces the cost of production in regards to commodities. So as long as the price of the labor is cheap, do you see. For the bourgeoisie to profit at all- (thus the concept of surplus value) their labor must cost significantly less than the amount of capital they will earn for them to profit from it. If the labor costs just as must as the amount they profit- they don't earn anything- and that doesn't benefit the bourgeois class. It may benefit the workers- but it doesn't benefit the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie must keep the costs of labor as low as possible- so that it can sustain profit- and ultimately increase it, rather than for it to decrease.

The bourgeoisie, in most regards, do not object to minimum wage as long as it stays low enough so that the costs of labor stay minimum and the amount they profit is significantly greater than the costs of the labor it takes to produce the commodity in the first place- which is their means of gaining capital.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've found conservatives share similar social concerns with us [other than homosexuality, which needs to be expressed as pure bigotry on their part], and liberals share similar economic concerns, but both answer it with more laws instead of getting at the root of the problem: capitalism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:08 pm
I've found conservatives share similar social concerns with us [other than homosexuality, which needs to be expressed as pure bigotry on their part], and liberals share similar economic concerns, but both answer it with more laws instead of getting at the root of the problem: capitalism.
Not necessarily.

Bourgeois politics consists of many variations, but mainly liberal and conservative- which I don't really consider much different apart from issues which simply distract from the point.

1.) Liberalism regards everything as a "minority" in terms of who is affected by a condition in society- whether it be a racial, class or another issue. You can't emancipate the entire working class when you consider it a "minority" which is ultimately how liberals view everything.

2.) Conservatives have a very similar view of economics. There really isn't a difference between "liberal" economics and "conservative economics"; it is all capitalist. The only difference is how much they advocate to reform and modify the capitalist system- which really doesn't impact where they stand politically- it just makes it all that more of a fucked up mess when some fool goes to vote and thinks it's all different- it's the same shit.

3.) Liberals have a way of distracting from politics with issues that are generally quite small but end up being huge as they exaggerate them. Some good examples of this are: global warming, animal rights, other environmental issues, advocating for "minority rights", etc. Instead of focusing on issues that affect the majority, or the working class for that matter- they make a huge deal about how animals are abused, how we are fucking up the environment, how african americans aren't treated equally, along with countless other issues which I see as separating issues and people from one and other- not uniting them. Ultimately, they are distracting from working class movement.

4.) Liberals and Conservatives alike, in regard to all issues, rely much too heavily on the electoral system and are far too quick to act out of blind patriotism, just as they expect of others. They criticise people who don't vote but they fail to realize the problem with the bourgeois state, its political system and that the working class is the majority of society. Liberals also take a reactionary perspective on the majority of issues they are faced with, reject all forms of violence which does not support acts of patriotism (i.e. their nation going to war). They see revolutionary movement as a threat and fail to realize its necessity- and out of their reactionary nature they end up promoting the same shit as conservatives- ultimately leading me to conclude that they are simply bourgeois- and will always be bourgeois- parties. They are nothing more, nothing less- and nothing more can be expected.

5.) Liberals, in regard to economics, usually advocate for reformist policies, if anything at all. They generally do little different than conservatives, again regarding the working class as a minority with their bourgeois class definitions "upper" "middle" and "lower", "poor" etc. They throw around bullshit about the "middle class" and "standard of living" etc but they fail to see things for what they are and define "class" by $$$ earned (wages) instead of their relation in regards to the system. They see everything from a really narrow angle. Conservatives seek to abolish welfare, Liberals advocate for it- but yet they fail to see outside of this narrow box they place themselves in- and come to the realization that it is not that people are lazy, uneducated, unintelligent, etc but it is life existent under the bourgeois state.

Do you see what I'm getting at- because it really doesn't seem as it would be that difficult to understand. It's all the same shit under a different name. It's still bourgeois, and ultimately- they're all just reactionary to each other. There you got it- bourgeois vs. bourgeois politics.

[grove street]

Originally posted by Xiao [email protected] 30, 2007 06:36 am
Doesn't Karl Marx explain how the capitalist argument that higher wages mean higher prices is myth in the pamphlet "Wages, Prices and Profit"
To qulafiy as A Marxist these days requries nothing but a Che shirt :D

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 02, 2007 04:08 pm
To qulafiy as A Marxist these days requries nothing but a Che shirt :D
Anyone who says they are marxist simply for wearing a Che T-Shirt isn't truly marxist. There are some who wear Che shirts to make a mere fashion statement, others don't even know who Che was, for that matter, so someone wearing a Che shirt doesn't have to be "marxist". Someone cannot be marxist without having a understanding for marxism- and not everyone wearing a Che shirt does.

[Zurdito]

I know what abbie means though: liberal reforms under capitalism don't work, and the capitalist arguments against state interference show this. For capitalism to work effectively, it needs to be harsh.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:53 pm
I know what abbie means though: liberal reforms under capitalism don't work, and the capitalist arguments against state interference show this. For capitalism to work effectively, it needs to be harsh.
The reason a "minimum wage" can't work under capitalism is because the greater the production of commodities increases, the more labor, therefore for the bourgeoisie to profit from it at all the cost of the labor must be reduced- and that can't be done when there is a minimum amount of wages a worker is to be paid- as it will diminish the amount which the bourgeoisie profits from the production of commodities. This is where the concept of surplus value comes in- when the bourgeoisie doesn't pay the worker equal wages to their labor they profit more- as the costs become significantly lower than the amount they profit- which not only sustains their profit but allows for its increase. For this to continue on "effectively" requires decrease in wages and if there is a minimum wage this cannot occur effectively.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 03, 2007 05:25 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 03, 2007 05:25 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:53 pm
I know what abbie means though: liberal reforms under capitalism don't work, and the capitalist arguments against state interference show this. For capitalism to work effectively, it needs to be harsh.
The reason a "minimum wage" can't work under capitalism is because the greater the production of commodities increases, the more labor, therefore for the bourgeoisie to profit from it at all the cost of the labor must be reduced- and that can't be done when there is a minimum amount of wages a worker is to be paid- as it will diminish the amount which the bourgeoisie profits from the production of commodities. This is where the concept of surplus value comes in- when the bourgeoisie doesn't pay the worker equal wages to their labor they profit more- as the costs become significantly lower than the amount they profit- which not only sustains their profit but allows for its increase. For this to continue on "effectively" requires decrease in wages and if there is a minimum wage this cannot occur effectively. [/b]
yes, I know. :)

[RevSkeptic]

The reason a "minimum wage" can't work under capitalism is because the greater the production of commodities increases, the more labor, therefore for the bourgeoisie to profit from it at all the cost of the labor must be reduced- and that can't be done when there is a minimum amount of wages a worker is to be paid- as it will diminish the amount which the bourgeoisie profits from the production of commodities. This is where the concept of surplus value comes in- when the bourgeoisie doesn't pay the worker equal wages to their labor they profit more- as the costs become significantly lower than the amount they profit- which not only sustains their profit but allows for its increase. For this to continue on "effectively" requires decrease in wages and if there is a minimum wage this cannot occur effectively.

value is only a useful concept if there is inequality and without inequality value is a meaningless concept. But, there is inequality in the world because of scarcity and the costs required to turn various scarce resources including human resources into useful products. More investment in resources is needed to dig for gold than it is to dig for iron. More investment in time is necessary to acquire skills than it is to be unskilled. Value shouldn't be confused with costs which is fixed, but are subjective which makes it ripe for corruption and inefficiency. Without value there should be no such thing as planned obsolescence or over production.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:41 pm
how about pointing out that capitalist nature demands the destruction of the free market because of the want for monopoly ?
just point out microsoft as an example
Untrue. An monopoly technically does not violate the free market; there's no external regulation, so the market is still free. Furthermore, the creation of a monopoly does not mean you can maintain it indefinitely.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:08 am
I've found conservatives share similar social concerns with us [other than homosexuality, which needs to be expressed as pure bigotry on their part], and liberals share similar economic concerns, but both answer it with more laws instead of getting at the root of the problem: capitalism.
That depends on your definition of "conservative." Under the original definition (as laid out by Edmund Burke) a conservative wouldn't support capitalism. But modern conservatives do, almost by definition, support capitalism (assuming one takes Thatcher and Reagan, the quintessential conservative leaders of the last few decades, as standards).

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 03, 2007 10:23 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 03, 2007 10:23 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:08 am
I've found conservatives share similar social concerns with us [other than homosexuality, which needs to be expressed as pure bigotry on their part], and liberals share similar economic concerns, but both answer it with more laws instead of getting at the root of the problem: capitalism.
That depends on your definition of "conservative." Under the original definition (as laid out by Edmund Burke) a conservative wouldn't support capitalism. But modern conservatives do, almost by definition, support capitalism (assuming one takes Thatcher and Reagan, the quintessential conservative leaders of the last few decades, as standards). [/b]
Edmund Burke's ideology was the lie for the masses invented by an aristocracy to justify its own existence. Thatcher and Reagan's ideologies are the retrospective justifications for the capitalist class.

non-marxists alway make the same mistake: you do not view ideology as the explanation for a material reality, rather, you see reality as the cause of ideals. Thus we get the absurd spectacle of someone trying to apply Edmund Burke's conservatism to the 21st century, as if it were an "ideal" which could clash with Thatcher and Reagan's "ideal", rather than simply the now defunct tool for a class which has been replaced.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:45 pm
Edmund Burke's ideology was the lie for the masses invented by an aristocracy to justify its own existence. Thatcher and Reagan's ideologies are the retrospective justifications for the capitalist class.

non-marxists alway make the same mistake: you do not view ideology as the explanation for a material reality, rather, you see reality as the cause of ideals. Thus we get the absurd spectacle of someone trying to apply Edmund Burke's conservatism to the 21st century, as if it were an "ideal" which could clash with Thatcher and Reagan's "ideal", rather than simply the now defunct tool for a class which has been replaced.
Burke actually did use his ideology to explain (and predict) a "material reality." He predicted the French Revolution (successfully [note, that puts him ahead of Marx in social predictions]); he also predicted the Reign of Terror and Napoleon (see Reflections on the Revolution in France). Furthermore, Burke was actually extremely critical of the aristocracy; he thought they were primary contributors to the social rifts threatening England.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

By the way, am I allowed to post here, or do I need to restrict myself to the OI forum?

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 03, 2007 06:26 pm
By the way, am I allowed to post here, or do I need to restrict myself to the OI forum?
You'll be restricted to it shortly. It's to avoid the whole forum becoming capitalists vs. Communists/anarchists/socialists.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 03, 2007 11:24 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 03, 2007 11:24 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:45 pm
Edmund Burke's ideology was the lie for the masses invented by an aristocracy to justify its own existence. Thatcher and Reagan's ideologies are the retrospective justifications for the capitalist class.

non-marxists alway make the same mistake: you do not view ideology as the explanation for a material reality, rather, you see reality as the cause of ideals. Thus we get the absurd spectacle of someone trying to apply Edmund Burke's conservatism to the 21st century, as if it were an "ideal" which could clash with Thatcher and Reagan's "ideal", rather than simply the now defunct tool for a class which has been replaced.
Burke actually did use his ideology to explain (and predict) a "material reality." He predicted the French Revolution (successfully [note, that puts him ahead of Marx in social predictions]); he also predicted the Reign of Terror and Napoleon (see Reflections on the Revolution in France). Furthermore, Burke was actually extremely critical of the aristocracy; he thought they were primary contributors to the social rifts threatening England. [/b]
well all ideologies expplain and predict material reality, that's the point of them. that wasn't my point.

also he may well have been critical of the aristocracy, however, his brand of conservatism was aimed at preserving a society with them at the top. Just like many bourgeois poltiicians are critical of some aspects of capitalism, in order to defend capitalism as a system. In fact, Thatcher/Reaganism was extremeley critical of many "inefficient" capitalists, ie the ones based around heavy industry,

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 03, 2007 05:24 pm
Burke actually did use his ideology to explain (and predict) a "material reality." He predicted the French Revolution (successfully [note, that puts him ahead of Marx in social predictions]); he also predicted the Reign of Terror and Napoleon (see Reflections on the Revolution in France). Furthermore, Burke was actually extremely critical of the aristocracy; he thought they were primary contributors to the social rifts threatening England.
Doesn't make it more or less of a bourgeois argument for the purpose of providing justification for capitalism and the bourgeois state.

Burke was aiming to preserve bourgeois society- just as many other countless bourgeois politicians. You have Burke and other conservatives arguing for certain reforms, liberals arguing for reforms of similar nature- what you end up with is the same shit.

Burke's arguments, just like the arguments all bourgeois politicians- were arguments for "reforms" of what they claimed was "wrong" which would ultimately only benefit the bourgeoisie, and which have historically. These were not arguments based on anything but how to preserve bourgeois society and its ruling class- not really "different" from other arguments made by bourgeois politicians throughout history.

Reagan was bourgeois- whether you like it or not, he was not arguing for anything the bourgeoisie would not personally benefit from- by providing arguments to justify it so it would seem as if it actually did more than that.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 03:31 am
Doesn't make it more or less of a bourgeois argument for the purpose of providing justification for capitalism and the bourgeois state.

Burke was aiming to preserve bourgeois society- just as many other countless bourgeois politicians. You have Burke and other conservatives arguing for certain reforms, liberals arguing for reforms of similar nature- what you end up with is the same shit.

Burke's arguments, just like the arguments all bourgeois politicians- were arguments for "reforms" of what they claimed was "wrong" which would ultimately only benefit the bourgeoisie, and which have historically. These were not arguments based on anything but how to preserve bourgeois society and its ruling class- not really "different" from other arguments made by bourgeois politicians throughout history.

Reagan was bourgeois- whether you like it or not, he was not arguing for anything the bourgeoisie would not personally benefit from- by providing arguments to justify it so it would seem as if it actually did more than that.
Actually, Burke was really pre-Bourgeoisie. He disliked free trade, and was essentially defending the semi-manoral system England had maintained for years (in Marxian terms, he wanted to stick in the primitive accumulation stage).

As for Reagan being an agent of the Bourgeoisie, I'll grant that that's true (to the extent that he supported capitalism). Of course, as you could probably guess from my name, I don't find that very upsetting.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 04:04 am
Actually, Burke was really pre-Bourgeoisie. He disliked free trade, and was essentially defending the semi-manoral system England had maintained for years (in Marxian terms, he wanted to stick in the primitive accumulation stage).
I agree with that.

this is why I don't think you can compare his conservatism to todays conservatism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 04, 2007 11:51 am--> (Zurdito @ December 04, 2007 11:51 am)
Unapologetic [email protected] 04, 2007 04:04 am
Actually, Burke was really pre-Bourgeoisie. He disliked free trade, and was essentially defending the semi-manoral system England had maintained for years (in Marxian terms, he wanted to stick in the primitive accumulation stage).
I agree with that.

this is why I don't think you can compare his conservatism to todays conservatism.[/b]
It doesn't matter if it's exactly the same in regard to every fucking detail. Burke still made bourgeois arguments- regardless of what details he may have mentioned or argued for. Just as liberals/conservatives take a somewhat different position on certain rather small issues, i.e. reform, morals, "minority" liberation, etc. (which liberals have a way of making into huge issues)- doesn't make it less bourgeois. It's still bourgeois.

If you want to ask why- well, it's not because they are simply "bourgeois" that they make these arguments- it's because their goal is to preserve societal order (class distinction) ultimately for the purpose of preserving the existence of their own class- the bourgeois ruling class.

Now, there are arguments of the same nature, made in pre-bourgeois society- which I fully understand. But these arguments were arguments of the nobility, of the aristocracy. Even when they weren't "bourgeois" in the way the modern bourgeoisie is- they were a class of property owners, regardless if it was precapitalist society or capitalist society they existed in.

As precapitalist society came to an end and capitalism formed- the ruling class continued to be a class in control of property, the means of production, economic/social relations, etc. - so the formation of bourgeois society only reformed the class distinctions existent in precapitalist society (i.e. kings, lords, serfs, slaves, etc. were replaced with the bourgeois and proletarian classes).

Liberalism/conservatism are not "separate" "ideologies" if that's the term you want to use. They have the same economic foundation- and most other bullshit presented under "liberal" or "conservative" name is ultimately a reflection of economic viewpoint.

The only difference is the extent to which "reform" is to be carried out. Liberals are generally more reformist than conservatives, at least in regards to capitalism. Liberal politicians have argued that capitalism without reform is bad so they reform it in certain ways for the same purpose- to preserve bourgeois society while making justifications for it.

There is also very little distinction between liberalism/conservativism- the reason for this is there really is none other than the difference that liberals take a platform to liberate minorities (which in some cases aren't minorities) i.e. african american liberation, animal rights (which tends to tie in with environmentalism), etc. However, the problem with this occurs when they try to argue that "poor" people are a minority to be emancipated.

This seems to be a misunderstanding for class distinctions- as liberals see classes as being defined by wages/profit from work/the type of job/work itself rather than relation to the means of production - notice how they use terms like "poor" "lower" "middle" "upper" ultimately these are terms that people use in regards to type of work/rate of wage - otherwise there wouldn't be liberals making distinctions between "poor jobs" and "working class jobs" as there isn't a difference unless someone is completely ignorant to class distinction.

So, the point I'm attempting to get at is conservatives and liberals generally take a bourgeois view on economic/social issues and that is why I don't distinguish them on the "small" matters they may argue in regards to. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" argue for what will benefit the bourgeoisie in particular and make all effort to justify what will bring them more power (preventing increase in wages, promoting policies that target the working class and give the bourgeoisie more economic power, etc.). There is no distinction in that regard.

[Zurdito]

Admittedly I don't know much about Edmund Burke (not something I particularly regret) but I always believed him to be warning against the dangers of capitalism, and arguing to preserve basically a feudal society. Didn't he oppose the French revolution?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:04 pm
Admittedly I don't know much about Edmund Burke (not something I particularly regret) but I always believed him to be warning against the dangers of capitalism, and arguing to preserve basically a feudal society. Didn't he oppose the French revolution?
I have read his work before, so I know what his arguments consist of.

Burke argued for the necessity of bourgeois morals/ethics in society, and held the views of most liberals/conservatives on "individual rights"- though he argued for reforms of capitalism and the implementation of taxes, etc., he only argued for the such reforms to the least, most minimal extent- as all bourgeois politicians have argued for, considering that he wanted to preserve bourgeois rule and didn't want the bourgeoisie to be taxed and found it "repressive" which he mentioned many times in his work. His arguments were generally quite moral/ethical and were based on bourgeois values (religion).

Burke was not really "critical" of capitalism. Though he did argue for minor "reforms", he didn't argue for them to the extent which reformists of capitalism have. He didn't even argue for bourgeois socialism- that in itself clarifies that Burke was not opposed to laissez-faire economics (at least not entirely).

[Zurdito]

fair enough. I just thought he was pre-capitalist. I stand corrected.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 10:29 pm
Burke was not really "critical" of capitalism. Though he did argue for minor "reforms", he didn't argue for them to the extent which reformists of capitalism have. He didn't even argue for bourgeois socialism- that in itself clarifies that Burke was not opposed to laissez-faire economics (at least not entirely).
Using Marx's own definitions, Burke was pre-capitalist (pre-industrial). Therefore, his arguments for preserving the status quo make him anti-capitalist (Marx would probably have called him feudalist/manoralist). He was certainly not, however, a friend of Marx's bourgeoisie.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 04, 2007 10:28 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 04, 2007 10:28 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 04, 2007 10:29 pm
Burke was not really "critical" of capitalism. Though he did argue for minor "reforms", he didn't argue for them to the extent which reformists of capitalism have. He didn't even argue for bourgeois socialism- that in itself clarifies that Burke was not opposed to laissez-faire economics (at least not entirely).
Using Marx's own definitions, Burke was pre-capitalist (pre-industrial). Therefore, his arguments for preserving the status quo make him anti-capitalist (Marx would probably have called him feudalist/manoralist). He was certainly not, however, a friend of Marx's bourgeoisie. [/b]
Coming from someone who clearly supports bourgeois rule, such an argument does not surprise me.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 04:41 am
Coming from someone who clearly supports bourgeois rule, such an argument does not surprise me.
For what it's worth, I don't support Burke's positions. I can guarantee you, if he was a pro-capitalist, I would.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Unapologetic Capitalist+December 04, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Unapologetic Capitalist @ December 04, 2007 10:45 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 04:41 am
Coming from someone who clearly supports bourgeois rule, such an argument does not surprise me.
For what it's worth, I don't support Burke's positions. I can guarantee you, if he was a pro-capitalist, I would.[/b]
Yes, the bourgeois like to divide themselves in theory.

(note how liberals/conservatives use a different "name"); there is very little distinction between liberals and conservatives. Even with economics. If you leave out the small issues of "distractive politics" what you have is ultimately the same thing. As much as you try to separate bourgeois from bourgeois- it is still bourgeois in nature.

Burke certainly wasn't opposed to capitalism, however, I notice capitalists like to refute the claims of other capitalists. (hence, capitalist vs. capitalist elections in the U.S.)

Burke's arguments also contributed to conservative bourgeois "ideology", which is actually quite the same as liberalism if you leave out the petty bullshit brought into politics.

[Unapologetic Capitalist]

At this point, we're quibbling over semantics. Can we agree, at least, that the political and economic system Burke supported is substantially different from the political and economic systems supported by modern capitalists (e.g. free trade vs. mercantilism, noblesse oblige vs. non-hereditary dominance, etc.)?