Why Dictators Can't Be Capitalist.

According to some Chinese farmers, poverty is a problem in rural areas because the agriculture tax is too high. I saw some info were the government has promised to reduce these taxes in 2006.

 

It's interesting to think about China heading the direction of Scandanavia. To me, that would imply embracing democratic reforms in the political realm while maintaining a strong commitment to socialist economic principles. From what I can tell, the opposite is occuring in China: an embrace of capitalist economic principles and a strong resistance to political liberalization. Singapore seems a more plausible model than Scandanavia.

 

Chinas economy wasnt developed after marxist principles... just because you l ived under communism doesnt mean it was a reflection of marxist doctrine.

 

It doesn't?! Well, what I lived is what marxism generates. Unfortunately marxism is a doctrin full of flaws. I wrote about that at a neighbour topic, which treats communism, so I won't repeat myself.

Now, was the Chinese peasants forced to associate in state controled farms? Were the big and middle land owners exproprieted and their land taken in state farms? Didn't this happened all over in communist countries? Isn't the dissapearence of private property a basic marxist principal? OK, I leave you draw the conclusions.

 

. . . which is why a totalitarian regime ruled by capitalists is called Fascist. Fascism is more insidious than dicatorship -- it involves a class of people exploiting the majority's fears in order to bring about authoritarianism

 

Pure capitalism - completely pure laissez-faire markets cannot exist under any kind of governmental system.

Government, by its very nature, is necessarily parasitic on a market. The state is the only institution known to man with the legal right to obtain its funding through coercion and force.

The state is not a producer of goods. The state does not provide a service for profit. The state simply redistributes wealth from those who produce it to those who are unable or unwilling. This is true of any form of government.

Pure markets can only exist in a Natural Order.

 

A capitalist society will always be protect the capitalist class, just as a socialist society will always protect the working class. No execption. The only thing is that when the ruling class does not feel excessively threathened, it will allow some "democratic measures", some reforms that make the society look "free and fair". But as soon as the ruling class will feel threathened, these reforms will go out the window.


Batista, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, and King Fahd and King Gyanendra are good examples of capitalist dictators.


Capitalism is not democracy. Capitalism is an economic system. Democracy is a form of government.

 

The state in each of these countries were defending the capitalist class in the nation. In South Africa, there were racial distinction between people, making it easier to point out the overlords and the servants.

Capitalism wasn't limited to whites only. It's just that being a member of the capitalist class was impossible for a black person. The blacks would still live under a capitalist state.

It's common knowledge that racism is a product of class society.

 

So are you saying that under capitalism the working class gets limits put on them? Then where do American middle-class people come from? Didn't many in the middle class formerly belong to the working class and lower class?

How do you think Adam Smith would view these people? From what I've read on Fascism,fascist will allow private enterprise as long as it serves the goverment's goals in some way. And Fascist governments usually maintain strict control over industries.

Does this sound like Free market capitalism according to what Adam Smith taught?

 

Why was it impossible for a Black person? Wasn't it because the government dictated the financial lives of Blacks under Aparthied? Isn't that the kind of government intervention that violates free market capitalism? Under a capitalist system the government can't dictate who can and can't participate in the economy like was done in South Africa.

 

Dictators are ALWAYS capitalistic in my opinion. No matter if they "Say" they are communist, socialist, etc. they are still just trying to take advantage of their people and make money and power, that's all. A capitalistic dictator would like nothing more than to lead a communist or socialist country because the central government would be nothing short of gigantic, and the people's private property and money would all go to the government. any capitalistic dictator wouldn't want his people to be able to live in capitalism.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Oh, so absolute monarchs from feudal ages were capitalistic? No, communist and socialist dictators are more close to the feudal model then to the capitalistic one.

 

Well, in my opinion, as a capitalist, you believe in making money for yourself, it is a more rugged individualistic belief...even if they don't know it, as a dictator, they are after power and money, which to me, fits the capitalistic belief.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Don't capitalist or business owners need workers? Workers who they pay and provide income for. So capitalist aren't just making money for themselves they are providing income for their employees.

 

Let me joke! Dictators also provide jobs and money for secret police members, torture experts, executioners and plenty of guys hired or rewarded just to passionately kiss their asses.

 

What is capitalism?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

http://capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm

----------------------------------------------------

I wanted to add this because some have pointed out that dictators or fascist can be capitalist because capitalism is an economic system and not a political one. So it's possible for a dictator to be politically controling,but allow for a free market.

According to the definition above from a capitalism site,capitalism can also be a social and political system related to the recognition of individual rights and of other rights and freedoms. So looking at capitalism in this way, a dictator just by his or her nature will be violating the political and social aspects of capitalism and this I feel adds to what I'am saying about dictators not being able to be actual capitalist according to it's full definition. Is there political freedom under fascism?

 

"Don't capitalist or business owners need workers? Workers who they pay and provide income for. So capitalist aren't just making money for themselves they are providing income for their employees."

Yes, true, but what i said was that they are capitalists because they are choosing to believe in rugged individualism and trying to make money for themselves, if that means paying others to make a profit for themself, so be it.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I guess it depends on how you view this rugged individualism and how it's used. This rugged individualism or self-interest along with the competition from other capitalists is what motivates capitalist to want to get rich. How good would Toyota cars be if the heads of Toyota weren't trying to get rich? I mean,Toyota does want you to buy more of their cars.

 

A person is capitalist when he owns means of production, and so can survive by exploiting the labor of workers.

Capitalism could be said to be an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

The working class, however, is the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.





Capitalism and.... "Individual rights"? "Political freedom"? Philosophical rubbish.

 

Under capitalism, the working class are free to become capitalist themselves. Many American buisness owners were once employees for someone.