Do you support a Capitalist DIR?

[Revoltingest]

Oddly, there didn't seem to be any angst or hand-wringing involved in creating a Socialist DIR.

Well, RF culture does lean in that direction. I imagine that there's a sense of
entitlement that the whole forum be their echo chamber. It's similar to some
feminists taking umbrage at the existence of other perspectives. They deserve
protection from outsiders, who are themselves unworthy of it.

Note that I acknowledge RF's having socialists & feminists who are more progressive
in their tolerance of, friendship with, & interest in their loyal opposition on the fringes.

 

[Quiddity]

I see no reason why not.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Based upon criteria I see used elsewhere, posters must:
- Identify as a capitalist
- Advocate for capitalism

Which capitalism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which capitalism?

Elaborate.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Elaborate.

Would state capitalism and those who advocate it would count has capitalist?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would state capitalism and those who advocate it would count has capitalist?

It seems that would depend upon the extent advocated, since it approaches socialism.
Member consensus would shed light on this.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It seems that would depend upon the extent advocated, since it approaches socialism.
Member consensus would shed light on this.

So you would discriminate against other capitalist if they adhere to a form of capitalism that does not fit your definition of capitalism?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you would discriminate against other capitalist if they adhere to a form of capitalism that does not fit your definition of capitalism?

Every DIR has its criteria (sometimes specific, & sometimes nebulous) to exclude the
opposition from their midst. This avoids having conversations break down into bickering.
I don't personally have the authority to enforce whatever definition emerges.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't personally have the authority to enforce whatever definition emerges.

And neither does member consensus.

 

[Revoltingest]

And neither does member consensus.

Who would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Whom would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

Thing is there is not just one form of capitalism or one type of capitalist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thing is there is not just one form of capitalism or one type of capitalist.

But this doesn't address my question.
Who would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

 

[ShivaFan]

Do we have a Capitalism DIR yet? I am excited to join in. I think there are enough votes. And who knows? - I will send Larry Kudlow an F.Y.I. and by God's luck maybe he will join in as a member of RF!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But this doesn't address my question.
Who would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

I think before a capitalist dir is created we are going to have to define what is capitalism and what is a capitalist.

 

[columbus]

Who would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

I'll do it.

I start by eliminating Christians as they worship a God who preached something quite different.

Tom

 

[Tarheeler]

Whom would you have define membership criteria in DIRs?

That's one of the major problems I see with this, and why I was trying to get Phil to answer my questions.

Since capitalism is an economic system, rather than a political or philosophical one, it can be adapted to almost any political ideology. In a more conservative or "classic liberal" system, it is largely unregulated and hands-off. In a liberal system, you're going to see increased regulation and government interaction, but it's still pretty much wide open. In more socialist systems, it's expressed as state-capitalism, social market economy, or the Nordic model.

In each, the major tenets of capitalism, such as private property and for-profit production, are adhered to, but the way that it is regulated is much, much different. And the people who advocate each system is a capitalist, although with vastly different views, and would theoretically fall into the group the DIR is for.

I think that the spectrum of those who can be labeled as a capitalist is so broad that the restrictions provided by the DIR system will prove to be irrelevant, but there might be other ways to get the desired results by going about it in a different way.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'll do it.

I start by eliminating Christians as they worship a God who preached something quite different.

Tom

That goes without saying, since Jesus was an anarchist commie who preached against worshiping money and the Apostle Paul called the love of money the root of all evil.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's one of the major problems I see with this, and why I was trying to get Phil to answer my questions.
Since capitalism is an economic system, rather than a political or philosophical one, it can be adapted to almost any political ideology. In a more conservative or "classic liberal" system, it is largely unregulated and hands-off. In a liberal system, you're going to see increased regulation and government interaction, but it's still pretty much wide open. In more socialist systems, it's expressed as state-capitalism, social market economy, or the Nordic model.
In each, the major tenets of capitalism, such as private property and for-profit production, are adhered to, but the way that it is regulated is much, much different. And the people who advocate each system is a capitalist, although with vastly different views, and would theoretically fall into the group the DIR is for.
I think that the spectrum of those who can be labeled as a capitalist is so broad that the restrictions provided by the DIR system will prove to be irrelevant, but there might be other ways to get the desired results by going about it in a different way.

I notice in the socialist DIR that many members oppose full blown socialism.
It faces similar membership issues, & yet it appears to cope with them.
Not an insurmountable problem.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think that the spectrum of those who can be labeled as a capitalist is so broad that the restrictions provided by the DIR system will prove to be irrelevant, but there might be other ways to get the desired results by going about it in a different way.

I would have no problem whatsoever if they did put it a different, if a Objectivist DIR was going to be created I would support it. But Capitalist is too broad a term.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I notice in the socialist DIR that many members oppose full blown socialism.
It faces similar membership issues, & yet it appears to cope with them.
Not an insurmountable problem.

Those member of the socialist dir who oppose full blown socialism are still include. We are talking about who would be excluded from a capitalist dir? Barterers? People who believe in a gift economy? I can see that but who else?