The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Stevicus]

I have seen many capitalists support higher taxes on the rich. It really depends on the specific flavor of capitalism one advocates: technically, both social democracy and libertarianism are subsets of capitalism, but they differ significantly from each other.

I think the Cold War-era propaganda of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" and the idea that the US is a real "meritocracy" have contributed a lot to the notion that advocating for higher taxes on the rich is necessarily a negative thing or a sign of entitlement or "laziness." These ideas, in my understanding, are not as common in some other capitalist and hybrid-economy countries like Germany, Sweden, France, etc.

I think in past eras, there was greater support for liberal social programs and the labor movement, as it turned out to be a major stabilizing influence against the extremist ideologies which arose in other states.

Of course, the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" and the illusion of "liberty and justice for all" have always been around as cultural and political tropes. There's also been a work ethic which has existed, particularly in Middle American farm country that "everyone has to do their share of the work." But it was often a family affair where, at the end of the day, they all get to sit and eat at the same table. They might also do business at the nearby town, where there are shopkeepers, tradesmen, and others offering goods and services. It seems natural that, since they're doing the work, they get to own their own stuff and keep the spoils of their hard work.

That's how many people might perceive a free market economy, since that's what they're more inclined to see in their everyday lives. Of course, that also entailed a certain wariness about hucksters, carpetbaggers, snake-oil salesmen, grifters - which were viewed as hazards within a free society, but avoidable if one is vigilant and aware enough. But as they say, "a fool and his money are soon parted." That's another little pearl of wisdom which is part of the general capitalist perception, which is tantamount to blaming the victim. Just because someone is a fool, that doesn't give anyone the right to con them or manipulate them into buying something they don't want or need - or signing a contract that's not in their best interests.

 

[PureX]

In the liberal democracies, which have had some measure of reform and a history of supporting organized labor, there is a certain legacy of support for capitalism in the context of virulently anti-communist Cold War politics. Also, a major justification I hear from capitalist mouths is that they love capitalism and greed because "now I have all this money so I can help the poor and disadvantaged of this world." They'll justify themselves by sending money to Jerry's kids or food to the starving billions of the world (while neglecting to wonder how they got that way in the first place).

Yes. That's about control. Even if they do give back, which is very unlikely, they still get to be in control. Money isn't really about the money, itself, it's about the control it gives us.

Oh yes, that old chestnut has already come out in this thread. It's an attempt at deflection and misdirection. Some capitalists tend to argue like they're playing a game of Three-Card Monte.

But it points directly at that complicity that we engage in so that we can pretend we are innocent. The 'envy card' is to remind us that we are also selfish and greedy. And if we don't want to face that fact, we'd better shut up about it.

Yes, I've seen quite a bit of this kind of talk as well. I hear people talk about "alpha males," as if human society is reduced to that of a wolf pack. It's an appeal to natural law - social Darwinism. That's what it boils down to in the eyes of a capitalist. Their rhetoric proves it over and over.

Yes, capitalism is very much based on social Darwinism, and is justified that way all the time. And it's sad because it implies that we can't rise above it. (Which is exactly what the capitalists want us to believe.)

Also, they lie incessantly about the alternatives to make us believe they are all horrible and disastrous. And they've been doing it so long and so vociferously that most of us have no idea what the real alternatives are. Or even that there are any.

 

[Bthoth]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

I noted the strange phenomena during trump presidency, Supposed and claimed to be conservative, but then pushed a 3.5 trillion dollar package that gave about 2100 per tax payer hand out on increasing the deficit, and then the 25k per employee hand out to small business owners... again at the expense of increasing the deficit.

It made me wonder if conservatives even know what the term means, I also wondered if they all can be bought and paid for with such a little amount.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

Capitalism is really the only economic system that actually creates wealth. It does this by permitting those who create new goods and products, or invent better ways of producing them, or put up the capital to begin producing them to profit from their creativity and/or risk-taking. That is, capitalism actually incentivizes creativity, investment or risk-taking. It should be clear that communism and other socialist systems can't do this: clearly, "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" absolutely negates the incentive to "go beyond."

Thus, many of the "haves" are exactly those people who create (like Bill Gates) or take the risk of investing their wealth in production.

But those who are not able to create new goods, or invest in factories and machines to improve productivity, can also benefit through being employed by those very "haves." Add in functioning unions and benefits provided as part of the employment package, and all the rest of us "have nots" can actually do quite well. Therefore, it is to the benefit of the "have nots" to permit the "haves" to profit from their gifts and risk-taking.

The Laffer Curve, mentioned above, isn't so much wrong as imprecise -- trying to determine where the peak of the curve is is really mostly guess-work. As Economist John Quiggin says, the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal", but Laffer's analysis that the United States was to the right of the peak of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect." As long as tax rates remain progressive, the "haves" still get to keep a large portion of what they reap from their inventiveness and risk-taking -- just possibly a little lower than they'd like. But that's the same for everyone else, isn't it? We'd all like to keep more of what we earn, even if what we earn really is from nothing more than our hard labour.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes. That's about control. Even if they do give back, which is very unlikely, they still get to be in control. Money isn't really about the money, itself, it's about the control it gives us.

Yep. It's always been the same old game when it comes to politics and power, even if the players and scripts can often change to suit the political and social culture.

But it points directly at that complicity that we engage in so that we can pretend we are innocent. The 'envy card' is to remind us that we are also selfish and greedy. And if we don't want to face that fact, we'd better shut up about it.

True, although I generally believe it to be an irrelevant point in any case. Even if it is true, how does that change the basic crux of the argument? Some have said that it's the workers and labor unions who are greedy and selfish, but they might say "Yes, we are, and so what? We just want our fair share." As for what is determined to be fair, that becomes a matter of negotiation and collective bargaining.

In the end, it's merely a question of who should get the lion's share of the produce in a human endeavor or enterprise: Those who produce the beans or those who count the beans? Capitalists believe that those who count the beans should earn more, since they're so good at counting. Those who produce the beans get much less by comparison. As much as capitalists like to pretend otherwise, people do notice these disparities.

Yes, capitalism is very much based on social Darwinism, and is justified that way all the time. And it's sad because it implies that we can't rise above it. (Which is exactly what the capitalists want us to believe.)

Also, they lie incessantly about the alternatives to make us believe they are all horrible and disastrous. And they've been doing it so long and so vociferously that most of us have no idea what the real alternatives are. Or even that there are any.

I think the alternatives lie in making incremental changes to policy which can gradually make things better, but it's when capitalists stubbornly oppose even minor changes that causes the level of political entrenchment which can lead to instability and potential upheaval. Even things that capitalists in Europe might accept, like better wages, better benefits, free healthcare, more safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged - these are things American capitalists fight tooth and nail against. It seems that the smart businesspeople are those who are willing to accept more liberal and progressive policies - not because they're bleeding hearts - but because they're smart businesspeople who recognize the consequences of not doing so.

 

[MikeF]

That's insightful but doesn't answer the question. Why hasn't the structure been torn down already?
In history, every time a social contract got broken, system change was the result. The social contract in capitalism was that everybody benefitted from the system, and the capitalists were allowed to take the lions share. That worked until about the '80s, living standards went up for all classes. But that contract has been broken by the elite.
But still people who have nothing and have no perspective to gain anything defend that the rich take all. There is no logic in that.

Yeah, I am going to disagree here. Systems are complex and I do not think you are taking into account all the variables. In the United States specifically, up and until the '80, US workers had a monopoly on the labor required by the US economy. In addition, we might say that we were able to obtain natural resources from the third world at prices advantageous to the US but that did not reasonably benefit the source country or its people.

Then globalization occurs and US workers no longer have a monopoly on labor but have to compete with labor world wide. While this stagnated earning power for US workers, I would say it dramatically improved the earning power for many workers in other countries that heretofore had been excluded from participating meaningfully in modern economic markets.

I don't have numbers but I speculate that the overall global standard of living has increased since the '80's and it is due to a greater ability for everyone, not just those in the US or Europe, to participate in a global interconnected market system.

 

[Revoltingest]

Eternal growth is impossible: and Capitalism cannot survive, unless there is eternal growth.

Capitalism doesn't depend upon growth.
Many capitalists love it. Even socialists love
growth. I don't. Perpetual economic or
population growth are bad long term goals
because they're unsustainable.
I've been saying this for years, but it seems
that no one listens...at least you dint notice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course you know, because I just told you.

You say much.
But tell little.

 

[Revoltingest]

Infrastructure is a 'means of construction' - roads, railways and power companies for example all drive the economy. Schools train the workers, hospitals ensure the welfare of those same workers.

That's not a common view. Economists
don't treat infrastructure as making a
socialist economy. But even if that were
the common view, there remains a market
economy for goods & services, ie, capitalism.

 

[MikeF]

In the end, it's merely a question of who should get the lion's share of the produce in a human endeavor or enterprise: Those who produce the beans or those who count the beans

I'm curious if you think all who participate in an economy should get the exact same share of the produce irrespective of the level or manner in which they participate.

 

[exchemist]

It only takes a net worth of $95,000 or so to be in the top 10% worldwide. So with my house equity, retirement savings, assets etc. I am in the top 10%. Are you? If so, do you owe the bottom 90% of the world's population some of your money?

Taxation is taking peoples money through force. I am for taxes to pay for things our society needs. However, I bet we disagree on what fair taxation is. If we do have a booming economy then it is up to the individual to go out and earn the money and not take it by force from people who did just that. Why do you think the rich owe you their money?

The rich don't owe me anything because they made the money themselves. It is not mine to take. I have had the opportunity to make money myself and I am ok, not rich by US standards but by the world's standards I am and I bet you are too due to capitalism.

But the rich don’t make money in a vacuum. They rely on people to buy stuff, on laws of property and other social structures developed and maintained by society, on infrastructure and services paid for by all citizens, etc. Many businesses sell partly on the basis of persuading people to buy stuff they don’t need. For all these reasons these people owe a debt to the society in which they earn their wealth.

If there was a “market” in the value of these communal services and everyone had to “buy” them at a negotiated price, they would be worth a lot more to the rich, as enablers of their wealth. So on a free market basis they would expect to pay more for them.

 

[Koldo]

The demonstrated capability to allow
both economic & social liberty.

Note that I don't claim it's guaranteed.
Merely possible. Unlike under socialism.

What do you mean by economic and social liberty?
If I am interpreting you correctly, social liberty is possible in socialism too, just not economic liberty. And I don't really care about economic liberty, which means we measure 'success' differently.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you mean by economic and social liberty?

Economic liberty is the right to work where one
wants, to start a business, to own it, to advance,
to work in any field.
Social liberty is essentially the Bill Of Rights.

If I am interpreting you correctly, social liberty is possible in socialism too, just not economic liberty.

It is possible, but historically it's never existed
under socialism. The reason is systemic, ie,
the greater governmental power necessary to
control an economy is power that will tend to
be used in any area. Social oppression results.

And I don't really care about economic liberty....

Too bad. It matters to many of us.
This was especially so for many I've known who
escaped socialism because of the crushing
poverty....& the social oppression.

 

[Estro Felino]

Capitalism doesn't depend upon growth.
Many capitalists love it. Even socialists love
growth. I don't. Perpetual economic or
population growth are bad goals because
they're unsustainable.

I meant economic growth. Not population growth.

 

[Koldo]

Capitalism is really the only economic system that actually creates wealth. It does this by permitting those who create new goods and products, or invent better ways of producing them, or put up the capital to begin producing them to profit from their creativity and/or risk-taking.

Where did all the wealth come from before capitalism then?

That is, capitalism actually incentivizes creativity, investment or risk-taking. It should be clear that communism and other socialist systems can't do this: clearly, "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" absolutely negates the incentive to "go beyond."

It is worth pointing the context where that phrase shows up in Marx's writtings. He was speaking of an eventual state of affairs where a society would be so developed that it would be overflowing with goods. For all practical purposes, until then, the proper phrase is: from each according to his ability, to each according to their work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

I've long wondered if it's q cultural hangover frim when something like a bountiful harvest or more than a few kids survive childhood was seen as being in god's good graces.
Afterall, it's also widely believed they are inherently smarter, harder workers and more important than everyone else.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm curious if you think all who participate in an economy should get the exact same share of the produce irrespective of the level or manner in which they participate.

Not the exact same share.

 

[Stevicus]

You say much.
But tell little.

You can tell?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where did all the wealth come from before capitalism then?

Look around -- the earth is abundantly full of great wealth. You just had to go and get it.

Amassing wealth, on the other hand, was more usually through the sweat of multitudes consigned to slavery or serfdom for the benefit of the rich and/or powerful. This did not create wealth -- just made sure it wound up primarily in few hands, with just enough left over to keep the multitudes sweating.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can tell?

But I don't tell on you.