When did capitalism become associated with conservatism? (McCain, Ron Paul, employment)

[WesternPilgrim]

Capitalism is economic liberalism. European conservatism was launched with the French Revolution, and was always suspicious of capitalism and its power to radically transform society. Capitalism is viewed by authentic conservatives as something at least potentially hostile to tradition, morally corrosive, and predatory.

America didn't really have a self-conscious "conservatism" until the 1950s, and capitalism in America was never really threatened until then. In the shallowest sense of the word, "conservatives" want to conserve things, and today's American conservatives want to conserve America's historic economic liberalism.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Iamme73]

Its not.

[WesternPilgrim]

Here's something to consider:

Socialism is an economy owned/managed by the government.

Capitalism is an economy owned/managed by a wealthy few.

In both systems, the majority of workers are non-owners, and their prosperity largely depends upon their success in manipulating people.

Both systems are materialistic systems that tend to envelop the whole society. In the end, man's contribution to society is seen in exclusively economic terms. Socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same materialistic coin.

Some American conservatives might be surprised to learn that the term "capitalism", which they embrace with such enthusiasm, was actually coined by Karl Marx and considered a necessary step in the march to socialism.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Capitalism is economic liberalism. European conservatism was launched with the French Revolution, and was always suspicious of capitalism and its power to radically transform society. Capitalism is viewed by authentic conservatives as something at least potentially hostile to tradition, morally corrosive, and predatory.

America didn't really have a self-conscious "conservatism" until the 1950s, and capitalism in America was never really threatened until then. In the shallowest sense of the word, "conservatives" want to conserve things, and today's American conservatives want to conserve America's historic economic liberalism.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Capitalism in America was more threatened in the first half of the 20th century than it was in the 1950s. The 1930s marked the all time low point in the popularity of capitalism worldwide.

There are many different types of conservatives ; while most American conservatism has been pro-capitalist, not all American conservatism has been pro-free market. There is a tradition of protectionist conservatism in America going back to Hamilton. Also, there have been social conservatives who have been skeptical of capitalism in America, going back to Bryan.

[Iamme73]

First off America has never had a purely capatilist economy. This is a fantasy. We have always had an economy that was a partnership between government, private citizens, and industry.

Neither conservatives nor libertarians want a purely capatilist economy. They just pretend to want one. A purely capatialist economy would be home to constant booms and busts, monopolies, debtors prisons, whole areas of the nation being cut off from the internet, electricity, drinkable water.

A purely capatilist economy would be a disaster.

[2nd trick op]

Political and economic freedom are unitary and inseparable; tamper with one, and the other invariably is diminished. Hitler had no more regard for economic freedom than did Stalin. The corrupt "state capitalists" of his day thought him a blowhard (and found out what unchecked government power could bring upon them).

The great Defenders of Liberty -- Smith, Locke, Voltaire, Rand and Friedman -- all understood this. Their views with regard to the importance of ideology vs. realpolitik were varied, but they all recognized the unchecked growth of the government's legal monopoly on the power to coerce as the principal threat to the individual.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Political and economic freedom are unitary and inseparable; tamper with one, and the other invariably is diminished.

Not if "freedom" means anything significant. Political freedom restricts economic freedom, and vice versa - the two are in constant tension and frequent conflict. In fact I can't think of a single law or political act that doesn't restrict someone's economic freedom in some way. And in reverse, the political deployment of capitalist wealth (i.e., "economic freedom") makes politics an exercise in futility for the rest of us.

You ignore that fact that wealth = liberty in a capitalist economy. The billionaire capitalist is more free than his workers. I am not free to start a hardware store in my city because Lowes and Home Depot make it impossible for me. That's capitalism infringing on my liberty.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Not if "freedom" means anything significant. Political freedom restricts economic freedom, and vice versa - the two are in constant tension and frequent conflict. In fact I can't think of a single law or political act that doesn't restrict someone's economic freedom in some way. And in reverse, the political deployment of capitalist wealth makes politics an exercise in futility for the rest of us.

You ignore that fact that wealth = liberty in a capitalist economy. The billionaire capitalist is more free than his workers. I am not free to start a hardware store in my city because Lowes and Home Depot make it impossible for me. That's capitalism infringing on my liberty.

Let me take this a step further. I'm not necessarily complaining. Liberty/freedom is a good, but it's not the highest good. The common good embraces much more than liberty. And the common good, for which government shares responsibility, usually requires the restriction of liberty for somebody somewhere.

Personally, I'm in favor of a mixed economy, with greater freedom for small businesses and entrepreneurs (America's rate of small business ownership is lower than "socialist" countries like Denmark and Canada) and greater restrictions on mega-corporations, especially when it comes to size. We need some wise protectionist measures for American industry before we completely forget how to make things for ourselves. I'd like to see regional enterprises established, with the help of regional governments, for the dual purposes of relieving unemployment and re-building our manufacturing base.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Let me take this a step further. I'm not necessarily complaining. Liberty/freedom is a good, but it's not the highest good. The common good embraces much more than liberty. And the common good, for which government shares responsibility, usually requires the restriction of liberty for somebody somewhere.

Personally, I'm in favor of a mixed economy, with greater freedom for small businesses and entrepreneurs (America's rate of small business ownership is lower than "socialist" countries like Denmark and Canada) and greater restrictions on mega-corporations, especially when it comes to size. We need some wise protectionist measures for American industry before we completely forget how to make things for ourselves. I'd like to see regional enterprises established, with the help of regional governments, for the dual purposes of relieving unemployment and re-building our manufacturing base.

It is no longer much of a stretch to say that, with its massive power to funnel wealth and jobs overseas and to influence political leaders, multinational big business has become an enemy of the state and to the future of freedom and well-being for the average American.

[GregW]

In our version of 'capitlism" the government functions to protect businesses that distort or eliminate any semblance of a free market in their market.