[Searmoreibe]

Incidentally, the people who were starving weren't really allowed to own capital, either. Which is kind of the whole point of capitalism. It's literally embedded in the name.

[accelieda]

Incidentally, the people who were starving weren't really allowed to own capital, either. Which is kind of the whole point of capitalism. It's literally embedded in the name.

I though those laws had been repealed?

[marketheal]

Seriously, why do you make a habit of being deliberately obtuse? It doesn't make you look clever; it makes you look like you're 12.

[diplmixxxx]

Yeah, better stick with "it's 'capitalist' if I agree with it".

That would be a pretty useful definition, in fact, and would closely match most textbook definitions.

[PWRichard]

Funny, that's not what you said literally two posts up.

Yeah, better stick with "it's 'capitalist' if I agree with it".

[Ebjjrxrd]

All societies are dominated by the rich.

I think this is essentially the definition of "rich"

[Honealals]

I would just prefer a society where the powerful have to provide things of value to people in order to get that power. Centuries of empirical data prove this a good idea.

Which brings us around full circle. Mitt Romney

I think historical experience has shown that to be preferable, but people have to accept that even "capitalist" societies will sometimes do bad things and not claim that those things "aren't really capitalist".

Although since the Corn Laws existed for the benefit of land owning aristocrats, someone could reasonably say they weren't a product of capitalism.

[allemnendup]

Capitalist societies can have aspects that are not capitalist, and it's totally reasonable to blame those on negative effects we don't associate with capitalism.

[Wetekemieluth]

I call DanS on this, but I will respond to it nonetheless.

Many anti-capitalist things exist to benefit the rich, even now. For example, American leftists design inefficient systems and put them through Congress to give themselves high-paying jobs interpreting the red tape.

But of course, as a highly-paid lawyer, you knew that already. Edit: scratch this, I think I confused you with Imran or Wezil or one of the other lawyers on this site.

I'm in college.

[EnvellFen]

Are you all having fun in your circlejerk thread? We can play the same game with Obama, if you like. So how about that Guantanamo, guys? Or the whole "if unemployment is over 7% by the end of my next term, I deserve to be a one term president"? Etc.

Obama actually has policy stances to like. Romney, who knows?

[clomoll]

Of course he deserves to be a one term president.

I disagree. Obama doesn't deserve to be a one-term president. Overall, his policies weren't that bad. They just didn't set the world on fire, which, for some reason, has become the new standard.

[cigattIcTot]

I'm pretty sure almost everyone's lives improved in the 19th century when compared to the 18th century. You're telling me that trains, steamships, and all manner of advances did not improve the lives of the common person? Try again.

In the United States, the labor restrictions you're talking about didn't start to happen until the 1910s or so. I think you would have to be an idiot to make the case that a person in 1905 lived a harsher life than a person in 1805.

[StitlyDute]

I would just prefer a society where the powerful have to provide things of value to people in order to get that power. Centuries of empirical data prove this a good idea.

Yes, like issuing currency valued on the people's future labor.