Re: does capitalism like philosophy?

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:00:22 -0700, tg wrote:

> On Jul 3, 5:40 am, Paul Grieg <pgr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 11:08 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2 Jul, 08:17, sirbl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>> > > or does it only like economics? cuz under capitalism only thing
>> > > philosophy departments seem to do is disappear.
>>
>> > Philosophers do not seem to like capitalism, particularly Socrates,
>> > who considered gain of wealth for personal gain as not pursuit of the
>> > good, and Wittgenstein was a well-known 'Communist at Heart'.
 Russell
>> > was a socialist liberal, Marx, well I don't need to tell you about
his
>> > antipathy towards capitalism.  J. S. Mill stands out as being quite
>> > sympathetic to capitalism.
>>
>> What about Schopenhauer? He invited soldiers into his house to shoot
>> at left wing revolutionaries. His dad was a very rich merchant and he
>> lived off his capital so he had the free time to do philosophy. So
>> although he did not do any money grubbing himself he certainly
>> appreciated capitalism.

It sounds to me that Schopenhauer appreciated fascism and plutocracy. That
seems to be the problem here and elsewhere; this confusion of fascist
plutocracy with what one would think "capitalism" might be.  Natural
resources are not "capital".

>> I get the impression most non-Marxist philosophers (which includes all
>> the good ones!) look at capitalism in the same way they look at
>> democracy, i.e., the best of a bad bunch. Both democracy and
>> capitalism have the big advantage of sup****ting freedom. 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freedom from what?

>> Capitalism's
>> s defined by "free markets".
> 
> No, capitalism is defined by capital. Free markets only exist when
> there is no scarcity of resources, and it is difficult for capitalism
> to exist without that scarcity.

The proposition that "capitalism is defined by capital" is a good one. 
Now all you need do is to define "capital".  Hint:  It ain't money and it
ain't natural resources.

Capital exists regardless of markets.  And markets exist regardless
of capital.  Both markets and capital exist due to man's obsession with
satisfying his wants and needs with as little labor and discomfort to
himself as possible. 

http://GreaterVoice.org/essays/TheBerryPatch.php

One would think that "capitalism" would be a system that encouraged the
advent of "capital". 

Private owner****p is necessary to the existence of markets and trades and
division and specialization of labor. When this is extended to the private
owner****p of the means of production in the form or _real_ capital then,
in fact, more _real_ capital is evinced.  It is the development of _real_
capital that is the goal of true "capitalism".

> 
>> Of course, its excesses need to be
>> restrained, but what other kind of market might work?

Regulated markets are also markets.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend