Capitalist Democrats

Is the following term an oxymoron? *poll question*

Is it possible to be a 'good' democrat and a capitalist at the same time?

Just curious as to what your opinion is on this topic...

Good ole Commie China has way more in common with the GOP (repressive regimes, corporate government, crackdowns on civil liberties, one party rule, cronies getting all the spoils, to say nothing of friendships with the Bush family) than it ever did with the opposition party.

Republicans are just good at scaring people with the words 'liberal' and 'socialist'.

Mr. Potter was a Republican Capitalist.

That's the difference.

George Bailey used capitalism to provide people opportunity and make a life for himself and his family.

Mr. Potter used capitalism to steal everything he could and ruined the lives of other people.

with socialist. Ever.

conflict with capitalist principles.

but I think they go hand in hand with one another. It's when you get into corporate socialism that democracy takes a hit, in my opinion.

Yes, he is and so are millions of other Democratic capitalists.

Much better than WalMart.

No.

Is the term "Capitalist Progressive" an oxymoron?

Yes.

Care to elaborate...?

unless it is regulated to the point that it is no longer capitalism.

the OP focusses unproductively on labels when the more important exploration of capitalism's inherent inequities is what is called for ...

"liberals" traditionally seek ways to "restrain" the excesses of capitalism ... they seek such things as lobbyist disclosure laws or campaign finance laws ... the problem is that they never really commit to the objective; i.e. the ultimate necessity of solving the problem ...

"liberalism", as i characterize it anyway, seeks a "let's try this but don't go too far" approach ... if more extreme measures are required to achieve the goal, the pursuit is abandoned or some new, equally hopeless scheme is invented ...

the statement is very simple: wealth is not an evil until those who have it, exert, or have the means to exert, disproportionate influence and control over the political process ... unfortunately, wealth has always found a way to power ... the only restraint that works is ultimately the restraint of wealth itself ...

oh no, Mr. Bill ... that would be, well, un-American ... well, so is putting your government up for sale ... wealth must be capped at some amount that makes it far more difficult to allow for the "best government that money can buy" ... all these so called "liberal" measures are just a big game of pretend ...

unless one is an anarchist who likes living in a jungle where the top of the food chain is born there.

Wealth is the only virtue inherent to capitalism. Wealth corrupts the political process and is antithetical to an egalitarian world view. Egalitarianism is the very soul of democracy.

we've not encountered multi-national corporations with the kind of breadth and depth of influence -- both politically and socially.

i.e. television a corporate tool helps to form our young.

and this power and influence is growing stronger every year -- i.e. bushco is just an obviousexample of a reality that runs much, much deeper.
both political parties are hip deep in corporate influence.

i just want to add to your remarks.

on the surface -- i'm a rather old fashioned socialist -- but with the world very much smaller today than ever before -- and with global climate warming bring things to near collapse -- we will need all kinds of energy at our disposal in the future.

metastasized

When the most successful of the capitalists leans left, I think one has a pretty good argument.

I think these days, too many associate "capitalist" automatically with the Ayn Rand, hardcore, screw-you-little-man, deterministic free traders.

IMHO, regulatory limits are a legitimate part of the marketplace. Capitalism is wonderful. The degree to which limits are imposed separates the liberals from the conservatives...

to be a democrat and a capitalist?

Please be mindful of how you ask questions.

And I say that being a democrat is not in any way in disagreement with being capitalist.

Another poster said that being capitalist and progressive is an oxymoron, and I think that's utter nonense; excepting that there are a brazilian ways to define "progressive", since it's a term that has little concrete meaning, so depending on how that person defines progressive then, yes, I suppose one can make the claim that one cannot be "progressive" and capitalist.

Stern but streamlined corporate regulation.

Fair labor practices.

Financial incentives for business to hire American workers.

Universal, single-payer health insurance to level the playing field for small businesses.

immediately come to mind as Democratic officeholders who became wealthy on their own. And they're both pretty liberal.

Can't get more capitalistic than being chairman of Goldman-Sachs or a founder of ADP.

Mega-corporatism kills competitive capitalism.

Democrats should support true free market principles, especially to create opportunities through micro-entrepreneuship. Democrats should fight mega-corporatism.

But since a single individual can incorporate, and most of us don't have any problem with that, we should be clear we are talking about the abusive power of mega-corporations, not all entities that fall under the definition of a "corporation".

I think a Democrat can be a capitalist. Capitalists with a conscious. I think we can manage that.

support? :shrug:

Working within the prevailing economic system doesn't in any way entail a particular party outlook.

I'm wary of anti-regulation, free-range capitalists, but being in favor of regulation doesn't make one a communist.

Which does not mean that there are not some "capitalists" who are also registered in the Democratic Party. (For one thing, sane "capitalists" know that you can only stomp the Proles just so far into the ground before they revolt - therefore, it behooves him/her to throw enough bones under the table to keep the hounds at bay. And for another, we all know that not all "Democrats" support the agenda below.)

But if (and it's a big "IF" since obviously not all "Democrats" endorse the following) a "good" Democrat stands for a dignified safety net for the unemployed, for wage laws, labor rights, human rights, environmental laws, and fair taxation of wealth and business/corporations...

...and a "capitalist" stands for the unrestricted flow of "capital" unconstrained by any of the above...

then how can a "good" Democrat be a "capitalist?"

As "leftofthedial" said:


As "welshTerrier2" said:


If we manage to survive, it will be because we manage to "regulate capitalism to the point that it no longer exists." "Capitalism" is inherently unsustainable.

Your lack of understanding of the terms "Democrat" and "capitalist" is the problem.

Obviously, you adhere to definitions which are wrong.

A democrat is whoever votes Democratic and calls himself a Democrat.

A capitalist is one who uses his own capital or that of others to create and run a business. Every small business in America is a capitalist venture, and they employ over 90% of Americans.

Anyone who thinks "capitalism" is the problem has never owned a business, and probably never will. Capitalism requires controls, but it still works a hell of a lot better than other systems.

...and corrupt corporatists.

NGU.