Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Some Defend-President-Obama-no-matter-what-folks here will do anything to divert, [View all]BainsBane
(53,032 posts)128. Capitalism and individual rights go hand in hand
Last edited Sun Jul 20, 2014, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)
(Cont. of my first post to you)
The very notion of rights as resting in the individual is a development of the classical 18th century liberalism that was the political justification of and corollary to capitalism.
Misunderstanding about the Founding Fathers attacking corporations, I believe, comes from confusion over historical context and vocabulary of the era. I provide an example from a leading history of Brazil, now retired from Yale, Emilia Viotti da Costa. She is writing about the ideas underlying Brazilian independence, which shared the same influences as those that gave rise to independence in the American English colonies.
In Europe, liberalism was originally a bourgeois ideology, intimately related to the development of capitalism and the crisis of the seigneurial [feudal] world. Liberal notions were born out of the struggles of the bourgeoisie against the abuses of royal authority, the privileges of the clergy and the nobility, the monopolies that inhibited production, and traditional obstacles to free circulation, free trade, and free labor. In their struggle against absolutism, liberals defended the theory of social contract, stressed the sovereignty of the people and the supremacy of the law, fought for the division of powers and for representative forms of government. To destroy corporate privilege, they made freedom, equality before the law, and the right to property universal rights of men. And to the traditional regulations that inhibited production and trade they opposed free trade and free labor. Although rooted in an expanding capitalist economy and in the experience of the bourgeoisie, the liberal message was universal enough to appeal to other social groups that, for one reason or another, felt oppressed by institutions of the 'ancien regime' The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~triner/ModernLA/Liberalism.htm
People see opposition to "corporate privilege" and they think of modern-day multinational corporations. Corporate in that era in fact meant the power of groups, like the Church or royal monopolies. The word first came into use in the 16th century, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary:
Origin of CORPORATE
Latin corporatus, past participle of corporare to make into a body, from corpor-, corpus
First Known Use: 1512
First Known Use: 1512
At that time, nor in the late 18th century, did there exist entities similar to GE or Citgroup. The corporation as we understand it today, as an organ of big capitalist interests, did not exist in that era. The above reference to challenges to corporate privilege refers to exclusive rights wielded by the Church , the Crown, and royal monopolies under mercantilism, not capitalist business corporations as we understand the term today.
Classical liberalism emerged in opposition to mercantilism, economies in which the Crown controlled and benefited from commerce, and granted exclusive licenses to certain businesses (be they slave traders, tobacco monopolies, or other commercial entities) that were allowed to trade with their approval. Any commerce that existed outside of that was illegal, hence piracy. Liberals like Adam Smith championed free trade as a more efficient than mercantilism and free-wage labor as more efficient than slavery. These were fundamental tenets to capitalism, and were at the foundation of the American Republic, hence the Constiution's emphasis on individual rights.
Like you, Smith believed capitalism was natural and would take care of itself (the invisible hand). It's superiority as an economic system was seen as so inevitable, simply removing restrictions would allow free trade, and hence--they believed--liberty, to prevail. (Sounds a bit like George W Bush and the neo-cons, doesn't it? There is a reason that the term neo-liberalism is used to describe privatization).
The US Republic was established according to the liberal ideas of men like Smith and John Locke. Our constitution bears their influence and as such is a quintessential capitalist document. The founding of the US is inseparable from the development of capitalism itself, and its political structures are meant to promote the "free" development of capital and liberty, which are seen as synonymous.
Now, if one does not believe that capital and liberty are synonymous or that capital takes care of itself but is instead carefully nurtured by the state, as I do, then one approach is to examine the structures and consequences of the capitalist state. http://bobjessop.org/2013/11/04/the-capitalist-state-marxist-theories-and-methods/
It is not the only approach, and I do not suggest it as absolute truth, but it is historically grounded . It most certainly is NOT libertarianism. It is how I interpret history, and I cannot present a bourgeois interpretation rooted in American mythology as fact. I must leave that to others who buy into those ideas, of which there are many.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Some Defend-President-Obama-no-matter-what-folks here will do anything to divert, [View all]
cali
Jul 2014
OP
I have supported him, Hekate. I support him on Russia. I don't think his options are
cali
Jul 2014
#8
Is my recitation of criticisms required? I don't sing hosannas in his name, but ...
Hekate
Jul 2014
#22
I wouldn't mind being called a "sir" or "ma'am" but I do object to being called
betsuni
Jul 2014
#43
The president is of no consequence whatsoever beyond what he is able to achieve for the populace.
sibelian
Jul 2014
#34
the site was started because of the 2000 election being taken away from the establishment Dem Gore
JI7
Jul 2014
#132
"The function of the state is to serve capital" I think that statement needs modifying.
KittyWampus
Jul 2014
#45
It's not a "fantasy world"....You are preaching total submission and surrender
Armstead
Jul 2014
#158
I myself am an "authoritarian," or so I've been told. My friends would be so surprised.
Hekate
Jul 2014
#71
Yes indeed. The obstructive, do-nothing Congress we have is a fine example of
Skidmore
Jul 2014
#150
I reject the point outright that the purpose of our government is to serve capital
BrotherIvan
Jul 2014
#72
Your entire premise is false, and the fact that you present it as accepted truth points to
Maedhros
Jul 2014
#108
Oh, baby! "I'm a Progressive - I believe that we must change for the better."
Enthusiast
Jul 2014
#141
This makes for very interesting reading. Thanks for giving me different words to think about it.
Hekate
Jul 2014
#139
This thread has turned into an interesting discussion, but I'll have to return tomorrow...
Hekate
Jul 2014
#25
The 1 Percent's economic interests do NOT equal the nation's economic interests.
Divernan
Jul 2014
#35
I completely agree. He has posted one corporate shill after another to head critical
NC_Nurse
Jul 2014
#23
In my humble opinion, there are two distinct types that behave as you've described ....
Scuba
Jul 2014
#28
Its pervasive now. It is a hallmark of systems that turn authoritarian.
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#50
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2014
#66
I like Obama except for one thing: he's trying to change the Wilberforce Law in order to
Louisiana1976
Jul 2014
#78
I think we do have two small groups; one worships the man and the other group despises him.
Rex
Jul 2014
#95
You can critisize President Obama all you want, but you are wasting your valuable time.....
DrewFlorida
Jul 2014
#130
"there is a reflexive resistance to ANY criticisms or suggestions for change"
NCTraveler
Jul 2014
#168