Why Was The Glorious Revolution Important For Capitalism?

[areyes999]

@ TenderTrap86 The Glorious Rev. did in fact launch the development of capitalism because it clipped the prerogatives of the king and nobility and ensured, via a constitution with a powerful parliament, that the rising capitalist class could avoid the constraints of a tax-loving king and use the British state in the service of business interests--not just the king's. The American Revolution incorporated the liberal ideas of Locke (who lived it), and the same happened: the business interests won

[TenderTrap86]

I can't believe this guy thinks that the Glorious Revolution was good for capitalism because it created the Bank of England, the world's first international robber barons and banksters that continue to be the enemy of humanutiy until this very day through a debt based monetary system.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 While you may be ultimately right about the problems of international bankers, your comment raises an interesting question: Can capitalism be separated from these financiers? Perhaps. But historically, it was not. They provided many of the conditions necessary for its development. That's not to say they have not also played key roles in crises in capitalism. Milton Friedman has done work on the role of central banking in crashes that is respected by economists. Take a look.

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 GK Chesterton said that the problem with capitalism is that there are not enough capitalists. Only a small portion of the population actually owns productive property. It may be a necessary evil to have internationl financiers in a capitalist system. The problem is that through inflation and debt, financiers are changing the system into socialism. but, it wasn't socialism that got them to the lofty income bracket they now reside. It was capitalism. But, socialism will keep them there.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 It's simply not accurate to describe big banking's shifting of debt onto the taxpayer (as with the inflation due to fractional reserve system, central banking via Fed, and debt via bailouts, etc.) as a movement towards socialism. That's actually the reverse of socialism since profits are privatized and the risks/failures are socialized. That's nothing really new, though, and is an inherent feature (and inefficiency) of the market: externalities, which they talk about it ECON101.

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 Well, one of Marx's planks was to charter a private central bank.

Socialism really has no definition. Most generally prefer: redistribution of wealth, while I personall prefer, with the quotes, "redistribution of wealth". Socialism is elitist and pro-super wealthy because it is truly the elite and the super wealthy who are in charge of that redistribution.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 As for Marxist theory, control of a state's central bank was an early stage in a series of stages in the development of socialism, which was to end up in a stateless communism without money itself. In no way was this plan intended to help big bankers.

Socialism really does have a definition. Check it out so that you know what it means when people (mis)use it. I really don't know where you got the idea that it's elitist. Check out socialism in France, Sweden, Norway, etc.

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 What I meant to say was that people define socialism differently. Some say that the US is moving towards socialism and some say that it's already socialist. But, to say that socialism is not elitist and somehow truly looking out for the common folk, is a concept so abhorant I don't know where to even begin. Who gets to distribute the wealth? And, because, they have the power to distribute it, who is more elite than they? PS European socialism isn't working out very well, right now.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 I see what you're saying about the defining socialism.I suggest listening to what people who define themselves as socialists have to say about the matter.Cold War propaganda is still programed into the muscle memory of so many (esp in U.S.) that the word socialism, even when it's wrongly applied, can cause exuberant rage and gnashing of teeth--even when in people who never paid attention to their social studies teachers.What exactly are the details of some programs? ---

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 That's a good question--and is one that is more condemning of capitalist/liberal institutions, especially as they had been. The power to distribute wealth is determined by every society. The question is: Who gets to determine it and how?After Glor. Rev., the king didn't have such a stake in that question; increasingly, the capitalist/industrialist class did. Just like in the U.S., people who owned no property had no stake in political decision making--i.e., capitalist elitism.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 So is expanding decision making power to other classes elitist? I don't think so. But you're right: by simply having a non-elite class become the ruling elite, you have a new elite. Mere change in representation therefore does not reduce elitism; more significant changes to institutions of power are necessary to reduce it. Socialists on the left of their spectrum tend to focus on that point. Capital tends to avoid it. Witness its self-serving behavior in 2008.

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 I think that capitalism is bad and socialism is worse. I'm presently learning about distributism. It sounds like a better idea to me.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 I hadn't heard of distributism till now. I'll look into it more. On the surface, though, it seems riddled with problems. What's the real distinction between prod. property and capital (since cap. is prop. of the invested super commodity--i.e., of money)?Assume a mechanism of distributing land and tools. Who would create new tools, make space for new land, without an exchange (of capital)? If exchange is possible, monopoly of capital (and of property) would remain--as would the prob

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 I'm still learning about distributism itself. Hilaire Belloc wrote about it, I think in a book called The Servile State.

[TenderTrap86]

@areyes999 Woops. I meant I'm still learning about distributism myself.

[areyes999]

@TenderTrap86 Also, since a key feature of most socialist platforms is wealth redistribution, it's hard to see how "socialism will keep [big bankers] there." True, big banking families financed the Russian Rev.--the Tsar resisted their attempts to enter Russian markets--but only because they were outside of that system and weren't direct victims of its policies. You might enjoy the documentary "The Money Masters," which talks about big bankers financing and causing major conflicts in history.

[billybob7ful]

@TenderTrap86 you just described capitalism

[billybob7ful]

@TenderTrap86 you just described capitalism

[TenderTrap86]

@billybob7ful No. I think that you're thinking that "capitalism" and "monopoly" and synonomous.

[gipcambero]

WTF Staline never tried to invade England