Why Was The Glorious Revolution Important For Capitalism?

Michael Barone is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers". A political analyst and journalist, Michael Barone studies politics, American government, campaigns and elections. The principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics, he has written many books on American politics and history. Barone is also a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Barone
• AEI
• Glorious
• Revolution
• Citizenship
• iCitizen

[TenderTrap86]

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

[billybob7ful]

@TenderTrap86 you just described capitalism

[billybob7ful]

@TenderTrap86 you just described capitalism

[TenderTrap86]

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

[TenderTrap86]

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

[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 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 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.

[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 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? ---