Can liberalism survive when it is not supported by capitalism?

If you really want an answer to this, go read the book: Atlas Shrugged by Ahn Rand written back in the 1960's.

What she predicted is pretty much coming true today only I don't think we have the magic hidden valley that proved to be their salvation so we the people who are smart enough to survive the collapse will also need to know how to start over with nothing.

Value comes from labor, this is the expectation that is inherent in any economic system that is not in a natural state.

When a group or community pools their resource of labor, it is only natural that those individuals expect to get a return on their investment (the implicit expectation is a standard quality of life that makes labor worth the exchange of value).

Capitalism seeks profit (in the case of seeming modern definitions profit is not a thing of value to society it is considered individual material property).

If your economic system promotes individual excess, and that system has a finite amount of material wealth, then this can create a conflict between social value, and individual property.

Owning property requires that individuals enter a social contract, it is often the case that liberals do not seek to destroy the opportunity to acquire material assets, or even to deprive individuals of rational opportunity to own assets that they have EARNED, but modern trends in the economic trade model do not deliberately seek to secure wealth and value for the society so that all individuals are able to thrive, it seeks to undermine society so that a minority of individuals are not faced with any competition and the result is an irrational distribution of wealth.

When this occurs the problem is not a lack of willingness to earn or labor and receive value for your effort, the problem is that it is considered a virtue to prevent others from having the opportunity to pursue worth for their labors, so that a minority can exploit their disadvantage to continue to increase an EXCESS of profit that eventually hinders the entire economic process.

As a society we are all responsible for the health of our economy, however if a minority controls all the material assets and liquid assets of the economy, then the economy becomes immobile and begins to stagnate.

Liberalism is often relative to the gadget wherein the liberals are working. as an occasion, while the Soviet Union became dissolving, the liberals have been people who needed to work out the previous gadget fall. The conservatives needed to maintain the Soviet style of communism. Your question for this reason makes little experience. Liberalism in this u . s . is consistent with a capitalist gadget and just about all of liberals help capitalism. Liberals pick capitalism to be precise regulated and pick social structures to furnish protection nets for the inhabitants. This "different individuals's" money or wealth is a stupid speaking element. it truly is our money too. maximum liberals have severe earning and a few are very prosperous. the modifications arise in choosing the thank you to spend our money and despite if extra of it is going to be spent to help authentic human beings.

You have a misconception of what liberalism is.

We live in an interdepent society and it is important that the wealthy maintain social health so that they might continue to derive wealth from our society. If they don't return a portion of their wealth to society then the society is harmed.

If the wealth neglect society they will deprive themselves of their source of wealth.

The maximum tax rates for the wealthy are the lowest they have been for 50 years. They need to be returned to the 90% rate we had under the Republican Eisenhower administration.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.

Major generalization and lovely strawman.

Current tax rates are the lowest that they have been in 50 years. Quit whining you tea party pooper!

Obama has no prayer without a billion dollars (or so) given to him by people, unions and corporations who work in their own best interests.

hey buddy. prepare to take some flak for speaking the truth. people can't stand when you tell the truth about them.

No way no how

YES IT CAN! **** capitalism