Is capitalism inherently statist? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14352865
mum wrote:But it is not inherently statist.


Did I state that it was?

mum wrote:But it is not inherently statist.


Did I state that it was?

mum wrote:No, they do not.


See above.

mum wrote:Perhaps, but again that doesn't mean it is inherently statist.


Did I state that it was?

mum wrote:Don't be silly, I think you are talking about communism. The lack of "masters" is actually a defining feature of the an-cap libertarians. Come on now, I'm pretty sure you have figured that out by now.


Communism, as advanced by Marx and Engels, was never used to describe a system that currently, or ever, existed. This is not true for "capitalism."

mum wrote:I think you are talking about communism again, please try and stay on topic.


You are deliberately attempting to redefine words and twist reality to try and make this not so.

mum wrote:Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a history expert. But either way, that doesn't mean it is inherently statist


There has always been a state in any society that has called itself capitalist, or been regarded as capitalist. I am a history expert. I wrote a piece about how I feel about whether it's, "inherently statist," that you are attempting to thought-police away by twisting reality and redefining words.
#14352889
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yet we have examples such as the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire which impelled gov't to set strict regulations in order to minimise the chances that such a tragedy would occur again.


"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Every government program and every law is sold to the public as a necessary step to prevent something-or-other. And no one seems to give a thought to the consequences, intended and unintended, of that. Witness the so-called Drug War: drug use "impelled gov't to set strict regulations in order to minimise the chances that such tragedies would occur again". And yet the Drug War itself is responsible for far more tragedies, far more loss of liberty, far more corruption of government and undermining of the law, than legalized drug use ever did.

And then when it's finally noticed that government policies are failing, the response is usually to add even more government. It's self-perpetuating, so throwing up examples of how government allegedly saved us all from something is not really a valid argument unless you can show that nothing else would've addressed the problem, and for that you'd need a crystal ball.

With regard to the topic: no, capitalism is not inherently statist. Capitalism requires recognition of property rights, yes, but we shouldn't assume that requires a massive state such as we have now. Like it or not, acknowledge it or don't, capitalism and crony capitalism are two distinct things.
#14352901
Joe Liberty wrote: Like it or not, acknowledge it or don't, capitalism and crony capitalism are two distinct things.


Only if you re-write history to start five years ago when "crony capitalism" became a meme for libertarians to try and differentiate, "capitalism," which is a word created specifically in order to describe a system already in existence.

This is something that I cannot understand about libertarians. The constant history fails that need to be created in order to construct a fanciful fairytale future where the most wealthy people will continue to grow more fat and wealthy by their relentless pursuit of having more...and then act benevolently to all of their underlings by not being relentless and not having pursuit of having more.

The fact remains that the word capitalism means something, and has meant something for a very long time. Trying to scrub history and destroy language because it doesn't properly promote your ideology is some 1984 shit. And, as I've mentioned, the libertarians are absurd enough to even draft the socialist that wrote 1984 as some kind of capitalist in their campaign to re-work reality to their absurd whims.

Just accept reality. It's easy. You literally don't have to do anything. You no longer have to bend yourself all around to try and make fantasy work.
#14352913
The Immortal Goon wrote:There has always been a state in any society that has called itself capitalist, or been regarded as capitalist.
It is only in recent decades that Capitalism has been accepted by supporters of the current western order. Victorian Britain certainly didn't call itself Capitalist. There's obviously going to be problems when non Marxists use the term. What on earth does capitalism mean if for a non Marxist.

For the nth time Capitalism has no agreed meaning outside of Marxism can we address this point rather than engaging in more futile taking past each other.
#14352934
Joe Liberty wrote:"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Every government program and every law is sold to the public as a necessary step to prevent something-or-other. And no one seems to give a thought to the consequences, intended and unintended, of that.


In the case of the fire I mentioned, one of the intended consequences was to create a set of regulations that would help protect workers and building occupants from fire. People obviously gave a thought about these things.

Witness the so-called Drug War: drug use "impelled gov't to set strict regulations in order to minimise the chances that such tragedies would occur again". And yet the Drug War itself is responsible for far more tragedies, far more loss of liberty, far more corruption of government and undermining of the law, than legalized drug use ever did.


I agree, but I am discussing those situations where there was an actual danger (such as burning to death because your boss locked you in a poorly constructed building) that came about because of capitalism, and which then inspired gov't to regulate as a consequence of that.

Since the drug war is not caused by such incidents, it is not relevant to the particular discussion. Can we simply agree that the war on drugs is morally wrong and an abysmal failure?

And then when it's finally noticed that government policies are failing, the response is usually to add even more government. It's self-perpetuating, so throwing up examples of how government allegedly saved us all from something is not really a valid argument unless you can show that nothing else would've addressed the problem, and for that you'd need a crystal ball.


While the war on drugs may be failing, the subject of fire safety in workplaces seems to have been successful. Most urban communities have some sort of building code regulating fire safety. Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire are much rarer, and there does not seem to be much negative impact (if any) on the the precious economy.

Joe Liberty wrote:With regard to the topic: no, capitalism is not inherently statist. Capitalism requires recognition of property rights, yes, but we shouldn't assume that requires a massive state such as we have now. Like it or not, acknowledge it or don't, capitalism and crony capitalism are two distinct things.


Can you explain why capitalism has always had state support, if statism is not inherent to capitalism?
#14352957
Rich wrote:For the nth time Capitalism has no agreed meaning outside of Marxism can we address this point rather than engaging in more futile taking past each other.


This is false. I personally know that Ricardo is using the term, "capitalist," in Britain in the early 1800s. A quick look at wiki puts the term "capitalist" even earlier. It's pretty insincere to say that the conjugation of the term will change the meaning.

Further, Cambridge, Oxford, and every other reputable scholarly institution refer to capitalism as having existed in Victorian Britain.

No amount of libertarian destruction of history and language will make this untrue.
#14352991
The Immortal Goon wrote:No amount of libertarian destruction of history and language will make this untrue.

Rich isn't a libertarian, indeed judging from his other posts I think he has nothing but contempt for libertarians.

Marxists are weird though in the way they use the word capitalism, whatever its origins. They talk about capitalism doing this and capitalism doing that as if it were a vengeful ghost imbued with a will and a personality of its own. Imaginative but wildly delusional.

Capital is just stuff, especially financial instruments and relatively non-perishable goods such as tools used to enhance productivity.

Therefore a capitalist is someone who has or uses capital.

Capitalism is then just the practice of owning or using capital.

Which means unless you are a slave you are a capitalist even if you are a poor one.

The idea that a waged worker is somehow qualitatively different from an investor or entrepreneur is also a bit of a deliberate false dichotomy. They do business by contract and seek and get a financial reward for their efforts just the same.
#14352994
Yes, I am aware that you can further mutilate language by making words meaningless instead of changing their meaning. By that measure you give above, there has only been capitalism. A particularly brutal murder? Capitalism at work! Punching a stranger in the back of the head? Capitalism at its finest! Enslaving a continent to make them work for free? Just the capitalist market at work!

Granted you must throw out everything anybody's written about the subject, but then libertarians are fighting for...nothing in particular?
#14352997
The Immortal Goon wrote:Yes, I am aware that you can further mutilate language by making words meaningless instead of changing their meaning. By that measure you give above, there has only been capitalism. A particularly brutal murder? Capitalism at work! Punching a stranger in the back of the head? Capitalism at its finest! Enslaving a continent to make them work for free? Just the capitalist market at work!

Granted you must throw out everything anybody's written about the subject, but then libertarians are fighting for...nothing in particular?

So what is your definition of capitalism then?
#14352999
Tax wrote:So what is your definition of capitalism then?


The same as everyone else that uses the English language without trying to destroy it to promote an ideological lie.

Merriam-Webster defined capitalism as the following when it wrote:an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
#14353000
The Immortal Goon wrote:This is false. I personally know that Ricardo is using the term, "capitalist," in Britain in the early 1800s. A quick look at wiki puts the term "capitalist" even earlier. It's pretty insincere to say that the conjugation of the term will change the meaning.
Well the term capitalist has its own problems. Marx didn't invent the term Capitalist, but the term Capitalism definitely came into common use through Marx and Engels. It was a shorthand for Capitalist mode of production. Mode of production is itself a Marxist category. Its not generally accepted. Its not accepted by me, although I wouldn't reject the concept out of hand.

The term Capitalism has been accepted into main steam discourse, but in non Marxist usage its one of those terms, like terrorism that seems to mean something until you try and examine what it is. It might also be noted that the term statist is another vague term, this one introduced by Libertarians as a pejorative.
#14353019
Pants-of-dog wrote:Taxizen, you never answered my question.

Do you agree or disagree that the state has enforced capitalism using oppressive measures often throughout history?

It is the same question as "do you agree or disagree that rapists enforce sex using oppressive measures often thoughout their history?" The answer is yes. But the implication isn't that sex or capitalism is somehow bad the implication is that people who force other people to do things against their will are morally inadequate and need therapy.
#14353026
taxizen wrote:It is the same question as "do you agree or disagree that rapists enforce sex using oppressive measures often thoughout their history?" The answer is yes. But the implication isn't that sex or capitalism is somehow bad the implication is that people who force other people to do things against their will are morally inadequate and need therapy.


Two things:

First of all, I am sure you agree that forcing other people to do things against their will is not always bad. For example, stopping a rapist/serial killer from raping and murdering, against the rapist/serial killer's will, is moral. We agree on that.

Secondly, since we agree that the state has used oppressive measures to enforce capitalism, we can safely say that capitalism is not a guarantee against such oppression. We can have capitalist dictatorships (like Pinochet) and we can have capitalist democracies (the developed world).

Now, you are going to say that if we get rid of the state, then capitalists will not be able to use the oppressive state apparatus to oppress the rest of us anymore. This can help us with free market dictatorships, but is it also applicable to capitalist democracies?
#14353040
Pants-of-dog wrote:Two things:

First of all, I am sure you agree that forcing other people to do things against their will is not always bad. For example, stopping a rapist/serial killer from raping and murdering, against the rapist/serial killer's will, is moral. We agree on that.
Sure. Stopping an aggressor is justifiable from the principle of self-defence.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Secondly, since we agree that the state has used oppressive measures to enforce capitalism, we can safely say that capitalism is not a guarantee against such oppression. We can have capitalist dictatorships (like Pinochet) and we can have capitalist democracies (the developed world).
I've been trying to think of a concrete example of how a state enforces capitalism and I can't think of anything. How does one force people to own property, trade and invest? It seems nonsensical. I can easily think of examples where the state forces people to lose their property, not trade and not invest. Are you sure the state enforces capitalism rather than attempt to enforce its opposite?

No body says capitalism is a guarantee against oppressors rather it is something sensible people hope to protect from oppressors. Ultimately the best defence against oppressors is reason and when reason fails brute defensive force. Courage helps too as those statist beasts are pretty scary; killing, theft, torture and putting people in cages is all in a days work for that lot, not a trace of remorse or even much consciousness of what they do.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, you are going to say that if we get rid of the state, then capitalists will not be able to use the oppressive state apparatus to oppress the rest of us anymore. This can help us with free market dictatorships, but is it also applicable to capitalist democracies?

I am not worried about capitalists. Bill Gates or my local grocer are about as scary as I am which is to say not at all. Tony Blair and my local county councillor on the other hand... I wonder if you know how many people were senselessly butchered just so those two could pretend they are important.
#14353054
Taxian wrote:TIG - So what is so wrong with any of those things that you feel compelled try and stop the rest of us doing it?


It presents an undemocratic tyranny that is only occasionally given the guise of freedom to the majority by extending theoretical rights and privilege at the expense of actual rights and privilege.

Rich wrote:Mode of production is itself a Marxist category. Its not generally accepted. Its not accepted by me, although I wouldn't reject the concept out of hand.

The term Capitalism has been accepted into main steam discourse, but in non Marxist usage its one of those terms, like terrorism that seems to mean something until you try and examine what it is. It might also be noted that the term statist is another vague term, this one introduced by Libertarians as a pejorative.


1. "Mode of production," is an alternation to Adam Smith's, "mode of subsistence."
2. It is recognized as existing by everyone, surely nobody would say that capitalism is the same as feudalism—but people tend to call it something else. An, "economy" for example, when referring to the overarching system. The concept, while less precise, is the same. A, "socialist economy," verses a, "capitalist economy," would be perfectly valid amongst any non-Marxist and yet convey, essentially, the same thing.

3. I don't necessarily disagree that people use the term, "capitalism" in different ways. Though I will contend that, unlike, "terrorism," or, "pornography," it is easy to see capitalism when you see it. It is an actual process, an actual system.

I don't so much disagree with Rich, than disagree with people that deliberately attempt to further muddy the waters for their own political agenda.
#14353059
taxizen wrote:Sure. Stopping an aggressor is justifiable from the principle of self-defence.


Yes, and so it would be justifiable to stop people from poisoning my water or air supply, right?

t wrote:I've been trying to think of a concrete example of how a state enforces capitalism and I can't think of anything. How does one force people to own property, trade and invest? It seems nonsensical. I can easily think of examples where the state forces people to lose their property, not trade and not invest. Are you sure the state enforces capitalism rather than attempt to enforce its opposite?


Cops catch and punish thieves. Legislators make laws against thievery. Judges sentence thieves to prison.

There. I just gave you three examples of how the state enforces capitalism.

No body says capitalism is a guarantee against oppressors rather it is something sensible people hope to protect from oppressors. Ultimately the best defence against oppressors is reason and when reason fails brute defensive force. Courage helps too as those statist beasts are pretty scary; killing, theft, torture and putting people in cages is all in a days work for that lot, not a trace of remorse or even much consciousness of what they do.


Yes, people who support public health care are all remorseless torturing murders.

Back to the topic:

In modern democracies, we have seen that gov'ts will often set up regulations and laws in reaction to problems caused by capitalism. This includes passing worker safety regulations, passing laws requiring corporations to pay for their pollution, and setting up social safety systems that the market has not.

So, gov'ts not only expand their powers by providing things that capitalists need, like contract law, but they also expand their powers as a consequence of what the public needs to protect itself from unregulated capitalism.

t wrote:I am not worried about capitalists. Bill Gates or my local grocer are about as scary as I am which is to say not at all. Tony Blair and my local county councillor on the other hand... I wonder if you know how many people were senselessly butchered just so those two could pretend they are important.


Yes, we realise that you are blind to the violence caused by capitalists, even though I gave you examples of capitalist dictatorships.

Back to the topic, do you know the difference between democracies and dictatorships?
#14369911
You might say that capitalism shares some of the same characteristics of the state. I notice something lately where some people draw distinctions which others do not. A typical capitalist will draw the distinction between "capitalism" and "crony capitalism" and hold it as a significant distinction. However these same capitalists often do not allow people who don't believe in capitalism but something collective along the lines of communism to draw their distinctions from the USSR ect. So while there are differences between capitalism and the state there are similarities. What matters is what you make of the similarities and differences.

For example: It seems that an anarcho-capitalist hates to serve and pay one body of government or the next, but they are fine with having to different corporations. If you think about it we have similar needs, and desires that bodily and psychologically need to be met. You have to pay for food, if you want to communicate with someone over the web you have to have a phone or ect. While the state provides some things people want, probably in quite an inefficient manner, corporations do to. But the things you need or desire you are forced to pay either the government or corporations for. Someone who is not a capitalist may believe that we should not be forced through wage labor and capitalism to have access to the things we need and want or be forced through taxation to have the things we need or want. As the Zeitgeist movement points out, there is enough food and resources with our technology to go around. One problem people have is they then imagine "rationing", and are worried about others making decisions for them. And those are some decent questions others are probably better at answering then me. I'd hope you'd listen. I listened to some members of the "Zeitgeist movement" answering some of those question in the podcast from "TZM Global Radio" episode 133 Dec 4 2013 "Q&A with US Zeitgeist Coordinator Panel"
#14369976
The Immortal Goon wrote:1. "Mode of production," is an alternation to Adam Smith's, "mode of subsistence."
2. It is recognized as existing by everyone, surely nobody would say that capitalism is the same as feudalism—but people tend to call it something else.
Feudalism was a system of government not a mode of production. I would argue that Feudalism was not universal and was linked to military technology: heavy cavalry in feudal Europe and chariotry in China from the Zhou to the Qin. But anyway feudalism had come to an end in England in or before the 15th century. I don't think most people conceptualise Capitalism as starting in the 15th century so what filled the gap? The whole Marxist schema is just so full of holes. What about the Southern States of America was their economy pre feudal? Or look at ancient Rome, there were more wage labourers than slaves did that make it Capitalist. Is Capitalism defined by the mode of subsistence or the dominant relations of production.

The leading far left group in Britain the Socialist Workers party believes that the Soviet union, Mao's China and the rest were state Capitalist. So even Marxists can't even agree on whether or not the Soviet Union was capitalist or not. The SWP believes the Soviet Union became State Capitalist in 1928 (conveniently excluding Trotsky from being a member of a Capitalist government), but Left Communists argued that Russia remained capitalist after the revolution. Lenin himself in 1918 argued that Russia need to become State Capitalist as its next stage in emulation of Prussia. Marxism's a bloody joke.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

If there are tunnels near Nuseirat, then this is […]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the IDF and I[…]

Voting for this guy again would be a very banan[…]

The US government does not care about the ongoing […]