Is capitalism inherently statist? - Page 7 - 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.
#14352346
Pants-of-dog wrote:[We had a society like this. We didn't like it. We disliked it so much we fought to have public health care systems, public schooling, and other social safety benefits.

Just because there has been an evolution towards more government intervention, for whatever reason, doesn't make it desirable.
#14352379
Nunt wrote:Just because there has been an evolution towards more government intervention, for whatever reason, doesn't make it desirable.


Correct. What makes it desirable is the fact that we have access to health care, clean water, breathable air, pensions, unemployment benefits, good schools, a stable economy, worker's rights, and whole bunch of other things. The fact that we used the gov't to force capitalists to accept these things does not somehow make these things not desirable.
#14352515
please show evidence that the capitalists would not have implemented these things as a result of market forces with the government forcing them.
#14352531
Red_Bull wrote:Anarchy and capitalism are incompatible. Without a state to enforce property rights there is no capitalism.

You're assuming the majority of people are amoral criminals only held in check by the state's monopoly on violence. I'm sure that is a false assumption.
You're also assuming that right arbitration and enforcement is a kind of mysterious voodoo magic that can only be done by a larcenous monopoly calling itself government.
I'm sure that is also a false assumption.
Last edited by SolarCross on 13 Jan 2014 22:30, edited 1 time in total.
#14352537
mum wrote:please show evidence that the capitalists would not have implemented these things as a result of market forces with the government forcing them.


Easy.

They didn't, despite the fact that people obviously feel there is a need for them.

All of these things happened after the free market had a chance to do them and didn't.
#14352539
There can be a social respect for property rights in the means of production. However, without a state there is less socialized (yes) power to defend particular instances of property rights when the social relationship whereby workers might respect these rights breaks down. There is a class antagonism involved.

Therefore, the larger the capitalism, the more "statist". Of course, maintaining a Marxian notion of common ownership in the means of production over a geographical area as large as the world would require the biggest and most authoritarian state the world has ever seen, because it's de facto equivalent to one corporation owning everything and trying to maintain equal worker share in the profits.

Abolition of the state is impossible. You can only control what a state does and how large its jurisdiction might be.
#14352721
Capitalism is, and always has been, statist.

Libertarians will try to redefine words and twist reality to try and make this not so. But the word and concept of, "capitalism," was to describe something that already existed-something that had a state. Because there are obvious problems with the current system, some libertarians rhetorically burn the last three centuries' worth of scholarship and promise perfection so long as their masters take total control of the population and bound us all as serfs with no formal right to representation and stripped of theoretic equality.

Whether such a nightmare is temporarily possible while still retaining a capitalist character is difficult to say. It would revert to Bobspartism, itself capitalistic; or perhaps remain a warlord society long enough to march back to the barbarism of feudalism.

Regardless, the fantasies of tyranny aside, capitalism does and always has had a state.
#14352743
The Immortal Goon wrote:Capitalism is, and always has been, statist.

But it is not inherently statist.

Libertarians will try to redefine words and twist reality to try and make this not so.
No, they do not.
But the word and concept of, "capitalism," was to describe something that already existed-something that had a state.
Perhaps, but again that doesn't mean it is inherently statist.
Because there are obvious problems with the current system, some libertarians rhetorically burn the last three centuries' worth of scholarship and promise perfection so long as their masters take total control of the population and bound us all as serfs with no formal right to representation and stripped of theoretic equality.

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.

Whether such a nightmare is temporarily possible while still retaining a capitalist character is difficult to say. It would revert to Bobspartism, itself capitalistic; or perhaps remain a warlord society long enough to march back to the barbarism of feudalism.
I think you are talking about communism again, please try and stay on topic.

Regardless, the fantasies of tyranny aside, capitalism does and always has had a state.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a history expert. But either way, that doesn't mean it is inherently statist
#14352747
Just because there has been an evolution towards more government intervention, for whatever reason, doesn't make it desirable.

If "pure" unregulated capitalism is so good, why do all mature market economies regulate?
#14352753
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Easy.

They didn't, despite the fact that people obviously feel there is a need for them.

All of these things happened after the free market had a chance to do them and didn't.


Wrong.
By this logic, capitalists would never have thought of going into space if the government didn't first.
In Australia the govt is (badly) installing faster internet. Private industry was doing fine increasing the speed of the internet, by your logic if the government didn't install this faster internet then for some crazy reason private industry would suddenly stop competing and increasing the speed of the internet.
This is absurd reasoning.

Governments have a bad habit of funding programs before they are economically feasible, and when private industry was starting to or would have started them anyway.
Governments just waste a LOT of money doing it, for services that may or may not be good in the long run anyway.

ingliz wrote:If "pure" unregulated capitalism is so good, why do all mature market economies regulate?


It took while to shake feudalism, it will take a while to shake the crony out of crony capitalism.
Give it time.
#14352775
mum wrote:Wrong.
By this logic, capitalists would never have thought of going into space if the government didn't first.


Not really. I never claimed that space exploration has the same market incentives as worker safety. The market sees space exploration as a possible way to profit, while seeing worker safety as an added cost that should be avoided.

Mind you, private space exploration still depends heavily on public funding.

In Australia the govt is (badly) installing faster internet. Private industry was doing fine increasing the speed of the internet, by your logic if the government didn't install this faster internet then for some crazy reason private industry would suddenly stop competing and increasing the speed of the internet.
This is absurd reasoning.


Again, you are comparing profitable ventures with those programs that the market sees as unnecessary costs. Capitalist want to make profit, not make health care affordable to those who can't pay.

Governments have a bad habit of funding programs before they are economically feasible, and when private industry was starting to or would have started them anyway.
Governments just waste a LOT of money doing it, for services that may or may not be good in the long run anyway.


This anti-gov't screed is irrelevant.

mum wrote:It took while to shake feudalism, it will take a while to shake the crony out of crony capitalism.
Give it time.


Since gov'ts tend to regulate the market after capitalists have accidentally torched their workers or sold unsafe goods and services, I am thinking that capitalism causes more state intervention as a reaction to these dangers.
#14352777
I wonder how many people have been "torched" by capitalists compared to how many people have been "torched" by government troops..... just some perspective
#14352791
it will take a while to shake the crony out of crony capitalism.
Give it time.

But why do we need time when capitalists ran from paradise so quickly? Laissez faire was laissez faire in name only before it was given a name.
Last edited by ingliz on 14 Jan 2014 15:06, edited 5 times in total.
#14352801
Libertarians say the free market can solve it all. Well why doesn't it then? If governments are just illegitimate criminal entities as Libertarians claim why hasn't the market dealt with them. If the market was perfect before it was corrupted by government, if the market was so perfect how did come to be corrupted?

If Libertarianism was true there would be no government. You see I say we need imperfect government to get rid of and keep at bay worse governments. We needed our British government to (with others) get rid of the Nazi government. To keep the Soviet government contained and now to stop Muslim governments terrorising the planet. But the Libertarians say no, we don't need government to get rid of government, so I repeat how could government ever possibly have come about in the first place? Was it brought in by aliens?
#14352814
Rich wrote:Libertarians say the free market can solve it all. Well why doesn't it then? If governments are just illegitimate criminal entities as Libertarians claim why hasn't the market dealt with them. If the market was perfect before it was corrupted by government, if the market was so perfect how did come to be corrupted?

You misrepresent the libertarian viewpoint. I suggest you try to learn something more about the libertarian viewpoint instead of constructing strawmen.

If Libertarianism was true there would be no government. You see I say we need imperfect government to get rid of and keep at bay worse governments. We needed our British government to (with others) get rid of the Nazi government. To keep the Soviet government contained and now to stop Muslim governments terrorising the planet. But the Libertarians say no, we don't need government to get rid of government, so I repeat how could government ever possibly have come about in the first place? Was it brought in by aliens?

Why are there governments? Thats an easy question. Because having a government is good for those in government. And those in government are willing to use force to make everyone else their subjects. Btw, is the above paragraph supposed to be pro-government?
#14352818
mum wrote:I wonder how many people have been "torched" by capitalists compared to how many people have been "torched" by government troops..... just some perspective


Yes, thank you.

Now, we were discussing my claim that capitalism actually leads to more gov't intervention by causing more situations that require regulation.

Do you have any comment on that?
#14352825
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, thank you.

Now, we were discussing my claim that capitalism actually leads to more gov't intervention by causing more situations that require regulation.

Do you have any comment on that?

Crony capitalism can, because rich capitalists often benefit from the priviledges awarded to them by governments. But I do not believe a free and open economy would need government intervention to work. Of course there will always be pressure groups screaming for special treatment.
#14352828
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.
#14352840
Capitalism is crony by definition. Capitalism is a Marxist category. It is not accurate, but it describes a society run by a Capitalist class for a Capitalist class.

The Marxists created the term they did not steal it from Adam Smith.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]