This is nonsense. People see the word "Capitalism" and imagine something like evil corporations oppressing us little worker peons. In reality, Capitalism is just people producing goods and services and engaging in trades and investments. You'll see this if you think about what people do to make money, but take political power completely out of the picture. Why are Internet connections so expensive? -Because there's no competition because ISPs are a state-maintained cartel everywhere. Why are taxis so expensive, and why is Uber being banned all over the West? -Because taxis are a state-maintained monopoly/cartel everywhere. Why was the Obamacare website such a disaster? -Because the job was handed to a bunch of stooges who have bribed the government to keep handing them other people's money to fuck up projects so that they can charge more for "fixing" things. Somehow the same IT-shops keep getting more and more of those lucrative gigs from the government, even though the results they produce are shit (and everyone knows it). There are countless examples. So yeah, what's wrong with "Capitalism" is that it's Crony-Capitalism, where politicians are bribed to hand our money to their cronies. Then again, that's a big part of why they went into office to begin with.
Bringing up the ownership of the means of production makes you sound like a Marxist. It's pointless to talk about "the means of production" in this context because even an iPad is one. Crony-Capitalism is Capitalism + Political Power, and with much less Capitalism than would happen without political power in the picture (because there would be no obstacles to producing, exchanging and investing).
An IPad (or any old Laptop) qualifying as means of production in a certain sense is pretty much a prerequisite for the point the article was making. But unless we manage to directly convert bits and bytes and ideas into material goods, the question of who owns the non-informational means of production remains highly relevant. Is sounding like a Marxist supposed to be bad? Marx may not have been right with all his predictions, but as far as analysis of the problems with capitalism goes, I'd say one could do a lot worse than listen to what Marx had to say.
Feel free to list the alleged problems then. If you think he made sense, it should be easy to come up with some good examples.as far as analysis of the problems with capitalism goes, I'd say one could do a lot worse than listen to what Marx had to say
What you're describing is a market, not capitalism. Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism. There are various types of leftist market economies. Capitalism is distinct in that the means of production are privately owned, as dublinben said. As such, "crony capitalism" is capitalism even if some see it as distinct from laissez-faire capitalism. Really though, crony capitalism is all that has ever existed to my knowledge. The "robber barons" of the late 19th century - early 20th century were all well connected politically and used their wealth and power to benefit themselves and their ventures. I'd argue that a society built around class hierarchies and a strong state will always lead to such relations as those with wealth and power seek to further their interests.Capitalism is just people producing goods and services and engaging in trades and investments.
Kind of. Capitalism is just short-hand for what people do in an economy (without anyone intervening in their activities). And as I said to him, there's no point in bringing up "the means of production" in this context, because even an iPad is one, and that could be in anyone's hands. Besides, even in Uncle Karl's times, a factory could be owned by well-meaning investors, not only filthy slave-driver oppressor pigs. "Some" see it as distinct? Well, the distinction is political power. Take out a tiny minority's ability to (forcefully) benefit at everyone else's expense, and what you're left with is Capitalism, i.e. what people do in an economy (without intervention), as I said in the beginning, and there is no problem whatsoever with that. In fact, the relative freedom enjoyed by the early United States is exactly what brought them all their prosperity. Freedom brings prosperity whenever and where ever it happens. Dig up historical examples (other than America) if you insist, but you don't really need to. Anyone with half a brain can see that people will produce goods and services if you just get out of the way and let them (without intervening with taxes, regulations, tariffs, licences, junk fees, state-maintained monopolies & cartels etc). You've got that right. But it's because we've always had rulers. Therein lies the problem. Get rid of rulers (i.e. political power), and there will be unimaginable prosperity.What you're describing is a market, not capitalism. Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism.
Capitalism is distinct in that the means of production are privately owned, as dublinben said.
As such, "crony capitalism" is capitalism even if some see it as distinct from laissez-faire capitalism.
Really though, crony capitalism is all that has ever existed to my knowledge.
Yeah. That and slavery. And vast, previously unexploited amounts of resources. But it is a good point. When you think about the early days of capitalism, you see growth and prosperity. When I think about those early days, I think about slavery, hellish factories burning through child labor... Pretty much people with monocles and top hats climbing to the top on ladders made out of human misery and broken existences. It's kind of hard to really find a consensus given these slightly different perceptions of what "pure capitalism" means.In fact, the relative freedom enjoyed by the early United States is exactly what brought them all their prosperity.
You're looking increasingly dishonest there. Lots and lots of people immigrated into America, by making a 1-month boat trip that could potentially kill them. Do you think they went through that so that they could be horribly exploited by evil capitalists? Or do you think they came in looking for a better life because that's what they were told was available, because that was exactly what people who came before them had achieved in America?When I think about those early days, I think about slavery, hellish factories burning through child labor... Pretty much people with monocles and top hats climbing to the top on ladders made out of human misery and broken existences
I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't intend to come over as dishonest. At this point, I get the feeling that we are just going to continue arguing back and forth about Marx, early capitalism, the role of early immigrants and so on. Since you already doubt that my points are made in good faith, I predict the conversation only going downhill from here. So I suggest we simply stop. I thought you made some interesting points and enjoyed our exchange so far.
Every system appears to be prone to rulers (capitalist, socialist, royal, whatever) eventually accumulating enough power and being removed so far from ordinary people that they can get away with all kinds of corruption. I'm not actually sure that there is any real solution to this. Anarcho-syndicalism so far looks most promising to me - but then again, I fear that if Noam Chomsky explained how the solution is "more cheese", I'd probably find the argument compelling enough.
I still don't get how, in Anarcho-capitalism, people would have any chance against corporations exploiting both environment and population - especially since corporations, looking at things from an empirical point of view, seem to be quite happy to crony it up with each other whenever regulators aren't looking. Last time you (jokingly, I suppose) suggested assassination of the CEO as a solution to the problem of "The people" vs "Blackwater/Xe" in a purely capitalistic society. I'm still not quite convinced that assassination is the kind of balancing mechanism that my kind of utopia would rely on. I suspect neither would you consider this seriously - if only because everyone knows CEOs live on Mt. Doom and one does not simply walk there. So, again - who or what would keep corporations from screwing over land and people in a capitalist "do whatever the hell you want" scenario?
Look into the idea of DROs, which I brought up earlier. You do understand that right now it's supposed to be our benevolent slave-masters' job to prevent "corporations" from doing that? How's that working out for us so far? Not that well, and that means we wouldn't be any worse off in that regard without rulers, which means the idea doesn't work as an argument against.. freedom.. :D (see the absurdity?) So if you want to compare our current societies to what might happen without rulers (i.e. in AnCap), imagine all the differences between enslavement and freedom and try to figure out which would be preferrable to us - the ones that are currently being enslaved. If people woke up to seeing that they should not have rulers, do you think they'd figure out a way to resist would-be rulers if necessary?I still don't get how, in Anarcho-capitalism, people would have any chance against corporations exploiting both environment and population
I get that. I hope. My scepticism does not really stem from any delusions about the current state of affairs. I just find it incredibly hard to envision a scenario where getting rid of politicians wouldn't just mean replacing them with different, more openly corporate rulers in anarcho capitalism. "People will figure something out" may just be true, but on the other hand, corporations consist of people, too. People who aren't dumb either and who would be in quite the advantaged position. I really don't want to argue how you're wrong and I'm right (I think I do that too often). I just suspect that I won't be able to be convinced that more capitalism is the solution any more than I could convince you that we need to leave capitalistic principles behind as much as possible.
It's like you didn't even read my message. What part of people resisting would-be rulers because they don't accept rulers anymore do you find incredibly hard to envision?I just find it incredibly hard to envision a scenario where getting rid of politicians wouldn't just mean replacing them with different, more openly corporate rulers in anarcho capitalism
For all the people talking about Capitalism in this subthread, as it relates to corporations and mega-accruals of power, you might be interested in Continuum. It's a tv show from Canada on the Showcase channel. Terrifying portrayal of corporations assuming absolute control. 'Continuum' Season One: SyFy Series Critiques Both Government Overreach and Corporate Malfeance (sic) - http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2013/03/29/continuum-season-one-review/
It's probably just propaganda suggesting that rulers are necessary and beneficial to us, because without them we'd be oppressed by evul corporations!! (.. which would be.. worse than being oppressed by Hitler or Stalin?)Terrifying portrayal of corporations assuming absolute control.
Look, not everyone who doubts that "more capitalism" is the solution to the world's problems is Hitler, wants Hitler or thinks rulers are a good and necessary thing in general. Rulers have a pretty crappy track record when it comes to being beneficial. The thing is, so do corporations as soon as being beneficial isn't an immediate part of making a profit.
How the hell did you get there from what I said?Look, not everyone who doubts that "more capitalism" is the solution to the world's problems is Hitler
