How could it be when from its very conception it relied upon the state?
What better examples are there for capitalist ventures than the chartered companies of the 16th - 20th centuries?How is a company that has a monopoly on trade with a certain area for well over a century an example of a free market enterprise? I don't know, but it certainly is an example of capitalism.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Listen to or read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty. The first few chapters review the history of mercantilism. Mercantilism may be a form of capitalism, but all capitalism is not mercantilism. To the extent that mercantilism is not free market enterprise, you are correct.
Blast mercantilism all you want. I doubt you will find many defenders of state granted monopoly privilege here.
It's all a definitions-game.
Most people who support free-markets and capitalism view "free-market" and "capitalism" as synonyms (myself included). You may have a different definition of those two words; just keep in mind that people who refer to themselves as "capitalists" don't mean what you mean.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Theres also the question of how state companies should be handled after the state is removed. Should they be taken over by the workers, shares given to citizens, kept by board members etc. Any opinions on the matter?
Another point that is frequently brought up my left-libertarians is how much present corporations benefit implicitly from actions of the state. What Tucker called the "Four Monopolies": land, money, patents, and tariffs. Theres a whole debate on land alone going on in another thread.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
mark111: Theres also the question of how state companies should be handled after the state is removed. Should they be taken over by the workers, shares given to citizens, kept by board members etc. Any opinions on the matter?
I'm not sure it would matter. The companies would go bankrupt from poor management and be liquidated.
I think the risk of trying to impose a solution of that large of a scale out weighs the possible benefits. Almost preferable to write-off the plundered wealth as lost then pollute our fledgling free market with redistributionist ideals. The process reminds me too much of the Marxist strategy of using the State to destroy capitalism then dissolving itself.
Contrary to popular opinion, money does not make more money by itself. The old fortunes would die away quickly, through mismanagement and general increase in world wealth.
But about federal government land, why not just declare it open for homesteading? I don't see how selling it could achieve any better a result.
I think that giving state companies' shares to employees is the best solution that would leave the fewest people feeling cheated. It's a quick solution that doesn't involve "the highest bidder", so it's much harder for any corruption to squeak in.
We can't undo centuries of taxation and eminent domain, and any attempt at doing so will be met with resistance.
It is true that capitalism is not the free market. Capitalism is much narrower in scope. It is fundamentally an exchange relationship between a capital-owner and salaried employee, whereby the capital owner insures the employee against the risks involved in a particular business. The employee, no matter how badly the business does, is paid the same.
This is why many peasant farmers in the early industrial revolution left their land to go work in factories. Farming posed the risk of bad crops, and when this occured the capitalists offered them solid wages they could rely on to support themselves and their family.
This has the added benefit that capitalist enterprise can take risks that egalitarian enterprises like cooperatives could never afford, and is why capitalist enterprises make the most profit and grow to be the biggest. The inegalitarian nature of capitalism is also why it is and always will be hated by leftists.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Niccolo:
I define capitalism simply as the social system which uses capital i.e. instruments of production. Now we can qualify it as free market capitalism (which is anarchy) or state corporate capitalism (what we have today). So it doesn't follow that all capitalism is statist.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Capitalism is merely the division between capital and labourers, as far as I understand it, on grounds of efficiency. When this is enforced by a State, it is certainly pernicious. When not, it is the most efficient mode of production known to man.
Ego:I think that giving state companies' shares to employees is the best solution
Keep in mind, a "share" in a company is nothing. When the potential employee is "given" a share, what is actually happening is the employee is taking on extra responsibility of being a supplier. Be ready for a bunch of civil servants who do not want responsibility -- no surprise there!
Have you ever met a capitalist that wasn't in favor in favor of free-market? That's why I think it's silly to use different definitions.
Ego: It's all a definitions-game. Most people who support free-markets and capitalism view "free-market" and "capitalism" as synonyms (myself included). You may have a different definition of those two words; just keep in mind that people who refer to themselves as "capitalists" don't mean what you mean.
Fair enough. But which definition is more correct? Which definition actually plays to the course of historical reality? As far as I can see, every Capitalist has been in bed with government from the beginning of the now understood economic phrase of Capitalism - the Muscovy Company.
Niccolò:As far as I can see, every Capitalist has been in bed with government from the beginning of the now understood economic phrase of Capitalism - the Muscovy Company.
We are all in bed with government, all the time. There is no avoiding it.
Stranger: Niccolò:As far as I can see, every Capitalist has been in bed with government from the beginning of the now understood economic phrase of Capitalism - the Muscovy Company. We are all in bed with government, all the time. There is no avoiding it.
No, we (as in most people) are not directly in patronage with the state in the way that certain corporate elites are. There is no excuse for such patronage as "unavoidable". The average person does not get the special benefits from the state that the corporate elite does. They are not literally in bed with the government because they do not have any meaningful access to the institution itself and the special perks that come with it.
Inquisitor: Capitalism is merely the division between capital and labourers, as far as I understand it, on grounds of efficiency. When this is enforced by a State, it is certainly pernicious. When not, it is the most efficient mode of production known to man.
So, you're defining something that never was, but was invented as a phrase specifically because it existed? My attempts here are to try and convey to you that the word capitalism is not at all a laissez-faire invention. It is economic exploitation, but not because it is free-market, no, specifically the opposite.
When has capitalism ever been absent government intervention or support in some manner or another? I'd have to look at an example where an entire economy was capitalist, but possessed no governance. More importantly though, what were the economic conditions when the term capitalism was created?
Brainpolice: No, we (as in most people) are not directly in patronage with the state in the way that certain corporate elites are. There is no excuse for such patronage as "unavoidable". The average person does not get the special benefits from the state that the corporate elite does. They are not literally in bed with the government because they do not have any meaningful access to the institution itself and the special perks that come with it.
There is no such thing as the corporate elite. The kind of relationship to the government that a Lockheed-Martin has is entirely different from that of a Apple or Oracle.
Blanket condemnations of corporations are collectivist.
Sage: Niccolo: I define capitalism simply as the social system which uses capital i.e. instruments of production. Now we can qualify it as free market capitalism (which is anarchy) or state corporate capitalism (what we have today). So it doesn't follow that all capitalism is statist.
Really? But when first creating the term, which one existed? What was the term used as to describe? From what I can tell, it was what you have today.
As for the question presented by Ego, what capitalist was not free-market.
Henry P. Davison was nothing if not a capitalist.
Stranger: Brainpolice: No, we (as in most people) are not directly in patronage with the state in the way that certain corporate elites are. There is no excuse for such patronage as "unavoidable". The average person does not get the special benefits from the state that the corporate elite does. They are not literally in bed with the government because they do not have any meaningful access to the institution itself and the special perks that come with it. There is no such thing as the corporate elite. The kind of relationship to the government that a Lockheed-Martin has is entirely different from that of a Apple or Oracle. Blanket condemnations of corporations are collectivist.
Says the vulgar "libertarian."Quick, Brainpolice get out. It's the attack of the Torries!
Firstly, I did not make a blanket condemnation of corporations. When I say "corporate elite", I refer to a specific set of private individuals and entities who are directly in patronage with the state. This would include those involved with the federal reserve. Do you deny that there are specific private groups that are in patronage with the state, that recieve rather exclusive special benefits from the state in exchange for political support and obedience? Surely you know enough to aknowledge that certain corporate interests are collusive with government agents and that the current economic system we have is a synthesis between corporate and government control.
Furthermore, yes, I oppose all corporations (as they currently exist) because they are not free market entities. They are legal entities based on a government charter that recieve special privileges. There is no such thing as a modern corporation in a free market, only multiple proprietorships in which the risk is beared internally. Corporate personhood is collectivist or anthropromorphic, as it is treating a collective of private individuals as one person. As such, the individual actors are not treated as being responsible for their actions.
Brainpolice:Firstly, I did not make a blanket condemnation of corporations. When I say "corporate elite", I refer to a specific set of private individuals and entities who are directly in patronage with the state. This would include those involved with the federal reserve.
If they are private individuals and entities, why do you refer to them as corporate?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap