Capitalism "exposed" as parasitical !

Accidentally, I stumbled upon a German article denouncing capitalism as being "parasitical in its nature". The logic is nothing short of a Twister stretch:

[...] However, something ought to be clarified here: Since stock companies have become the predominant business type - that is, since the 19th century - there are shareholders. In recent times, these people have redefined their interests: it's not dividend and long-term wealth accumulation that they desire anymore, but rather high exchange rates and high-profit resale of stocks or whole businesses.

Whether that change is going to be fundamental still needs to be determined. But speculation itself is nothing new. The nostalgia surrounding the "golden age" of keynesianism sugarcoats the truth. Productive capacity rates were bound, today as well as back in those days, to the arms industry. Wherever that principle appears to be disproved (such as in Germany during the Korean War, in Scandinavia or in Japan), it's just the civilian gaps the "warfare states" left over that were being exploited.

Is today's capitalism (measured in contrast to certain ideals) parasitical? The answer: Basically yes, but not just as recently as today. Ever since, capitalism has been founded on the effortless income of proprietors resulting from the labor of others. Even investment in production is speculation - namely speculation on future profits.


So, guys, the game's over. Our hawkish agenda has been exposed. Capitalism only exists to nurture our warfare efforts. Let's stop exploiting workers by investing.

Socialism does feel sort of fuzzy, one has to admit.

The State certainly fosters capitalism to fund its activities. How this can lead these Marxian drones to conclude that all capitalist activity is in the name of war is beyond me. So detatched from reality...

-Jon

Sphairon:

Socialism does feel sort of fuzzy, one has to admit.

Fuzzy like a month-old peach.

Well there is a certain extent to which it makes sense to say that the areas with the most free economies often happen to be the biggest warfare states simultaneously because the more free economies have more plentiful resources to draw on. One could think of it as a sort of balancing act by which the parasite (the state) tries to keep its host at least somewhat productive and prosperous so that it can be sure to have abundant resources to draw from in the future. Of course we're not talking about genuine free markets here so much as more-free-than-other markets. But it makes perfect sense to me why some claim that specifically state-capitalism is a boon to war.

Sphairon:

capitalism has been founded on the effortless income of proprietors resulting from the labor of others

Just a rehash of of the marxist Labour Theory of Value.

Even though, I am sure the German author is not thinking along these lines, he does raise issues about the joint stock company and associated behaviour that many of us would question.  i.e. it is another example of the implementation of government force.

Wait, you guys are all against socialism????  What kind of site is this?!?!!?

Jon Irenicus:

The State certainly fosters capitalism to fund its activities. How this can lead these Marxian drones to conclude that all capitalist activity is in the name of war is beyond me. So detatched from reality...

-Jon

I agree - somewhat.

The state is capitalism! This is why libertarians are not capitalists. Capitalism has always been associated with a state; indeed, the origin of capitalism correlated with the state.

I would advise people not to confuse free markets with capitalism, as I do not see them as the same thing.

I just use the term to signify free markets in which ownership of capital and labour are separated on grounds of efficiency. But yes, the term as it prevails today is a creature of the state.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

I just use the term to signify free markets in which ownership of capital and labour are separated on grounds of efficiency. But yes, the term as it prevails today is a creature of the state.

-Jon

But when hasn't it been a creature of the state? What did people call more "modern" economies before they called it capitalism? Merchant capitalism.

What has ever been the difference? When has capitalism ever existed without the state?

Niccolò:

What has ever been the difference? When has capitalism ever existed without the state?

Barter. Arbitrage.  It's a silly notion that capitalism is a function of the state.  Socialism is a function of the state.

liberty student:

Barter. Arbitrage.  It's a silly notion that capitalism is a function of the state.  Socialism is a function of the state.

This is a logical fallacy. You're using your own definition to prove your definition - that capitalism is free market and as free market includes voluntary transactions, all voluntary transaction are capitalistic.

What defines capitalism as free market though? If I called monarchism a free market variance would it make it so? Of course not! You are not proving your position, you're merely side-stepping it and calling an X a Y. What makes capitalism a free market system? Since when did capitalism become associated with free markets? When the term capitalism was first coined, was it applied to a free market or an unfree market?

To link to the position I am taking, I agree largely with this section of the Anarchist FAQ - though not at all with every piece of it.

I suppose that if you believe that property rights are a grant from the state then capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production and property) is a product of the state.

But you would be wrong...

Without inalienable property rights you couldn't have a Free Market so it would seem that capitalism is a necessary pre-condition to the establishment of a free market. It would also appear that they are two different things as capitalism can exist under a system of alienable property rights while a free market can't.

The two share a common root of private property rights or something like that.

Anonymous Coward:

I suppose that if you believe that property rights are a grant from the state then capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production and property) is a product of the state.

But you would be wrong...

Without inalienable property rights you couldn't have a Free Market so it would seem that capitalism is a necessary pre-condition to the establishment of a free market. It would also appear that they are two different things as capitalism can exist under a system of alienable property rights while a free market can't.

The two share a common root of private property rights or something like that.

 

I'm just going to re-apply my reply to the libby.

This is a logical fallacy. You're using your own definition to prove your definition - that capitalism is free market and as free market includes voluntary transactions, all voluntary transaction are capitalistic.

What defines capitalism as free market though? If I called monarchism a free market variance would it make it so? Of course not! You are not proving your position, you're merely side-stepping it and calling an X a Y. What makes capitalism a free market system? Since when did capitalism become associated with free markets? When the term capitalism was first coined, was it applied to a free market or an unfree market?

 

To link to the position I am taking, I agree largely with this section of the Anarchist FAQ - though not at all with every piece of it.

Nicky, sweetheart, without playing association or rhetorical games, can you gives us a definition for capitalism that you accept as true?

Why certainly, Libby.

Capitalism is a system by which people do business which is overseen, regulated, protected, encouraged, favored, and generally interlaced with the state and the accepted use of force in a given body politic.

This is a broad application for the term and it can vary anywhere from Hayek to John Maynard Keynes.

Niccolò:

I'm just going to re-apply my reply to the libby.

What was the question again? What is capitalism?

Saying that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and property necessary to these means(left that part out because it's obvious) is saying that capitalism = free market?

I was thinking I was making a distinct distinction between a free market and capitalism by stating that the underlying property rights are a common root of both.

Sure you could have a socialist/anarchist free market if you wanted to but not without inalienable property rights backing it up because then it wouldn't be very 'free' now would it.

Just because people don't exercise their property rights under your Socialist Workers Paradise doesn't mean that they don't exist or are not a necessary pre-condition to establish a free market.

The real question is if voluntary 'collective' ownership is any different than private ownership and if these worker collectives aren't really capitalist industries in sheep's clothing?

So by your definition, capitalism can be socialism.  Am I correct?  Or is there a difference between socialism and capitalism?