The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Capitalism "exposed" as parasitical !

rated by 0 users
This post has 106 Replies | 13 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,475
Points 25,900

Anonymous Coward:

Niccolò:
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.

Bah!!!

Capitalism != Corporatism

Don't get frustrated.  These left libertarians drove Ego so crazy with their word games that he quit .

 

 

 

I would make a great bureaucrat.  Wanna see?  Click here.  It's fun.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,524
Points 29,370

liberty student:

Anonymous Coward:

Niccolò:
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.

Bah!!!

Capitalism != Corporatism

Don't get frustrated.  These left libertarians drove Ego so crazy with their word games that he quit .

 

 

 

 

It's not a word game. You are the ones insisting on using a definition of capitalism which is neither historical or commonly employed in contemporary public discourse. So from the perspective of both the the common person and the dictionary, it is you playing a word game.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,475
Points 25,900

Brainpolice:
And yet corporatism or at least some form of interventionism is precisely what a significant portion, indeed the vast majority, of self-proclaimed "capitalists" defend - even most "laissez-faire capitalists".

Why do you continue to make collectivist generalizations?  You keep talking about these theoretical groups of people, that you classify under some silly name, as though they actually exist and are a movement.  Who does this.  Who are they?

I could make up imaginary social groups with imaginary definitions for what they stand for as well.  Of course, they wouldn't exist, but when has reality ever been an issue for philosophers...

Do you agree with Nicky's redefinition of the word capitalism?  Or are you wiling to accept that capitalism is the counter-term to socialism, and that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production?  Or have you redefined that as well, and have a new polylogist polygamist name for it?

 

 

 

I would make a great bureaucrat.  Wanna see?  Click here.  It's fun.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,524
Points 29,370

Why do you continue to make collectivist generalizations?

It's not a collectivist generalization. It's an observation.

You keep talking about these theoretical groups of people, that you classify under some silly name, as though they actually exist and are a movement.  Who does this.  Who are they?

Just look around yourself. Observe discourse on politics and economics. Republicans, conservatives and various economists identify as "capitalists" yet essentially defend what we have now.

Do you agree with Nicky's redefinition of the word capitalism?  Or are you wiling to accept that capitalism is the counter-term to socialism, and that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production?  Or have you redefined that as well, and have a new polylogist polygamist name for it?

I reject both terms as anti-concepts but will selectively use them in various contexts, usually drawing a distinction between the anarchistic and statist definitions of both.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,475
Points 25,900

Brainpolice:
It's not a word game. You are the ones insisting on using a definition of capitalism which is neither historical or commonly employed in contemporary public discourse. So from the perspective of the common person, it is you playing a word game.

Oh really?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozill.....ossary_definition&ct=title

 

Top 4 results.

 

  • An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ...
    regentsprep.org/regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
  • an economic and social system in which individuals can maximize profits because they own the means of production.
    www.powerhomebiz.com/Glossary/glossary-C.htm
  • Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. ...
    www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html
  • An economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations. Contrasts with communism.
    www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html
  • Do you agree or disagree with these 4 definitions?  I'm assuming that the common person also believes these common definitions.  Are they historically or commonly employed enough for you?

    I would make a great bureaucrat.  Wanna see?  Click here.  It's fun.

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,475
    Points 25,900

    Brainpolice:
    It's not a collectivist generalization. It's an observation.

    Who did you observe?

    Brainpolice:
    Just look around yourself. Observe discourse on politics and economics. Republicans, conservatives and various economists identify as "capitalists" yet essentially defend what we have now.

    So if Bob Barr calls himself a libertarian, is that what a libertarian is now?  Are you really going to mount this as your defense?  Because it is unbelievably weak...

     

     

    I would make a great bureaucrat.  Wanna see?  Click here.  It's fun.

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,524
    Points 29,370

    So if Bob Barr calls himself a libertarian, is that what a libertarian is now?  Are you really going to mount this as your defense?  Because it is unbelievably weak...

    The word in question is capitalism. Even historically, a century or two ago, the use of the term capitalism did not match the anarchistic definition. Putting foreward the anarchistic definition of capitalism is both ahistorical and confusing in contemporary discourse.

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,475
    Points 25,900

    Brainpolice:
    I reject both terms as anti-concepts but will selectively use them in various contexts, usually drawing a distinction between the anarchistic and statist definitions of both.

    Double talk.

    I've posted definitions, the post is being moderated.  Please wait for them and respond.  I think your notion of relying on history and what is common, or what people choose to call themselves, is very weak and in my opinion, discredits youre position going back weeks on this forum.

     

     

    I would make a great bureaucrat.  Wanna see?  Click here.  It's fun.

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 25 Contributor
    Posts 794
    Points 13,715

    Hmm...

    Common definitions you say?

    Anarchism == socialism == Stalinism

    Based on the link to the anarchist FAQ.

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,083
    Points 17,625
    Niccolò replied on Thu, Jun 19 2008 10:33 PM

    Anonymous Coward:

     

    What was the question again?

    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?

     

    The Origins of Capitalism

    And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

    Leftlibertarian.org

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,083
    Points 17,625
    Niccolò replied on Thu, Jun 19 2008 10:39 PM

    liberty student:

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

     

    I think you should read the link I provided at the Anarchist FAQ - though again I do not agree with all of it.

     

    You have a very limited and narrow idea of what socialism is in its origin.

     

    Socialism can be more free market than capitalism. Depending upon the means by which socialism attempts to achieve its goals - which always means the extermination of economic exploitation.

    The Origins of Capitalism

    And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

    Leftlibertarian.org

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,083
    Points 17,625
    Niccolò replied on Thu, Jun 19 2008 10:39 PM

    Anonymous Coward:

    Niccolò:
    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.

    Bah!!!

    Capitalism != Corporatism

     

    Sure. Its what capitalist apologists do - invent terms to take the heat off of the same idea.

     

    The Origins of Capitalism

    And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

    Leftlibertarian.org

    • | Post Points: 5
    Top 25 Contributor
    Posts 794
    Points 13,715

    The very statement 'Socialism can be more free market than capitalism' presupposes that capitalism can be free market.

    How you came to this conclusion if your previous definition of capitalism was not of free market conditions one may wonder?

    So if both capitalism and socialism can be classified as 'free market' is it safe to assume that you agree with my previous statement that the free market is something different than capitalism and that capitalism can exist under not so free conditions?

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 10 Contributor
    Male
    Posts 1,083
    Points 17,625
    Niccolò replied on Thu, Jun 19 2008 11:04 PM

    Anonymous Coward:

    The very statement 'Socialism can be more free market than capitalism' presupposes that capitalism can be free market.

    How you came to this conclusion if your previous definition of capitalism was not of free market conditions one may wonder?

    So if both capitalism and socialism can be classified as 'free market' is it safe to assume that you agree with my previous statement that the free market is something different than capitalism and that capitalism can exist under not so free conditions?

     

    Free market in degrees - though I suppose socialism can be completely free market, though capitalist cannot, which is what I was trying to convey.

    I should have said freer instead.

    The Origins of Capitalism

    And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

    Leftlibertarian.org

    • | Post Points: 20
    Top 500 Contributor
    Posts 25
    Points 500
    CopperHead replied on Thu, Jun 19 2008 11:15 PM

    Niccolò:
    What defines capitalism as free market though?

     Well capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, you marxist tool. That pretty well makes it free market in my book.

    Niccolò:
    If I called monarchism a free market variance would it make it so?

    Well if your definition of the word Monarchism is the private ownership of the means of production, than yes it does.