Capitalism an inherently Statist system?

[LovePrevails]

 

 

It has been alleged by persons on the left that capitalism is an inherently statist system. That there has never existed any kind of stateless capitalism or "free market" in any real sense, and that therefore 'to contrast the state with "the market" is just silly.' That under capitalism, statism and the market economy are just two facets of the same hierarchical, totalising system of class rule.

 

 

This is the response I have prepared to these propositions, please feedback - I can actually integrate suggestions into the text because it is open to editions

 

http://reasonspiritandesthetics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/capitalism-is-inherently-statist-system.html

 

[WasatchMan]

Capitalism is a word, and people will always play word games with it.  The ideal of capitalism is voluntarism in economics. I always try to get leftists to talk about the ideal, instead of slandering the word. 

 

Of course then they retreat to the ideal sounding great with the only argument against the ideal being it is not practical, and people with guns are required, but at least then you can talk about the gun in the room and the ideal of not using force to back-up opinions.

[Mister Mister]

Nice blog post! - this is an important idea, one I have been mulling over for a while.  I think there are a few points I would add to yours.

The first problem is the definition of Capitalism and the conflict between two definitions of capitalism.  The first is the supposed "ideal", which is a Legal framework based on Private Property, and the Economic System resulting from Free Trade.  Obviously the first has never existed as an Absolute--the existence of the State violates Universal Property Rights--though it does exist in degrees, some societies allow for more ownership and trade than others of course.  But because it has never existed as an Absolute, and is generally a word used to refer to real societies in history, many Leftists regard this as a religious belief.

 

   The second is a system of government which is run to the benefit of owners of capital, as opposed to "Socialism" which is run to benefit society.  There is some basis for this.  Aristotle opposed Democracy because he saw that it would lead to the poor voting away the property of the rich.  James Madison, I think, or another one of the Founders wrote that the purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority from the ignorant masses.

You make a good point in your blog that just because a certain condition has never existed in society doesn't mean it is not still a good idea, and is not possible.  But I think Leftists have a point that we cannot use the same word that has been used to refer to real historical political/economic systems, to refer to some ideal that has never existed.  That's why I think the word Voluntarism is so useful, it is very clear as to its meaning.  It also emphasizes a major distinction between us and them, we see society more from the bottom up, rather than the top down.  Therefore instead of looking at what laws the government enforces on millions of people from the top down, we can look at voluntarism as a condition of relationships.  Now we are no longer dealing with the purely theoretical, as we can compare voluntary relationships to coercive and fraudulent ones.

The second definition is of course what the Leftists will refer to, but what Libertarians often distinguish as Corporatism, Crony Capitalism, State Capitalism, Crapitalism, or Fascism.  One important fact to point out to Marxists is that all of the so-called Capitalist societies meet most of the planks of the platform laid out in the Communist Manifesto, including a Central Bank, Centralized Public Schooling, and a Progressive Income Tax.  You might talk about what effects these Socialist policies have, effects which are often blamed on the Market, especially the Financial Speculation encouraged by the Central Bank.  Also I think this definition doesn't entirely describe what is going on.  All owners of capital are not benefitted equally by the government.  As you pointed out, they are often in competition with each other to use the government against one another.  The owner of a missile factory may benefit from the government, but the owner of a marijuana plantation does not.

 

A big disagreement is whether Free Trade leads to consolidations of Wealth which then corrupt the government, or whether corruption of the government leads to consolidations of Wealth.  To me this is a pointless chicken-egg kind of argument.  The important distinction to me is Wealth acquired through Voluntarism as opposed to Wealth acquired through Coercion.  It's important to point out that the richest people in any given Society throughout history have acquired their Wealth through Coercion.  It has merely evolved from Roving mobs of bandits, to Kings and Queens and Lords, to Central Bankers and Statist Corporations.  Also that the only way people have ever emerged from poverty is by accumulating wealth through Voluntarism.

 The final point I would make is Stef's theory from "The Story of Your Enslavement", that we are only allowed relative economic freedom because it ultimately generates more tax revenue for governments.  Lao Tsu in Ancient China argued that a Wise Ruler does not interfere with the affairs of the Common People, and this way they will do better.  Adam Smith argued that if governments don't interfere as much in Trade, it will lead to more Wealth for the Nation.  This is a really important point because it makes a strong and clear distinction between us Voluntarists and Traditionalist Minarchists.  We are not harkening back to the Ideal of the Founders, but looking forward to a more rational and peaceful world, trying to extend the Voluntarism of private relations to all of Human Society.

Just my thoughts, lemme know what you think.  

[LovePrevails]

Capitalism is a word, and people will always play word games with it.  The ideal of capitalism is voluntarism in economics. I always try to get leftists to talk about the ideal, instead of slandering the word. 

 

Of course then they retreat to the ideal sounding great with the only argument against the ideal being it is not practical, and people with guns are required, but at least then you can talk about the gun in the room and the ideal of not using force to back-up opinions.

 

have you got any views on the essay?

[WasatchMan]

have you got any views on the essay?

 

I thought it was good.  My response was to provide another point of focus. I have not had much success trying to debate definitions and meanings of capitalism with leftists, and quite frankly I think it is their strategy to get us into the fuzzy pragmatism of word games and histrionics.  Instead I try to go back to basics and discuss the ideals that you and I mean we when say capitalism instead of trying to save the word.  I am pretty sure the left have, unfortunately, destroyed all meaning in the word capitalism, and as you rightly point out, to the extent that it means the opposite of what it is suppose to mean.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

The left actually define the state as "capitalism".

 

However if we define capitalism as markets not manipulated by the state based on private property, then you can find examples of such societies prior to the evolution of the state. Ancient Ireland is one such example - a society without a state but with markets and private property.

[LovePrevails]

The left actually define the state as "capitalism".

 

However if we define capitalism as markets not manipulated by the state based on private property, then you can find examples of such societies prior to the evolution of the state. Ancient Ireland is one such example - a society without a state but with markets and private property.

 

The message is clear: whatever we don't like is capitalism, whatever we do like democracy or socialism is responsible for.

[LovePrevails]

 

I thought it was good.  My response was to provide another point of focus.

 

 

you are right - if you cannot get them to agree that there is a difference between voluntary and nonvoluntary, and a difference between coercion and necessity, then they are either too dishonest or too stupid to debate.

[Snafui]

Capitalism is a byproduct of freedom. If there is any state involvement, either regulation or suppression, then freedom does not exist. People get hung up on the suffix of the word and ignore that a free market could only be so labeled in the absense of the state.

[LovePrevails]

Nice blog post! - this is an important idea, one I have been mulling over for a while.  I think there are a few points I would add to yours.

 

The first problem is the definition of Capitalism and the conflict between two definitions of capitalism.  The first is the supposed "ideal", which is a Legal framework based on Private Property, and the Economic System resulting from Free Trade.  Obviously the first has never existed as an Absolute--the existence of the State violates Universal Property Rights--though it does exist in degrees, some societies allow for more ownership and trade than others of course.  But because it has never existed as an Absolute, and is generally a word used to refer to real societies in history, many Leftists regard this as a religious belief.

 

   The second is a system of government which is run to the benefit of owners of capital, as opposed to "Socialism" which is run to benefit society.  There is some basis for this.  Aristotle opposed Democracy because he saw that it would lead to the poor voting away the property of the rich.  James Madison, I think, or another one of the Founders wrote that the purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority from the ignorant masses.

 

You make a good point in your blog that just because a certain condition has never existed in society doesn't mean it is not still a good idea, and is not possible.  But I think Leftists have a point that we cannot use the same word that has been used to refer to real historical political/economic systems, to refer to some ideal that has never existed.  That's why I think the word Voluntarism is so useful, it is very clear as to its meaning.  It also emphasizes a major distinction between us and them, we see society more from the bottom up, rather than the top down.  Therefore instead of looking at what laws the government enforces on millions of people from the top down, we can look at voluntarism as a condition of relationships.  Now we are no longer dealing with the purely theoretical, as we can compare voluntary relationships to coercive and fraudulent ones.

 

The second definition is of course what the Leftists will refer to, but what Libertarians often distinguish as Corporatism, Crony Capitalism, State Capitalism, Crapitalism, or Fascism.  One important fact to point out to Marxists is that all of the so-called Capitalist societies meet most of the planks of the platform laid out in the Communist Manifesto, including a Central Bank, Centralized Public Schooling, and a Progressive Income Tax.  You might talk about what effects these Socialist policies have, effects which are often blamed on the Market, especially the Financial Speculation encouraged by the Central Bank.  Also I think this definition doesn't entirely describe what is going on.  All owners of capital are not benefitted equally by the government.  As you pointed out, they are often in competition with each other to use the government against one another.  The owner of a missile factory may benefit from the government, but the owner of a marijuana plantation does not.

 

A big disagreement is whether Free Trade leads to consolidations of Wealth which then corrupt the government, or whether corruption of the government leads to consolidations of Wealth.  To me this is a pointless chicken-egg kind of argument.  The important distinction to me is Wealth acquired through Voluntarism as opposed to Wealth acquired through Coercion.  It's important to point out that the richest people in any given Society throughout history have acquired their Wealth through Coercion.  It has merely evolved from Roving mobs of bandits, to Kings and Queens and Lords, to Central Bankers and Statist Corporations.  Also that the only way people have ever emerged from poverty is by accumulating wealth through Voluntarism.

 

 The final point I would make is Stef's theory from "The Story of Your Enslavement", that we are only allowed relative economic freedom because it ultimately generates more tax revenue for governments.  Lao Tsu in Ancient China argued that a Wise Ruler does not interfere with the affairs of the Common People, and this way they will do better.  Adam Smith argued that if governments don't interfere as much in Trade, it will lead to more Wealth for the Nation.  This is a really important point because it makes a strong and clear distinction between us Voluntarists and Traditionalist Minarchists.  We are not harkening back to the Ideal of the Founders, but looking forward to a more rational and peaceful world, trying to extend the Voluntarism of private relations to all of Human Society.

 

Just my thoughts, lemme know what you think.  

 

Thanks so much for your well considered post, it escaped my attention before for some reason!

 

I am going to think about and reread what you have said so I can integrate your points into my own understanding.

 

You are right that voluntarism is a better word, I prefer it - but the thing is people don't attack the free market using the term voluntarism, they attack it ideologically using the word capitalism. That's the quandary.