Anarcho-capitalism vs history of capitalism

[Dimentio]

I start to wonder if anarcho-capitalism really is describing a form of capitalism.

The reason why I wonder is that anarcho-capitalists often tend to build up a dichotomy between the state and capitalism, making them mutually exclusive.

Yet, if capitalism and the state are opposed to one another, why did capitalism start to flourish in the areas of Europe where the state was most centralised, most well-developed and most organised? If capitalism really was opposed to the state, it should have emerged on Sicily, in Albania or Corsica, or maybe in Ireland prior to the English conquest.

Instead, it started to develop in Britain, France and The Netherlands, regions which had a very long history of government and a well-developed relationship between central and local authorities.

How do anarcho-capitalists reconcile the historic experience of real-capitalism with their ideology?

[RGacky3]

Its all the States fault.

[Green Dragon]

I start to wonder if anarcho-capitalism really is describing a form of capitalism.

The reason why I wonder is that anarcho-capitalists often tend to build up a dichotomy between the state and capitalism, making them mutually exclusive.

Yet, if capitalism and the state are opposed to one another, why did capitalism start to flourish in the areas of Europe where the state was most centralised, most well-developed and most organised? If capitalism really was opposed to the state, it should have emerged on Sicily, in Albania or Corsica, or maybe in Ireland prior to the English conquest.

Instead, it started to develop in Britain, France and The Netherlands, regions which had a very long history of government and a well-developed relationship between central and local authorities.

How do anarcho-capitalists reconcile the historic experience of real-capitalism with their ideology?

Religion--- Capitalism took root in the Reformed world-. The Catholic Church always placed the merchant on the bottom of the totem pole.

In France, it kicked in AFTER the revolution and the driving out of the church from secular life.

[RGacky3]

Oh yeah, it was'nt the profit motive, it was'nt the purpetual competitive nature of capitalism, it was'nt the innate class system, no it was religion ....

[Demogorgon]

Religion--- Capitalism took root in the Reformed world-. The Catholic Church always placed the merchant on the bottom of the totem pole.

In France, it kicked in AFTER the revolution and the driving out of the church from secular life.
Talk about looking backwards. The reformation happened because the increased power of the new bourgeoisie class allowed them to strike back at the powerful church that had attempted to keep them down. Or to put it another way, the explicitly aristocratic Catholic Church was put under attack once the aristocracy ceased to hold all the cards.

It would never have been challenged in the first place if there had been no social change.

[Nolan]

How do anarcho-capitalists reconcile the historic experience of real-capitalism with their ideology?

They don't. They ignore reality and blab on about this fantasy of theirs which never existed (though it gets the credit for nearly all progress and innovation in recent human history. :rolleyes:) called the "free market."

[Green Dragon]

Talk about looking backwards. The reformation happened because the increased power of the new bourgeoisie class allowed them to strike back at the powerful church that had attempted to keep them down. Or to put it another way, the explicitly aristocratic Catholic Church was put under attack once the aristocracy ceased to hold all the cards.

It would never have been challenged in the first place if there had been no social change.

Yes. The Catholic Church had always a dim view of merchants, the "bourgeose" if you will.

The other aspect is the change upon viweing tof the secular government. The Reformed religions took the view of submission by the individual to the state was required by God, where the Catholic Church always was in a state of conflict with the secular world, and its doctrine preached reistance to secular authorities (even assisinations of secular officials) were not neccessarily sins.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yes. The Catholic Church had always a dim view of merchants, the "bourgeose" if you will.

The other aspect is the change upon viweing tof the secular government. The Reformed religions took the view of submission by the individual to the state was required by God, where the Catholic Church always was in a state of conflict with the secular world, and its doctrine preached reistance to secular authorities (even assisinations of secular officials) were not neccessarily sins.

Well, as far as the evidence goes, I think its pretty definite that the catholic sanctions on merchant activity didn't really do very much at all - the bastards just found ways around them.

Just like in "Islamic banking" nowadays.

So you'd be overstating the influence of religion to say that its the reason why capitalism didn't develop in more stateless societies AND getting the causation backwards.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The reason capitalism developed in these countries before other countries was because these countries were more developed. DERRR. These countries had an infrastructure that could support explosive growth and the fact that these countries had most intellectuals. To say that the fact that more developed countries developed capitalism first is irrefutable proof against anarcho capitalism is bullshit. A nation with roads is more likely to create cars before a nation without them.

[#FF0000]

The reason capitalism developed in these countries before other countries was because these countries were more developed. DERRR. These countries had an infrastructure that could support explosive growth and the fact that these countries had most intellectuals. To say that the fact that more developed countries developed capitalism first is irrefutable proof against anarcho capitalism is bullshit. A nation with roads is more likely to create cars before a nation without them.

Developed a little earlier than others and thus had the means to oppress the shit out of other countries, more accurately.

I think that's something important to remember.

[Wolf Larson]

Its all the States fault.

Exactly. These people blame EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING on the state. It rained on their wedding day? The state. They stub their toe? The state. Chattel slavery? The state. Exploitation? The state.... oh wait...in their eyes exploitation doesn't exist within the employer/employee [abusive] relationship- they say that's free association. Pfft. Bad hair day? The state. The wars? The state fault not the capitalists who control it. Flat tire? Concentrated wealth? The state. The state. The state. The only thing so called anarcho capitalists are angry about are taxes and they're usually white working class males who in reality are angry because they're working class and want to be capitalists themselves but that pesky state is standing in their way! If only they weren't forced to pay for those welfare programs [most of them are on] they could rival Bill Gates himself!~The worst thing is the advocate a private state! They're statists! Anarcho statists. Private police, courts, fire service, private toll roads. A private for profit state only the capitalist can access. Their ideal world would be 100 times worse than what we're experiencing right now. The Abject rule of the capitalist over those who have no access to the means of production. The complete tyranny of the rich more so than what we see today.

[Agnapostate]

They don't. They ignore reality and blab on about this fantasy of theirs which never existed (though it gets the credit for nearly all progress and innovation in recent human history. :rolleyes:) called the "free market."

Well said. The free market and capitalism are to thank on the high points of the business cycle; they abruptly transform into the state and corporatism on the low points of the business cycle. This is matched by their general view of economic history. They attempt to appropriate all inventions and innovations in existence to the capitalist legacy, while simultaneously insisting that the currently existing economic system is not capitalism, constantly maintaining a no true Scotsman fallacy. That capitalism is and always has been supported by the state and that the successes that they brag of occurred thanks to state-managed capitalism is alleged to be correlative rather than causative; success occurred in spite of the state.

Some of the more recent literature on the topic has come from the Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang, who argues that existing first-world countries developed through heavy state protectionism rather than the neoliberal policies that their administrations push on developing countries. He shatters the illusion of the "correlation not be causation, ain't that right?" mumbling by pointing out that this wasn't a pattern of one or two first-world countries, but effectively all of them. It's a matter of a rule, not a couple of exceptions to it. The Misesians' response to him is rather amusing:

https://mises.org/Community/forums/p/6860/103593.aspx

https://mises.org/Community/forums/p/13816/298705.aspx

The second one's the lulzier one; it's where I was banned. :D

[Demogorgon]

Yes. The Catholic Church had always a dim view of merchants, the "bourgeose" if you will.

The other aspect is the change upon viweing tof the secular government. The Reformed religions took the view of submission by the individual to the state was required by God, where the Catholic Church always was in a state of conflict with the secular world, and its doctrine preached reistance to secular authorities (even assisinations of secular officials) were not neccessarily sins.
That's not quote right. The Catholic Church believed that it was independent to and superior to the secular authorities and the Catholic World had-when it was working smoothly-clear demarcation of powers between the two. The secular courts could try certain offences, the ecclesiastical courts others. The King could levy taxes, the Church could levy tithes and so forth. Obviously this lead to regular conflicts, but in principal in the feudal structure you were under the thumb of two different structures, the church and the nobility.

Now when capitalism came along, it required a different set up, rigid feudal institutions needed to go to be replaced by a more effective central authority and hence you see modern Government starting to appear. This needed a new ideology and hence the reformation brought about new religious attitudes to the state. I find it telling that as capitalism emerged, it brought about a new attitude of subservience to Government.

[Havet]

It's pretty straightforward that in order to call something "anarcho"-capitalism means ignoring all the historical collusion (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html) business has had with the State

[Dimentio]

The reason capitalism developed in these countries before other countries was because these countries were more developed. DERRR. These countries had an infrastructure that could support explosive growth and the fact that these countries had most intellectuals. To say that the fact that more developed countries developed capitalism first is irrefutable proof against anarcho capitalism is bullshit. A nation with roads is more likely to create cars before a nation without them.

Italy, Catalonia and other parts of southern Europe were as developed as The Netherlands.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Italy, Catalonia and other parts of southern Europe were as developed as The Netherlands.

It started off in Great Britain b/c the country came out of the napoleonic wars with the least amount of financial and infrastructure damage. The country also had a more liberal monarchy meaning that men could create and produce without having to answer to the king or queen. Another reason it started here was that there were many large deposits of natural resources. It was also politically stable at the start of the first industrial revolution and the fact the G.B. could adapt to change faster. It also had a larger amount of capital available, not locked up in government leading to investors.

All of these reasons led to it being the starter nation and the revolution moved south just as the renaissance had moved north earlier. All the countries it started in first is because they had more classical liberal politics allowing for the pushing off of the oppressive states. So in conclusion capitalism was not created and sustained b/c of the centralized state of these countries, it was created and sustained b/c of the liberalness of the governments of these countries.

[Dimentio]

It started off in Great Britain b/c the country came out of the napoleonic wars with the least amount of financial and infrastructure damage. The country also had a more liberal monarchy meaning that men could create and produce without having to answer to the king or queen. Another reason it started here was that there were many large deposits of natural resources. It was also politically stable at the start of the first industrial revolution and the fact the G.B. could adapt to change faster. It also had a larger amount of capital available, not locked up in government leading to investors.

All of these reasons led to it being the starter nation and the revolution moved south just as the renaissance had moved north earlier. All the countries it started in first is because they had more classical liberal politics allowing for the pushing off of the oppressive states. So in conclusion capitalism was not created and sustained b/c of the centralized state of these countries, it was created and sustained b/c of the liberalness of the governments of these countries.

How do you explain then that Germany managed to conduct a faster industrial revolution than Britain through massive interventionism of the state? Or that Japan and South Korea achieved industrialisation through the same means?

[Nolan]

It started off in Great Britain b/c the country came out of the napoleonic wars with the least amount of financial and infrastructure damage. The country also had a more liberal monarchy meaning that men could create and produce without having to answer to the king or queen. Another reason it started here was that there were many large deposits of natural resources. It was also politically stable at the start of the first industrial revolution and the fact the G.B. could adapt to change faster. It also had a larger amount of capital available, not locked up in government leading to investors.

All of these reasons led to it being the starter nation and the revolution moved south just as the renaissance had moved north earlier. All the countries it started in first is because they had more classical liberal politics allowing for the pushing off of the oppressive states. So in conclusion capitalism was not created and sustained b/c of the centralized state of these countries, it was created and sustained b/c of the liberalness of the governments of these countries.

Britains leading position in the industrial revolution may have had something to do with its vast empire built by the state...just sayin'.

[Demogorgon]

It started off in Great Britain b/c the country came out of the napoleonic wars with the least amount of financial and infrastructure damage. The country also had a more liberal monarchy meaning that men could create and produce without having to answer to the king or queen. Another reason it started here was that there were many large deposits of natural resources. It was also politically stable at the start of the first industrial revolution and the fact the G.B. could adapt to change faster. It also had a larger amount of capital available, not locked up in government leading to investors.

All of these reasons led to it being the starter nation and the revolution moved south just as the renaissance had moved north earlier. All the countries it started in first is because they had more classical liberal politics allowing for the pushing off of the oppressive states. So in conclusion capitalism was not created and sustained b/c of the centralized state of these countries, it was created and sustained b/c of the liberalness of the governments of these countries.
The transition to capitalism in Britain began a long time before the Napoleonic Wars. At the very least with the Glorious Revolution but probably earlier still. What you describe as "liberalness of Government" was actually a great deal of centralisation and increase in Government power...

But hey history has never mattered much to Randroids.