Where did capitalism go wrong?

[Questionable]

When I read neoliberal, objectivist, or general right-wing debates against socialism on the internet, I always see the argument, "What we have right now isn't true capitalism, because the corporations use state power to reinforce their position. A true free market means no government."

This seems like a good point, but it raises some questions.

1. Where did things go wrong? Based on what I read in Imperialism by Lenin, it seems like state-enforced monopolies are a natural occurrence under capitalism. The point is to gain capital, right? So why shouldn't the biggest companies resort to "dirty" methods to secure their positions? It seems like companies should rise and fall due to supply-demand, but if they form "alliances" to create a monopoly, what happens then? I'm also reminded of what Marx said in the Gotha Critique, when he accused reformists of viewing the state as a neutral entity, when really it was a tool of the bourgeoisie. State power grew from the capitalist system as a necessity to protect private property, so why should the bourgeoisie that created it ever use it to hinder themselves?

2. Following that last point, seeing as how firmly intertwined politics and big business are, how do right-wingers suggest we untangle them? If the state is just a shell for megacorporations, how do they propose we get rid of the state? The bourgeoisie won't just resign, I'm sure.

3. Let's say that somehow the state is dismantled, and free enterprise reigns. Private justice system, private healthcare, everything privatized. Doesn't that leave a power vacuum? What's stopping the some big businesses from forming monopolies and securing a position on top through non-governmental means, or just creating a new government all-together?

In short, it seems to me that the creation of the state is a necessary component for capitalism in order to enforce private property, and even if you removed the state, the bourgeoisie would just find other ways to make themselves immune to free competition.

Does this make any sense, or have I completely misinterpreted what I've been reading? I know I should probably be asking a right-winger these questions, but maybe people here can give some insight as well.

[GPDP]

IMO that is precisely the wrong question to ask. It implies somewhere out there, in the ethereal realm, there is the "ideal" of capitalism, and that we once had it or approached it, but we have since deviated from the correct path.

Thing is, capitalism was not invented in the realm of some philosopher's musings. It is a stage of history, a result of material conditions and contradictions. It wasn't until it more or less cemented itself as a system that some liberal thinkers began to idealize it.

In the end, capitalism develops not according to the utopian whims of idealist liberals, but to the material needs of international capital. Thus, capitalism has never "gone wrong." It has simply developed and reached its logical apex, and it is now in a stage of decay due to the crushing weight of its internal contradictions.

[Questionable]

IMO that is precisely the wrong question to ask. It implies somewhere out there, in the ethereal realm, there is the "ideal" of capitalism, and that we once had it or approached it, but we have since deviated from the correct path.

Thing is, capitalism was not invented in the realm of some philosopher's musings. It is a stage of history, a result of material conditions and contradictions. It wasn't until it more or less cemented itself as a system that some liberal thinkers began to idealize it.

In the end, capitalism develops not according to the utopian whims of idealist liberals, but to the material needs of international capital. Thus, capitalism has never "gone wrong." It has simply developed and reached its logical apex, and it is now in a stage of decay due to the crushing weight of its internal contradictions.

So ideals hold no water? I remember reading something by Marx that said even if an ideal had been repeated a million times, if the material conditions weren't right, it simply won't happen. So is this to say that, unless it's too idealistic and doesn't match the material conditions, a system cannot go wrong? That the stages of history move more or less independently of us?

Does this mean that the way capitalism unfolded is the way it HAD to unfold, and even a million people demanding an libertarian government couldn't have changed it without first changing the material conditions?

[blake 3:17]

It was wrong from the start. It was a historical accident.

[Capitalist Octopus]

IMO that is precisely the wrong question to ask. It implies somewhere out there, in the ethereal realm, there is the "ideal" of capitalism, and that we once had it or approached it, but we have since deviated from the correct path.

Thing is, capitalism was not invented in the realm of some philosopher's musings. It is a stage of history, a result of material conditions and contradictions. It wasn't until it more or less cemented itself as a system that some liberal thinkers began to idealize it.

In the end, capitalism develops not according to the utopian whims of idealist liberals, but to the material needs of international capital. Thus, capitalism has never "gone wrong." It has simply developed and reached its logical apex, and it is now in a stage of decay due to the crushing weight of its internal contradictions.

I'm high as fuck and that blew my mind/was very informative. Thanks!

Would all Marxists agree on that? Is that the teleological history idea?

[RedAtheist]

Where did capitalism go wrong? It existed.

Seriously, when you have 'free competition' companies have to grow larger or die out. When they become large enough (and there's relatively few of them) they have the power to influence the state. The only way this could be prevented within capitalism is through the state limiting the capacity of companies to grow, which the supporters of capitalism are, of course, going to oppose.

The things people criticise in capitalism (e.g. the dominance of a few corporations) are often things that are inherent to capitalism rather than the result of 'extreme capitalism'. This is why I am a revolutionary, because I think the flaws of capitalism lie at its core, not in the way it is implemented.

[Prometeo liberado]

[QUOTE=Questionable;2355295]When I read neoliberal, objectivist, or general right-wing debates against socialism on the internet, I always see the argument, "What we have right now isn't true capitalism, because the corporations use state power to reinforce their position. A true free market means no government."



This is such a real question being talked about in the teaparty circles right know. There is a book call America: What went wrong? It deals with a point in time in this country, think 1987ish, when massive tax restructuring was going on and the corporations came in and hijacked what would have sent more tax dollars to healthcare and schools.It goes on to show how this may have marked the official decline of the middle class and the new war on the working class.

[Zulu]

Seriously, when you have 'free competition' companies have to grow larger or die out. When they become large enough (and there's relatively few of them) they have the power to influence the state. The only way this could be prevented within capitalism is through the state limiting the capacity of companies to grow, which the supporters of capitalism are, of course, going to oppose.


Yeah, this is the basic contradiction of capitalism. The anti-trust legislation began to be implemented to stall this process in the end of the 19th century already. But now it simply isn't working anymore, with all the off-shores and the transnational corporations mutually owning each other.

One thing that Lenin refused to accept in Imperialism was the possibility of the formation of one single global super-monopoly suggested by Kautsky, but today it seams not so far-fetched. Or perhaps Lenin just criticized Kautsky's notion that such a supermonopoly would bring about socialism as a "natural" matter of course. It's not quite clear from his text, but if the latter is the case, then one can only applaud Lenin's genius once again, because it's quite self-evident, that the imperialist owners of such a super-monopoly will not have the satisfaction of the needs of humanity on their minds but will turn the world into a 1984-esque anti-utopia without second thought.