Theory to turn every citizen into a capitalist

[Lanky Wanker]

Would this even work? :confused:



Finally, there are many ideas floating around which we can group under the general heading of "state capitalism". Roughly speaking, these are cases in which the State intervenes in the market to alter the distribution of capital holdings. Sometimes it takes capital for itself, as when it expropriates private corporations; sometimes it charters monopolies, for some allegedly good purpose, or maybe to help out some friends. And sometimes there are pet schemes, such as one that I have just read about on the web. It's called "Peoples' Capitalism" and the people who propose this say it is "a plan to make every adult U.S. citizen a capitalist." They'll do this by establishing a National Mutual Fund, which to be sure would invest in private industry – with "loans from the Federal Reserve Bank." And then, every adult U.S. citizen would be given a share of the Fund.


http://www.isil.org/resources/fnn/2003summer/jan-narveson.html

Sounds like welfare in disguise or something.

[Thirsty Crow]

Would this even work? :confused:
Sounds like welfare in disguise or something.
Sounds like Proudhonist bullshit to me. And no, it wouldn't work since the idea is utopian, and based not on an accurate and correct view on how the capitalist state functions (in fact, it's based on the opposite of that - on the notion that somehow the state apparatus, no matter how it is manned, will enagage in a serious redivision of total social capital, which it won't and can't).
Anyway, this is even half-Proudhonist bullshit since it doesn't take workplace issues into account. Pitiful, really.

[RGacky3]

Its not proudhonist.

Its not really utopian either, what your essenscially talking about is welfare capitalism.

It does'nt solve the internal contradictions of capitalism.

[Caj]

It sounds pretty Proudhonist to me. . . .

Regardless, it's bullshit. To think that "every adult U.S. citizen [can be] a capitalist" is absurd. How would that work? Would everybody just be self-employed?

[Tim Cornelis]

Anyway, this is even half-Proudhonist bullshit since it doesn't take workplace issues into account. Pitiful, really.

It's sad that since the last 150 years people have still not realised Marx' character assassination of Proudhon. It was Marx who permeated the myth that Proudhon merely wanted to abolish interest, and not also property.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its not proudhonist.

Its not really utopian either, what your essenscially talking about is welfare capitalism.

It does'nt solve the internal contradictions of capitalism.
Oh hey Gack, you might as well bring up some arguments, you know.

I explained why I think such schemes are utopian. This does not even represent a kind of a social democratic program of state intervention (nationalizations, free education and healthcare and so on), and the term "welfare capitalism" is too vague and pretty much novel to carry any specific meaning (if it doesn't refer to the "golden era" of capitalism accumulation and state programs, that is).

As far as prudhonism is concerned, I was under the impression that it stands for workers' control and capitalist self-management, whereby workers' are effectively transformed into shareholders. I can draw parallels with this excerpt rather easily cause they're obvious.


It's sad that since the last 150 years people have still not realised Marx' character assassination of Proudhon. It was Marx who permeated the myth that Proudhon merely wanted to abolish interest, and not also property.
Abolish property by making every worker propertied as a shareholder?
Anyway, I wasn't refering to any abolition of interest so your point is moot.

[RGacky3]

As far as prudhonism is concerned, I was under the impression that it stands for workers' control and capitalist self-management, whereby workers' are effectively transformed into shareholders. I can draw parallels with this excerpt rather easily cause they're obvious.

Well that National mutual fund is basically a state bank, or social security or something. Its not really making "every citizen a capitalist," because owning shares dow'nt make you a capitalist, its really just a state run banking system where people can have some democratic oversight.

THe rest, state intervention, state nationalizations and so on, are just social-democratic programs.

[Ocean Seal]

I thought that conservatives were worried about the common people being lazy:laugh:, and they want to turn them all into capitalists.

[Decolonize The Left]

Gacky is correct. The quote in the OP is nothing more than a dandied-up description of welfare capitalism. Look:

the State intervenes in the market to alter the distribution of capital holdings. Sometimes it takes capital for itself, as when it expropriates private corporations
This is basically corporate taxation.

sometimes it charters monopolies
Federal bureaucracy.

They'll do this by establishing a National Mutual Fund, which to be sure would invest in private industry – with "loans from the Federal Reserve Bank." And then, every adult U.S. citizen would be given a share of the Fund.
This is basically one large pension fund (read: social security).
It also cannot function as stated for the following reason:
The 'market' is everyone's economic activity. If everyone invests in the National Mutual Fund, that means that everyone is invested in the same stocks/bonds. Given that the market is everyone's activity, everyone cannot 'beat' the market. Hence this fund will fundamentally underperform the market, creating the incentive to move one's money to a different fund to achieve better results. Hence it undermines it's own cause by existing.

- August

[DinodudeEpic]

This is just welfare capitalism with another name, and slightly more democratic control. Nothing that Proudhon had actually thought up in his head. There wouldn't be state-owned banks in an anarchist society, anyways. (Just stating Proudhon's theories, which I think are not completely right, but on the right track.)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Sounds like welfare in disguise or something.

It sounds like George W Bush's ill-fated plan to privatize social security.


This is basically one large pension fund (read: social security).

The largest difference being that under this system, your returns would be proportional to what you 'invested' into the fund. This is unlike social security as it exists now in the US, where seniors by and large draw the same check.

The idea is not all bad, by any stretch, but when it is not being formulated to help serve as true social security but as a right wing plot to destroy the welfare state for seniors then it's an abomination.

[Lanky Wanker]

There wouldn't be state-owned banks in an anarchist society, anyways

I don't think there would be a state-owned anything in an anarchist society lol.

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't think there would be a state-owned anything in an anarchist society lol.

That was the idea that I was sending out. Since anarchism purposes for a stateless society, state-owned banks would not exist. I was just showing how Proudhon's ideas are not related to this social security with another name idea.