"Anarcho-Capitalism"

[Red_Banner]

What's with this "anarcho-capitalist" crap of "corporatism is not capitalism"?

What do they mean by "capitalism" and "corporatism" then?

[Marxaveli]

It's just more psuedo neo-liberal crap. Pretty much its the same thing as the libertarian dick scabs who say there is a difference between "crony capitalism" and "good capitalism", just in different words.

[The Idler]

Small businesses, where the little guy can compete at making cars with General Motors etc. :laugh:

[Blake's Baby]

'Capitalism' = 1 man, 3 acres, a cow, and a gun.

'Corporatism' = Democrats in the White House, Obama is a Nazi and some companies are too darned big.

Basically, 'Anarcho-Capitalism' is a wet-dream for people who wish they were living on the Frontier, keeping black folks in chains and shootin' Injuns (and not payin' for other folks' Welfare Checks, goddammit).

As far as I can tell, anyway.

EDIT: or more or less what the Idler said. 'Capitalism' is the little guy getting 10 people to build cars in a shed; 'corporatism' is GM getting 10,000 people to build cars in Detroit.

[argeiphontes]

It's an oxymoron, because capitalism results in centralization, and to fight centralization you need government oversight. It sticks them in a Catch-22.

[tuwix]

What's with this "anarcho-capitalist" crap of "corporatism is not capitalism"?

What do they mean by "capitalism" and "corporatism" then?

In some of their theory, the corporate property isn't private property due to lack of clear owner. Then some of them avocate prohibition of corporations to have a clear owner.

Howvere, such prohibition changes nothing to capitalism problem. The concentration of capital isn't dependent on whether something is corporation of it has very visible owners as well as other problems that capitalism produces.

But there is nothing strange. If they believe in something that is imposible by its own definitions which is free market, they can believe that corporations is the greatest problem...

[Red_Banner]

In some of their theory, the corporate property isn't private property due to lack of clear owner. Then some of them avocate prohibition of corporations to have a clear owner.

Howvere, such prohibition changes nothing to capitalism problem. The concentration of capital isn't dependent on whether something is corporation of it has very visible owners as well as other problems that capitalism produces.

But there is nothing strange. If they believe in something that is imposible by its own definitions which is free market, they can believe that corporations is the greatest problem...

So they oppose investors that allow them to expand their capital?

[tuwix]

Not really. They oppose to limited responasbility of corporations. It means that owners of coarporation aren't responsible in courts for acts of their corporation.

[Red_Banner]

Not really. They oppose to limited responasbility of corporations. It means that owners of coarporation aren't responsible in courts for acts of their corporation.

So then they don't mind the police comming to every investor and manager's house issuing summons and warrants when the company is being sued or screws up?

[tuwix]

Well, managers of corporations are responsible legally of their acts (at least in theory because we know that so-called justice is easily corruptable), but owners aren't. And it is what they are opposed of. They think that owners' responsability will fix all problems.

But that's not true. The problem greatest problem of capitalism isn't legal responsability of its lack.

[thorax232]

Capitalism: The possession of capital or wealth; an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit

Mercantilism: The economic theory that a nation's wealth, esp. its ability to amass bullion, is increased by a favourable balance of trade, and that a government should encourage such a balance by promoting exports (esp. of manufactured goods) and restricting imports.

Corporatism is mercantilism in all economic aspects (not just imports and exports). It uses the government to play favorites with some companies rather than others. This creates a serious gap between what people actually want and what the government wants.

In short, capitalism is decentralized, agorist, free trade.

Saying the U.S. version of capitalism is capitalism is like saying China's version of communism is communism. Capitalism is just trade, esp. without government regulation but rather private regulation. Yes rules are set, but there is always room for competition.

Definitions from Oxford English Dictionary

*Respect please, I'm an AnCap, I recognize your right to do things as you see fit, so long as you do the same. :wub:

[tuwix]

Surely, you haven't read the definition of communism...

[argeiphontes]

In short, capitalism is decentralized, agorist, free trade.


That's just commerce. You're missing the capital from capitalism. It's private ownership of the means of production and its associated evil, wage labor. Not to mention profit. It's possible to trade equally, but capitalism involves profit.

[robbo203]

Capitalism: The possession of capital or wealth; an economic system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods and prices are determined mainly in a free market; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit

Mercantilism: The economic theory that a nation's wealth, esp. its ability to amass bullion, is increased by a favourable balance of trade, and that a government should encourage such a balance by promoting exports (esp. of manufactured goods) and restricting imports.

Corporatism is mercantilism in all economic aspects (not just imports and exports). It uses the government to play favorites with some companies rather than others. This creates a serious gap between what people actually want and what the government wants.

In short, capitalism is decentralized, agorist, free trade.

Saying the U.S. version of capitalism is capitalism is like saying China's version of communism is communism. Capitalism is just trade, esp. without government regulation but rather private regulation. Yes rules are set, but there is always room for competition.

Definitions from Oxford English Dictionary

*Respect please, I'm an AnCap, I recognize your right to do things as you see fit, so long as you do the same. :wub:


No this is an inadequate definition of capitalism. It ignores, for example, the fact that capitalism can be operated through the state and that at a basic level there is no fundamental difference between state capitalism and so called free market capitalism: they differ only in their form. There has never been a pure example of a free market economy (or for that matter a purely statist non market economy) and never could be because the market and the state are inextricably intertwined. There can only be differences in the degree of emphasis placed on either

The most useful summary discription of capitalism I ve come across appears in Buick and Crump's book State Capitalism: The Wages System under New Management (Macmillan, London, 1986) where they list the following basic traits of capitalism:

1. Generalised commodity production, nearly all wealth being produced for sale on a market.
2. The investment of capital in production with a view to obtaining a monetary profit
3. The exploitation of wage labour, the source of profit being the unpaid labour of the producers
4. The regulation of production by the market via a competitive struggle for profits
5. The accummulation of capital out of profits, leading to the expansion and development of the forces of production
6. A single world economy


They go on to convincingly demonstrate that these features though in some cases taking a somewhat different form compared with Western capitalist economies were all to be found in state capitalist economies such as the Soviet Union

[Blake's Baby]

...
Saying the U.S. version of capitalism is capitalism is like saying China's version of communism is communism...


Surely, you haven't read the definition of communism...

Care to explain, tuwix? Seems obvious to me that thorax has a better of understanding of communism than you have of whatever thorax was saying.

@thorax: sadly, as Robbo points out, your definition of capitalism is sadly lacking. The essential points of capitalism are commodity production (production for a market) and wage labour. These need to be generalised throughout the economy and not isolated local phenomena (as they were in Ancient Greece, feudal Europe, Ancient Persia and Egypt, etc). Once that happens you have capitalism, no matter who is in charge of it.

[tuwix]

Care to explain, tuwix?

If you needed so much....


He's written:



Saying the U.S. version of capitalism is capitalism is like saying China's version of communism is communism.

What version of communism? Primitive, industrial? Unless imagined one or taken from some bourgeois press writing that China is communist country.

Besides USA are capitalist country.

[Blake's Baby]

If you needed so much....


He's written:



What version of communism? Primitive, industrial? Unless imagined one or taken from some bourgeois press writing that China is communist country...

S/he implies China isn't communist; therefore understands communism (enough to know 'China's not it').



...
Besides USA are capitalist country.

S/he implies USA isn't capitalist; therefore doesn't understand capitalism (not enough to know 'USA is it').

So why critique the understanding of communism, rather than the understanding of capitalism?

[tuwix]

S/he implies China isn't communist; therefore understands communism (enough to know 'China's not it').


Really? "China's version of communism" implies that? The phrase: "Saying the U.S. version of capitalism is capitalism is like saying China's version of communism is communism." IMHO implies that she/he doesn't know what communism and capitalism is.




S/he implies USA isn't capitalist; therefore doesn't understand capitalism (not enough to know 'USA is it').

So why critique the understanding of communism, rather than the understanding of capitalism?

I am used to their lack of understanding towards capitalism from so-called an-caps. If one believes that free market imposible according to its own definitions is possible, he/she won't believe real meaning of capitalism. But if she/he wants to say something about communism, it's better to acknowledge a definition of it and maybe it will convince her/him to find the reality about capitalism too.

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's pretty clear that 'China's version of communism isn't communism' means that they know that what China has isn't communism. I don't know how one can interpret that otherwise.