The imposibility of "Pure Capitalism" in today's world.

[Proletarius]

Hello there, I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place here as I'm new to all this but I don't know where else to put it.

So recently I have been debating with Libertarians and oddly, self professed High Tories.

I'm learning and I am not fully educated overall on certain things, so bear with me here. I would just like freedback on if I'm wrong or any other points that I should emphasise when I encounter these people in the future.

The arguments most of these people have put forward have been that we don't really live in a capitalist society due to state interference and regulation in the affairs of businesses, "heavy" taxes and an enlargement of the state overall in regards to welfare, healthcare and the like.

Even more absurdly, they have blamed a lot of the current debt issues and
financial issues on what they call "corporatism" the fusion of the state and corporations in some affairs. Many of them seem to be proposing a break up of corporate entities and smaller businesses promoted.

I've mostly been attacking them from these angles:

1) The state is essentially there to protect private property and ensure the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie. So a large state interference in business affairs is not only inevitable but in fact, necessary for the current economic system to survive.

2) Corporate entities, limited companies, regardless of their organisational structure are essentially the same thing on different scales. The bourgeoisie owning the means of production.

3) They only seem to dislike state interference when it involves the state bailing some entity out when in fact, a lot of regulation is required and is still ongoing. They turn a blind eye to state interference when it benefits the capitalist class with very little impact upon the state's finances. They are deliberately ignoring some aspects of state interference and picking and choosing when and where they want the state involved. See 1st point.

4) The "pureness" of the capitalism does not particularly matter. We still live in a capitalist society. They are complaining we do not have a pure capitalism while many states are actually pursuing exactly what they wish for.

5) With the allure of cash and lobbying and the fact that the political elite are often also invested in things like the banking crisis, a state would never focus purely on a dog-eat-dog economy and let businesses fail at a cost to the population. As we saw in 2008.

6) A large shrinking of the state and a reduction of it's expenditure on welfare, healthcare and the like would likely lead to a radicalised population due to a significant lowering of living standards that would occur due to capitalism's failings to give a man all that he needs in today's world*

* - I suppose this one is more applicable to the Western world today rather than in general.

7) They claim that corporatism is a recent innovation that did not happen in the past, when in fact, the state and businesses have always worked together and often in days before, the parliaments of Europe were largely filled with wealthy land owners who not only dominated the economy but the entirety of it's laws too.

I can't think of anything else for now. I know it's a rather weighty post but I would appreciate it if someone could read, critique any points I have made and perhaps point me in the right direction. A lot of the points are largely based on what we see in the West today, because most of those arguing with me are Western.

To me, they are trying to get something that is already happening with neoliberal ideas infecting the governments of the world.

Thank you. :)

[Proletarius]

I suppose, what I am trying to get at with these people is that capitalism is capitalism, the so called "purity" they tend to focus on means nothing. They claim most Western societies are not purely capitalist but this is not the case.

They also fail to factor in that if the state was reduced, corporations would expand and move into even more territories and dominate even more, thus having an even more corporate society, something they claim to be against.

I'm sure many of you have dealt with these people often. Just typical neoliberal, "libertarian" ideology of Randists/Tea Party types.

[ComradeAllende]

So recently I have been debating with Libertarians and oddly, self professed High Tories.

Unless you are attempting to gain a better understanding of libertarian and/or Tory philosophy, debating them is rather useless. They won't change their minds, and you won't change yours. It's just human stubbornness. I've debated a few libertarian friends before, and it always ends badly (especially if you embrace their philosophical assumptions).


The arguments most of these people have put forward have been that we don't really live in a capitalist society due to state interference and regulation in the affairs of businesses, "heavy" taxes and an enlargement of the state overall in regards to welfare, healthcare and the like.

Libertarians have a different interpretation of capitalism (and of more abstract concepts like "liberty") and therefore their opinions are based on far different foundations. As far as I can observe, libertarians and their associates believe that capitalism is the fundamental opposite of the state, as the former has (at least in its idealized conditions) voluntary exchange while the latter involves coercion (which is the chief evil in libertarian philosophy). In addition, property rights are viewed as sacred (probably the most sacred of all negative liberties), and no one (not even the state) is permitted to violate these rights. If one assumes this position, then it logically states that most functions of modern government (welfare, regulation, industrial policies, etc) are illegitimate unless they serve to protect individual property rights, and even then they can be subject to harsh (and potentially unforgiving) scrutiny by ancaps.


Even more absurdly, they have blamed a lot of the current debt issues and financial issues on what they call "corporatism" the fusion of the state and corporations in some affairs. Many of them seem to be proposing a break up of corporate entities and smaller businesses promoted.

Essentially, libertarians argue that modern economic problems (monopolies, externalities, and financial crises) are caused by the state "favoring" certain corporations via selective regulations, as opposed to embracing a minimal role of ensuring free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Ironically, "breaking up" corporate monopolies is a traditional hallmark of center-left ("statist") policy, so libertarians justify this by arguing that monopolies cannot develop in a "free market" and therefore are products of the state.

[Proletarius]

Unless you are attempting to gain a better understanding of libertarian and/or Tory philosophy, debating them is rather useless. They won't change their minds, and you won't change yours. It's just human stubbornness. I've debated a few libertarian friends before, and it always ends badly (especially if you embrace their philosophical assumptions).



Libertarians have a different interpretation of capitalism (and of more abstract concepts like "liberty") and therefore their opinions are based on far different foundations. As far as I can observe, libertarians and their associates believe that capitalism is the fundamental opposite of the state, as the former has (at least in its idealized conditions) voluntary exchange while the latter involves coercion (which is the chief evil in libertarian philosophy). In addition, property rights are viewed as sacred (probably the most sacred of all negative liberties), and no one (not even the state) is permitted to violate these rights. If one assumes this position, then it logically states that most functions of modern government (welfare, regulation, industrial policies, etc) are illegitimate unless they serve to protect individual property rights, and even then they can be subject to harsh (and potentially unforgiving) scrutiny by ancaps.



Essentially, libertarians argue that modern economic problems (monopolies, externalities, and financial crises) are caused by the state "favoring" certain corporations via selective regulations, as opposed to embracing a minimal role of ensuring free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Ironically, "breaking up" corporate monopolies is a traditional hallmark of center-left ("statist") policy, so libertarians justify this by arguing that monopolies cannot develop in a "free market" and therefore are products of the state.

Appreciate your post, my friend.

Also helped me gain knowledge more from their perspective too.

I agree, I shouldn't really keep arguing with them. I find the more I argue, the more of their character comes apparent. Not all of them are racist awful reactionaries but most seem to be.

This is exactly what I was trying to get across to them in regards to the impossibility of it all. They are asking for less state collusion and interference while requesting things that can only be carried out by the state. Thus also making then "statists" of another flavour, the very thing they claim to detest.

It seems to me that this is really an ideology that wants an exacerbation of the negative aspects of the world. The bourgoisie reigning supreme with the state merely there to protect them and their property "rights".

I can't help but attack it since at some point, I was also taken in by this to some degree, as a frustrated working class man. Many, as was I, are being sold this utopian vision of the state being an obstacle to some glorious capitalistic meritocracy where we all must just work hard to get rich.

I must be doing something right as I'm being called a Marxist bastard who would be "culled" in their world (How they intend to do this with a small state that doesn't interefer, merely underlies their general attitude)

[ComradeAllende]

I agree, I shouldn't really keep arguing with them. I find the more I argue, the more of their character comes apparent. Not all of them are racist awful reactionaries but most seem to be.

I wouldn't say that most are "racists," at least consciously. They are simply desperate to avoid racial problems, since those usually require action by the state (affirmative action, busing, etc). What I would say is that they're highly indifferent to capitalism's potential for political and economic exploitation, particularly when it comes to technologically-inferior societies like the indigenous and the various warring tribes and kingdoms of Africa.


This is exactly what I was trying to get across to them in regards to the impossibility of it all. They are asking for less state collusion and interference while requesting things that can only be carried out by the state. Thus also making then "statists" of another flavour, the very thing they claim to detest.

The most radical libertarians are "ancaps"; anarchists who support capitalism. They argue that all functions of the modern state can be performed by private firms, even security and contract enforcement. While I will admit that it is (at least theoretically) possible, the opportunities for corruption and self-seeking will magnify enormously, and the lack of democratic transparency will destroy the very concept of "justice."


I can't help but attack it since at some point, I was also taken in by this to some degree, as a frustrated working class man. Many, as was I, are being sold this utopian vision of the state being an obstacle to some glorious capitalistic meritocracy where we all must just work hard to get rich.

Indeed. Because we grow up with contradicting systems of morality (generosity on the one hand and naked self-interest on the other), we desperately seek philosophies that rationalize our supposedly "innate" sense of greed. Libertarianism, which is nothing more than a moral defense of the bourgeoisie from social justice, is one such philosophy; another is traditional elitism (or racism, or classism, nationalism, etc).

[Proletarius]

I wouldn't say that most are "racists," at least consciously. They are simply desperate to avoid racial problems, since those usually require action by the state (affirmative action, busing, etc). What I would say is that they're highly indifferent to capitalism's potential for political and economic exploitation, particularly when it comes to technologically-inferior societies like the indigenous and the various warring tribes and kingdoms of Africa.



The most radical libertarians are "ancaps"; anarchists who support capitalism. They argue that all functions of the modern state can be performed by private firms, even security and contract enforcement. While I will admit that it is (at least theoretically) possible, the opportunities for corruption and self-seeking will magnify enormously, and the lack of democratic transparency will destroy the very concept of "justice."



Indeed. Because we grow up with contradicting systems of morality (generosity on the one hand and naked self-interest on the other), we desperately seek philosophies that rationalize our supposedly "innate" sense of greed. Libertarianism, which is nothing more than a moral defense of the bourgeoisie from social justice, is one such philosophy; another is traditional elitism (or racism, or classism, nationalism, etc).


Of course, not all of them are racists. I mainly mentioned that to emphasis how pointless it was to debate issues with the specific individuals I was talking to. They also were "race realist" and viewed most success of non-whites and women today being down to the state and affirmative action. I think this is the position of the racist fuck and it's pointless trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Most of them were not ancaps. Mostly "minarchists" and the like. The same criticism applies though of course. This ideology leaves society open to a great deal of abuse, as you explained. Many of them were promoting societies such as Hong Kong or the UAE to me, when I pointed out the legions of miserable imported workers living in atrocious conditions, I was told it was simply their choice. As we know, this is no choice at all.

Sadly, I'm seeing a growth of disenfranchised men following this. A new generation of right-wingers who can no longer relate to the traditional stifling moralism of traditional rightist social views are ending up going to this and seeking a level of bigotry based on protecting religious freedom or freedom overall. A prime example of this, in the UK here, was when UKIP opposed gay marriage from a "libertarian" stance of wanting to protect religious sensibilities and their freedom to stick to the traditional view of marriage.

Overall, I think I've learnt my lesson and should refrain from engaging with these too much. As you say, they have a fundmentally different and flawed worldview with a total different set of values and quite simply, a total disinterest in suffering inflicted by capitalism.

[tuwix]

Many of them were promoting societies such as Hong Kong or the UAE to me

In Hong Kong 100% of land belongs to state. Very libertarian indeed. In United Arab Emirates there is feudalism. The owner of Emirate can kill you and take your property immediately. Very libertarian too.

But it shows a state of knowledge of them...

[John Nada]

Something right-"libertarians" are big on is the gold standard. They think the US Federal Reserve is distorting the market by printing money, enabling spending beyond the markets normal means. They define the end of "true capitalism" as either when the Federal Reserve was founded, or sometimes the American Civil War(wonder why:confused:). So since in their view, the banks can just get money printed for them by the US Federal Reserve(not how it works but bear with me), this means the banks are rewarding themselves as well as their "cronies". The "crony capitalists" then print money to pay welfare to buy votes too. Due to an increased supply of fiat money, this will eventually cause hyperinflation(usually they bring up the Wiemar Republic). But in their view, if there was a gold standard, the money supply would have a sound backing with a shiny piece of metal. The markets would have a "natural" "moral hazard", preventing and punishing unprofitable behavior, independent of the government.

This is bullshit of course. Replacing fiat money with gold or bitcoins would result in deflation. The bourgeoisie are still going to be assholes. Austerity just means people dying in the streets. Privatizing state functions merely slaps a new corporate logo on top. Voting with money most don't have is completely undemocratic. It's a thoroughly petty-bourgeois ideology with little support among the proletariat, yet enough of a turn on for the big bourgeoisie to use as justification to jam their anti-worker shit through.

And I disagree that "libertarians" aren't particularly racist. A lot of this shit has roots in the "state rights" theories on the American right. In the US, "state's rights" are a euphemism for letting the states do racist reactionary shit. "States' rights" is a stand in for the Confederate States. The whole banker conspiracy shit has anti-Semitic undertones. It's not surprising that reactionary euroskeptic parties in Europe would adopt some of their rhetoric.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wouldn't say that most are "racists," at least consciously.

They are, though. They also tend to be massive homophobes, misogynists, the works. H. H. Hoppe is a good example.


The most radical libertarians are "ancaps"; anarchists who support capitalism.

No one really considers "an"-caps anarchists except themselves. Anarchism is a part of the socialist movement. "An"-caps are a useless Internet sect that is only known by most people because Wikipedia is run by Randroids who are sympathetic to them.

As for the OP, who said that "pure" capitalism corresponds to some kind of "ideal" free market without state interference? For us, surely, pure capitalism is the law of value, whether there is state interference or not. I think you're conceding too much ground here (although, yeah, arguing with these types is generally pointless) and allowing them to continue claiming that whatever is wrong with modern society is due to capitalism not being "pure" enough.

[Proletarius]

Something right-"libertarians" are big on is the gold standard. They think the US Federal Reserve is distorting the market by printing money, enabling spending beyond the markets normal means. They define the end of "true capitalism" as either when the Federal Reserve was founded, or sometimes the American Civil War(wonder why:confused:). So since in their view, the banks can just get money printed for them by the US Federal Reserve(not how it works but bear with me), this means the banks are rewarding themselves as well as their "cronies". The "crony capitalists" then print money to pay welfare to buy votes too. Due to an increased supply of fiat money, this will eventually cause hyperinflation(usually they bring up the Wiemar Republic). But in their view, if there was a gold standard, the money supply would have a sound backing with a shiny piece of metal. The markets would have a "natural" "moral hazard", preventing and punishing unprofitable behavior, independent of the government.

This is bullshit of course. Replacing fiat money with gold or bitcoins would result in deflation. The bourgeoisie are still going to be assholes. Austerity just means people dying in the streets. Privatizing state functions merely slaps a new corporate logo on top. Voting with money most don't have is completely undemocratic. It's a thoroughly petty-bourgeois ideology with little support among the proletariat, yet enough of a turn on for the big bourgeoisie to use as justification to jam their anti-worker shit through.

And I disagree that "libertarians" aren't particularly racist. A lot of this shit has roots in the "state rights" theories on the American right. In the US, "state's rights" are a euphemism for letting the states do racist reactionary shit. "States' rights" is a stand in for the Confederate States. The whole banker conspiracy shit has anti-Semitic undertones. It's not surprising that reactionary euroskeptic parties in Europe would adopt some of their rhetoric.

I've spoken to a few that want to see a return to the gold standard.

I don't have much knowledge on this, I must confess. However, correct me if I'm wrong here, surely this system would require you to actually have the gold that the currency is fixed to? Leaving those countries with the largest amount of gold in the better position. Let's not forget how a currency fixed to a commodity could easily fall foul of speculation and the like. Also the amount of money in circulation would surely depend on gold production. It sounds ridiculous and restrictive.

I looked at it for a small period of time a few years ago. I heard that a return to the gold standard would reduce the recurrent financial crises we see but it sounds like it actually prolonged the severity and length of The Great Depression.

They seem almost religious in their faith in these systems.

[Proletarius]

They are, though. They also tend to be massive homophobes, misogynists, the works. H. H. Hoppe is a good example.



No one really considers "an"-caps anarchists except themselves. Anarchism is a part of the socialist movement. "An"-caps are a useless Internet sect that is only known by most people because Wikipedia is run by Randroids who are sympathetic to them.

As for the OP, who said that "pure" capitalism corresponds to some kind of "ideal" free market without state interference? For us, surely, pure capitalism is the law of value, whether there is state interference or not. I think you're conceding too much ground here (although, yeah, arguing with these types is generally pointless) and allowing them to continue claiming that whatever is wrong with modern society is due to capitalism not being "pure" enough.

Most I've debated with are bigoted as fuck. Most of them have extended their "State is bad and collusion is rife" to everything from the success of non-whites to feminism. I was dealing with some who wished to see the state reduced as they believed this would get women back in the kitchen as they would no longer have provisions to help them with childcare. Yes, this is what I'm dealing with here.

Well this is what I tried to get across to them. We live in a capitalist system. The "purity" of it doesn't particularly matter. It's capitalism. The state dishing out funds here and there and bailing out the banks does not matter. It is capitalism.

They are extremely idealistic in regards to their view of the "free market". If I had enough posts to post links, I'd show you what sort of madness is running loose on the web. People posting videos showing the skyscrapers of Hong Kong as emblems of success while the people starve.

They tend to rely on the simplistic belief in "The market will provide" without factoring in value pushed up through artificial scarcity. A prime example of this, one I often use, is something present in my own country (UK). Currently we have a housing crisis, thanks to decades of a program brought in that gives people the right to buy their social house from the local council (obviously this takes away provisions from the state) and overall a lack of interest in building new houses.

If you look on google, "UK house building graphs" you will see exactly what I mean. The population rises and the amount of houses being built is falling fast.

I was told by many that the market will help all of this and make sure new houses are built. The reality is far different, as we can see. They will never build enough houses, unless the state steps in, compelled by the people's anger. There is simply too much money in maintaining this scarcity. It's only intensifying. Small 3 bedroom houses in London or even an apartment in some areas of London can go for six figures now.

I'm sure you are all familiar with this but I had to mention it.

[Hatshepsut]

The most radical libertarians are "ancaps"; anarchists who support capitalism. They argue that all functions of the modern state can be performed by private firms, even security and contract enforcement...

Hmm...Can I buy an invasion of Iran?

I doubt a gold bug’s dream is ever returning with global finance so dependent on floating currency exchanges and credit futures as it is today. But the gold standard and its periodic deflations didn’t prevent catastrophic inflations either, especially in the Civil War when the Confederacy convulsed under a 700% spike in 1864 and the Union itself saw 80%. We had wildcat banks printing their own money throughout earlier U.S. history; the Federal Reserve stopped that after 1913, yet money was only partially backed by gold afterward, at levels as low as 10% of circulating value I think.

Capitalism is all about profit, or surplus value if you prefer. Presumably it gives little hoot about race as long as money’s not involved. When colonization began with state firms such as the Dutch and British East India Companies and the privateers working the Atlantic slave trade, however, ideologies of skin-color racism were added to the mix to justify it.

Post-Abolition, ways to profit from racism have been constantly present: It brings lower wages, a captive rental housing market, carnivorous lending opportunities, and lately private prisons. It even makes some attorneys rich as minorities hire legal help to battle the system. What’s worse is that toxic ideologies function like religions do, and once introduced in a culture tend to persist long after their original basis has ceased to be operative.

The state is indeed part & parcel of capitalism, a system that can’t be enforced without it.

9645

A provident market in action, 1932.

[ComradeAllende]

Hmm...Can I buy an invasion of Iran?

I heard that some libertarians are proposing the formation of "private military companies" to be used in the fight against ISIS. In other words, mercenaries are making a comeback. If you can afford to hire and equip a few thousand soldiers-of-fortune, you can start another "Crusade" against the Persian infidels lol.


I doubt a gold bug’s dream is ever returning with global finance so dependent on floating currency exchanges and credit futures as it is today. But the gold standard and its periodic deflations didn’t prevent catastrophic inflations either, especially in the Civil War when the Confederacy convulsed under a 700% spike in 1864 and the Union itself saw 80%. We had wildcat banks printing their own money throughout earlier U.S. history; the Federal Reserve stopped that after 1913, yet money was only partially backed by gold afterward, at levels as low as 10% of circulating value I think.

They never seem to realize that the U.S. economy was more volatile under a "pure" gold standard and no central banking then it was in the postwar years. Either way, a return to the gold standard would require either (A) a massive contraction in GDP due to the limited supply of gold in circulation or (B) a massive devaluation of the dollar (which would spark an inflation crisis). Absent wars and other "statist" crises, we'd still have cases of runaway inflation followed by runaway deflation.