Contradictions of Conservative Capitalism

[bezdomni]

I'm not going to start another debate over the hegelian contradictions of capitalism...I don't to give RedStar carpal tunnel syndrome. My aim is to prove that social conservativism/authoritarianism is contradictory to free market capitalism.

Conservatives are constantly trying to legislate morality. In a true free market, there would be no legislation against what a company can and cannot do. Therefore, any person should be able to buy any type of pornography; all environmental regulations would be ended; there would be no age limits on the purchase of tobacco, alcohol, hookers (prostitution would be legal too) and all other restricted things. Think of something you aren't allowed to buy because the conservatives say it is bad for your "soul" (or some shit like that).

Also, unions would have to flourish within a free market economy. The free market, as defined by Smith, has NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER. Therefore, the government CANNOT HELP BUSINESS by busting unions or passing anti-union legislature. Unions are not anti-free market, they are the voice of the people.

Thus, the main two problems with conservative capitalism are that the legislation of morality and pro-business/anti-union government interefrere with the free-market and therefore destroy it.

However, the problems go deeper than this. The government historically has, and always will side with business because of MATERIAL INTERESTS. Business owns and commands the wealth, while the workers produce. The government will innately side with business within the framework of capitalism, thereby destroying the "free" market.

People say that communism is too idealistic, try talking about capitalism. Although it is a necessary step in economic and social progression, it is a fundamentally flawed step that is inherently self-defeating.

[Zak]

Adam Smith never advocated for absolute free market capatilism, he simply said it was the best way to generate wealth. Capitilism is a theory, a theory that so far has been proven correct, that the best way to generate wealth is with a free market. It is not a theory of government or morality or a theory designed for the benefit of all. It was a theory to replace mercantilism, the idea that there is a limited amount of resources in the world and the way to gain wealth is to take it from another country.

No government or politician really wants a free market, like you said. They just believe it's the best way to make money, but they draw the line at a certain point and say "ok that's too much we need to have a law against this."

I agree that Christianity has no place in politics and should be left out. I dislike any legislation passed with a religious agenda. If there are any true followers of Jesus, and I have never met one, they would not be rich, they would have nothing. For as the bible says "if a man steals your jacket, give him also your shirt" Christianity in its theology talks about absolute generosity. I think this is the greatest contradiction in their behaviour.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:31 AM



I'm not going to start another debate over the hegelian contradictions of capitalism...I don't to give RedStar carpal tunnel syndrome. My aim is to prove that social conservativism/authoritarianism is contradictory to free market capitalism.


You're actually correct, basically.



Conservatives are constantly trying to legislate morality. In a true free market, there would be no legislation against what a company can and cannot do. Therefore, any person should be able to buy any type of pornography; all environmental regulations would be ended; there would be no age limits on the purchase of tobacco, alcohol, hookers (prostitution would be legal too) and all other restricted things. Think of something you aren't allowed to buy because the conservatives say it is bad for your "soul" (or some shit like that).

OK, some problems here.

Pornography: If consent isn't given, it isn't a market transaction and should be illegal.

Pollution: Damages others property, should be restricted.

Age limits: Goes back to consent and parental authority.

Different libertarians have different opinions, but you get the idea.




Also, unions would have to flourish within a free market economy. The free market, as defined by Smith, has NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER. Therefore, the government CANNOT HELP BUSINESS by busting unions or passing anti-union legislature. Unions are not anti-free market, they are the voice of the people.

Quite true.

A free-market supportor should not be anti-union.




Thus, the main two problems with conservative capitalism are that the legislation of morality and pro-business/anti-union government interefrere with the free-market and therefore destroy it.

Very true.




However, the problems go deeper than this. The government historically has, and always will side with business because of MATERIAL INTERESTS. Business owns and commands the wealth, while the workers produce. The government will innately side with business within the framework of capitalism, thereby destroying the "free" market.


Hmm.

Perhaps.

Government certainly has an incentive to work with business, and business has an incentive to work with government, and so it's the job of the people to stop this from happening.

I believe it was Mises who said: "People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people".


People say that communism is too idealistic, try talking about capitalism. Although it is a necessary step in economic and social progression, it is a fundamentally flawed step that is inherently self-defeating.

Fundamentally flawed in the same way that all human understakings are flawed.

Assuming that people can, as a whole, be 'better' than a certain arbitrary level is the mistake that you are making.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:39 PM

OK, some problems here.

Pornography: If consent isn't given, it isn't a market transaction and should be illegal.

Pollution: Damages others property, should be restricted.

Age limits: Goes back to consent and parental authority.

Publius is the best capitalist. He actually understands it.

Anyway, I want to bring up a few things about my post.

I agree that it isn't a market transaction when consent isn't given...however, there are plenty who want to ban pornography entirely (on the right wing).

Where do we draw the line at restricting pollution? How much damage of another's property is acceptable?

Also, age limits are arbitrary limitations on a person's intrinsic rights to autonomy and and the market's right to exist without government intervention. Or so some would argue. Again, where do we draw the line?


Adam Smith never advocated for absolute free market capatilism, he simply said it was the best way to generate wealth.
Adam Smith never "advocated" anything. He never says "Capitalism is awesome, I love it so much.", he just explains how and why capitalism works. Much like Marx did in Capital.

[Publius]

Publius is the best capitalist. He actually understands it.


You are correct, sir.

My perspicacity is formidable.


I agree that it isn't a market transaction when consent isn't given...however, there are plenty who want to ban pornography entirely (on the right wing).

Very true.

I think this an infringement on the market.




Where do we draw the line at restricting pollution? How much damage of another's property is acceptable?

Good question.

I like emissions taxes and, ideally, some form of recompensation.

It's important to lower emissions, mainly.




Also, age limits are arbitrary limitations on a person's intrinsic rights to autonomy and and the market's right to exist without government intervention. Or so some would argue. Again, where do we draw the line?

They are arbitrary.

Where should we draw the line? 18 sounds good.

It's fairly arbitrary, but it works well-enough.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:56 AM
They are arbitrary.

Where should we draw the line? 18 sounds good.

It's fairly arbitrary, but it works well-enough.
What about driving, or taking part in a millitary organisation (I assume they would exist privately?) What about drugs?

I don't think a strict age limit has ever been benificial. Perhaps objectional cases being used to set a prescedent?

Also CPA, I thought that Smith did support a government like organ existing to protect private property rights (that which all else rests on). I realise Publius implied this in his posts, and that there are more liberal versions existing, but I always attributed this to Smith.

[Publius]

What about driving, or taking part in a millitary organisation (I assume they would exist privately?) What about drugs?

This is all very complicated, as different 'libertarians' have different opinions.

Some say there should be no government driving age, some say there should (Like me) and some say private companies could decide.

I think the first and the last are laughable though. Ideologically consistent, yes, but utterly stupid as well.

Military, some say it should be private, some say it should be abolished, I say it should be government run, with an age limit. 18 seems fine.




I don't think a strict age limit has ever been benificial. Perhaps objectional cases being used to set a prescedent?

I was actually thinking a few days ago about arbitrary ages and rights. I thought that perhaps a better way would be a test you take, and can pass at any age, to do the activity, but there are a lot of problems there.

A really smart 12 year old might pass the maturity test for drinking, and then easily kill himself by downing some vodka or something, because his body can't handle the alcohol.

For drinking, driving, fighting, etc. a limit needs to exist for both physical and mental capacity.

At least, that would be ideal.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:30 PM

Also CPA, I thought that Smith did support a government like organ existing to protect private property rights (that which all else rests on). I realise Publius implied this in his posts, and that there are more liberal versions existing, but I always attributed this to Smith.
Smith doesn't really put a value judgement on anything. He explains how true capitalism works, the reader is just left to assume that it is the "best" way.

I'm sure he did support this form of capitalism, but his writings were not explicitly expressive of this.

This is based on what I've read of him. I don't recall him ever saying "this is how things should be, anything less is immoral or wrong"...or anything to that extent.

[Zeke]

I don't think you've got your definition of the free market down quite right here.


Also, unions would have to flourish within a free market economy. The free market, as defined by Smith, has NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER. Therefore, the government CANNOT HELP BUSINESS by busting unions or passing anti-union legislature. Unions are not anti-free market, they are the voice of the people.

The free market, as defined by Adam Smith, is a market in where the government does not impose restrictions on free economic activity. A completely free market would imply no unions, welfare, state-sponsored unemployment insurance, minimum wage, trade barriers, taxes, duties, tariffs, etc. I have no idea where you got this 'government siding with business is contradictory to free trade' idea - it's just the opposite. The only reason that unions exist is because the government interferes in the market to allow their formation and continuance (supposedly because they offer positive externalities that outweigh their costs). And even if your definition were true, the government passing pro-, but not anti-union legislature allows for a free market? That doesn't even make sense. Governments should remain passive in business-union conflicts, and they almost always are nowadays. The reason that unions are falling is because people don't need them nearly so much as they used to and because they realize that either they agree to reasonably acceptable conditions set by businesses or the business may go bankrupt, and everyone ends up in the unemployment office. Unions are not necessarily anti-free market, but they certainly are impediments to a free market.

Your 'material interests' argument really isn't too sound either - politicians regularly seek to buy votes. In any university social sciences class about government, you'll learn that it's much easier to buy votes by pandering to special interests (e.g. subsidies, social programs, public programs, raising tariffs) than to pass policies that help everyone incrementally (lowering taxes, promoting free trade), whether or not the overall good from either outdoes the harm.

Please make sure you understand what you're talking about before you go off ranting and making inferences about it.

[cyu]

The only reason that unions exist is because the government interferes in the market to allow their formation and continuance

So what if all the employees in the company decide to ignore the CEO and shareholders, keep producing goods, and pay themselves out of the sales (giving nothing to the CEO and shareholders)? Is the government interfering in this case? Governments can be pro or anti union, depending on who's in charge, but there is nothing that implies unions exist only because governments exist.

[Zeke]

Employees can't do that. CEOs have control over all of the executive decisions made by the company. And even if they decided not to pay shareholders or CEOs, a) shareholders would not keep investing in and providing capital to a company that does not offer them any returns and b) the CEOs would quit if their salaries were somehow withheld, leaving the company unable to make executive decisions such as investing in new product lines and responding to competition, which would certainly lead the company to bankruptcy.

Also, yes, governments are needed to allow for the existence of unions. Think back to the 19th century - unions were outlawed and had no influence because the government would not sponsor them. If the government rules that strikes are illegal in a certain industry, then the unions in that industry will lose most (if not all) of their bargaining power.

[cyu]

shareholders would not keep investing in and providing capital to a company that does not offer them any returns

You speak of capital as if it's vital to production. The fact is that if all the paper money and stocks and gold in the world disappeared, nothing real has been lost. Raw materials still exist. Equipment still exists. Employees still exist. Without capital, employees could continue to produce using the raw materials they have and spend their earnings on new materials if they so wish to do so.


CEOs would quit if their salaries were somehow withheld, leaving the company unable to make executive decisions such as investing in new product lines and responding to competition

That is laughable. It's like saying without a dictator, the country wouldn't know what to do next. Employees are like the citizens of a country. They can make the decisions themselves and don't need someone telling them what's right.


Also, yes, governments are needed to allow for the existence of unions. Think back to the 19th century - unions were outlawed and had no influence because the government would not sponsor them. If the government rules that strikes are illegal in a certain industry, then the unions in that industry will lose most (if not all) of their bargaining power.

I'm not sure what logic you're following, but it escapes me. The examples you give are clearly of anti-union governments. If there is no government to prevent employees from assuming control over their companies, then it will happen, without government sponsorship.

[Zeke]

You speak of capital as if it's vital to production. The fact is that if all the paper money and stocks and gold in the world disappeared, nothing real has been lost. Raw materials still exist. Equipment still exists. Employees still exist. Without capital, employees could continue to produce using the raw materials they have and spend their earnings on new materials if they so wish to do so.


Capital isn't always vital, but it's a huge bonus. For example, capital investments are needed to start up a business so that you have land, equipment, etc. to work with. As for a mature business, additional capital loans and investments allow for the quicker purchase of additional productive capital such as equipment, new facilities, factories, research & development, etc. It gives you more money to invest in order to increase profits. And if all of the money in the world disappeared...aside from the ensuing anarchy this would create, it would be very difficult for a company to buy raw materials and equipment. Money is the basis of how scarce resources are rationed in a capitalist system. And of course, being able to use what they have assumes that they currently are, and would remain profitable. The same wouldn't go for new businesses starting up and businesses suffering even temporary losses.


That is laughable. It's like saying without a dictator, the country wouldn't know what to do next. Employees are like the citizens of a country. They can make the decisions themselves and don't need someone telling them what's right.


First of all, CEOs are not comparable to dictators. A better comparison would be with politicians in a representative democracy. Just as the people elect members of parliament as well as either a president or prime minister (or both in places like France), the shareholders in a company appoint CEOs and a president. Why have this instead of having executive decisions done by the other employees of a company? For two reasons: a) there are many difficulties involved in the decision making process when there are too many people involved (ever notice that it gets progressively harder to get unanimous consent and make decisions as the group size gets larger when working on a group project?) 10-20 CEOs should be able to make decisions more quickly than thousands of employees. And b) CEOs have likely gone to good business schools and have at least 20 years of experience in management before being promoted to a CEO position. Can line workers say the same? Furthermore, their knowledge would likely be more specialized and they could devote much more of their time individually to gathering information so as to make better strategic decisions. This is just as in a representative democracy, where we have politicians with specialized knowledge and appropriate qualifications.


I'm not sure what logic you're following, but it escapes me. The examples you give are clearly of anti-union governments. If there is no government to prevent employees from assuming control over their companies, then it will happen, without government sponsorship.

Fine, maybe I was a bit harsh on the examples I used. A better example would be if a government were to remain completely passive and have no legislation on either side, then businesses could always just fire people who threaten to strike and hire new people. And I don't know where you got the idea that employees could assume control of a company. The shareholders own the company - employees can't just throw out the CEOs and claim control of a company. It doesn't belong to them unless they collectively purchase a controlling (majority) interest in the company, otherwise it's illegal. Shareholders appoint CEOs to determine where and how many employees are needed to do what.

[cyu]

For example, capital investments are needed to start up a business so that you have land, equipment, etc. to work with.

Sure, I have no problem with having land, equipment, etc to start up a business, but the question is, when a society allocates such raw materials to a business, who controls the results of the production? The people doing the work? Some arbitrary individual? Democratically? Some unelected bureaucracy?

There is no need for the capitalist if the investments needed for new companies can be determined democratically. It would be much more likely to be beneficial to a greater number of people if more people are involved in the decision.


the shareholders in a company appoint CEOs and a president

Why should they have this right? The people doing the real work should be the ones who determine who gets rewarded how much. Having a few people not doing any real work determine who can give you commands would be like having the British House of Lords determine who should be the next American President. The result is you get a control structure that benefits the House of Lords more than the American people.


CEOs have likely gone to good business schools and have at least 20 years of experience in management before being promoted to a CEO position

If their business decisions are truly going to benefit the employees, then they should be able to convince them. The reason democracy in politics works is because politicians have to convince their voters that their decisions will actually benefit them. If you just rely on credentials to determine which politicians rule a country, you'll just end up with politicians making decisions that benefit themselves and not the general population.


employees can't just throw out the CEOs and claim control of a company. It doesn't belong to them unless they collectively purchase a controlling (majority) interest in the company, otherwise it's illegal.

Haha, sure it's illegal for now, but now you see just how "anti-union" capitalist governments are. If the government were not going to get involved, then assuming control over a company would not be illegal, it would just be ignored.

[bezdomni]

Free Market is where the government stays out of business.

Unions are not the government.

Therefore, unions are not inherently against the free market system, as unions develop naturally out of the market. If the government left it all alone, the unions would eventually gain power through their own means and establish socialism. Government siding with business just slows down the process and harms the people....as Engels noted in his Letters on Historical Materialism.

Capitalism as Smith explains it leaves it wide open for a Marxist interpretation.