Crony capitalism/corporatism

[Mr. Piccolo]

One of the most common arguments I hear from right-libertarians is that modern capitalism is not really free-market capitalism because it is distorted and deformed by state intervention, including state intervention on behalf of big corporations and other special interests.

The terms that are often used to describe this distorted form of capitalism are "crony capitalism" and "corporatism." This gives this theory a kind of populist angle, as it does criticize some powerful capitalists along with the usual right-wing bugbear: the State (Big Business in bed with Big Government).

But is crony capitalism/corporatism essentially any different from other historical forms of capitalism?

[RedKobra]

When I was younger I used to be stumped by this one too, then I read some Lenin. Corporatism and Crony Capitalism both describe the symbiotic relationship of State and Capital. The question is are they meaningful terms? Do they describe a degenerate Capitalism, as Libertarians claim or are both terms in fact merely synonyms for actual existing capitalism? I won't go over the roles of Capital and State as I'm sure you know them well enough.

I would recommend reading Lenin's Imperialism - The Higher/Highest stage of Capitalism. It covers this very issue.

Essentially when Capital outgrows its local market it looks abroad (Colonialism). When it does this it comes into conflict with other economies that covet the same natural resources or market. Capital metamorphoses into the hyper-nationalistic cheer leader for state intervention, which can be diplomatic but is usually military.

Capital can't grow without pillaging the world. It can't pillage the world without a paid thug to do its dirt work/underwriter, i.e - the state.

Its no coincidence that many of these utopian Libertarians are bizarre internet entrepreneurs, I can't think of many who actually have a business that creates genuine value. They have little to no idea of the actual commodities that people need and live in a dream world where in a world without a state everyone is going to need their bullshit leisure/entertainment e-product/service (which is bizarre considering no one will be able to afford because we'll all be surviving on broth and moldy bread and working 23 hours a day.
The billionaires who do make stuff that we need are not the ones calling for the smashing of the state. They're the neo-liberals. They definitely see a role for government in the appropriation of assets and wealth, they just happen to combine that with wanting next to no provision for the workers.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

No it's not essentially different. Corporatism is just a result and culmination of the development of capitalism. Competition brought us these state sponsored monopolies who are too big to fail. Trying to change corporatism/monopolism into a free market is essentially an attempt to turn back the clock.

[Sewer Socialist]

Capitalism is a term, as far as I know, popularized by socialists' (including Karl Marx) analysis of the economic system that existed when they wrote in the 19th century, and still exists today. There has never been a capitalism independent of the state. Using capitalism to refer to a utopian system which has never existed is a very recent usage, and confusing when most people mean the other usage. When have capitalists ever not enforced bourgeois rights with their cronies?

Corporatism is another term that, historically, was used to mean something else - fascism.

Those words, along with "libertarianism", "anarchism", "the state", "government", and probably some other words I'm forgetting or unaware of, modern day neoliberals are attempting to rewrite quite a few crucial words, to the confusion of everyone.

Further, when we look at the word, it makes little sense. Capital certainly rules the world, so in what sense can we say that capital-ism does not exist?

[Sewer Socialist]

Oh, I forgot that they also use "socialism", "the left", "communism", etc. in distorted ways.

I can only imagine the bizarro-world right-wing equivalent of RevLeft, full of fifteen page arguments over whether the USA are capitalist, crony-capitalist, or socialist.

[tuwix]

One of the most common arguments I hear from right-libertarians is that modern capitalism is not really free-market capitalism because it is distorted and deformed by state intervention, including state intervention on behalf of big corporations and other special interests.

The terms that are often used to describe this distorted form of capitalism are "crony capitalism" and "corporatism." This gives this theory a kind of populist angle, as it does criticize some powerful capitalists along with the usual right-wing bugbear: the State (Big Business in bed with Big Government).

But is crony capitalism/corporatism essentially any different from other historical forms of capitalism?

No. There is no other capitalism and there cannot be. Capitalism to be maintained requires a state interventions. When state abandons its basic function that is a protection of private property, private property disappears. It was exactly seen on riots in London a few years ago when police withdraw some part of London.

And free market is an economic model impossible to exist according to its own definitions. Free market requires an absolute lack of state or other intervention in market beside supply and demand. It's just impossible. If we even assume that private property can exist without a state protection (that is certainly untrue), then an authority will want to gain a profit from everything what happens on market. And this means an intervention in market.

[Creative Destruction]

Oh, I forgot that they also use "socialism", "the left", "communism", etc. in distorted ways.

I can only imagine the bizarro-world right-wing equivalent of RevLeft, full of fifteen page arguments over whether the USA are capitalist, crony-capitalist, or socialist.

i give thee: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

[NGNM85]

Free markets are like unicorns. Not only has no such thing existed, it's an impossibility. For one thing, the largest, most advanced economies (the US, UK, Japan, etc.) were built by market interference. Moreover, the bourgeoisie inevitably use their influence to angle for subsidies, tax breaks, (which amount to the same thing) etc. The capitalists loathe competition because it's bad for profits. The natural tendency of advanced capitalist economies appears to be towards oligopolies, where a handful of big corporations are able to dominate a given market, and crowd out any newcomers. Just look at media, smartphones, ISP's, etc. This idea of perfectly free and competitive markets is just an adolescent fantasy.

[Sewer Socialist]

i give thee: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3245681/posts

It's sort of entertaining. Cronyism is a type of socialism according to some there, and incompatible with capitalism. Disappointing, however, is the absence of a Rafiq-type to dispense poetic insults.

At any rate, the OP might enjoy reading that for what right-wingers say, and probably some laughs.

[RedKobra]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3245681/posts

It's sort of entertaining. Cronyism is a type of socialism according to some there, and incompatible with capitalism. Disappointingly, however, is the absence of a Rafiq-type to dispense poetic insults.

At any rate, the OP might enjoy reading that for what right-wingers say, and probably some laughs.

I shouldn't be appalled by the staggering levels of ignorance on show on that message board...but I am. Even for conservatives those people are pond life.

[Dean]

Market liberalization and free markets are associated with poorer outcomes for all classes in a society. In fact the US has the most highly regulated markets in the world. Look at India and Russia 1990s as examples of where deliberate liberalization has had devastating effects. Many African nations like Somalia are examples of the extreme free market with basically no state regulation or even monopoly on force. In those places, you need to purchase a cheap automatic rifle for basic protection, cheap courtesy of countless humanitarian interventions which pumped weapons into the continent even while the West took 1 Trillion dollars in cash from them during the 90s.